Australian Bailin Laws in place. Is a crash on the way?

In the last week or two while australians were distracted by matters of no consequence in the form of being distracted by some politician and his girlfriend, bank bail in laws were slipped passed the population.

This attracted no attention from the mainstream media of course which is a given these days.

The law; The Financial Sector Legislation and Amendment (crisis solution powers and other measures) bill 2017, enables the bank regulator, APRA or whatever they are called, to give permission to the banks to help themselves to the contents of customer accounts. Of course, they cant touch accounts with less than $150k in them but that IMO, is just there to make most Australians go back to sleep.

I strongly doubt the $150k threshold will stay for long once the tumble starts and its effects begin to bite.

For those that are interested, Section 22 of the Commonwealth Constitution provides for a quorum of the Senate to be one third of the whole number of senators. The Senate (Quorum) Act 1991 reduced the quorum to 19 out of a total of 76 senators but there were only 17 senators in the Senate when the bill was passed?

If there were only 17 senators in the Senate to vote on this its likely this bill is invalid but of course we the people will have to fight tooth and nail to have this law withdrawn, if we ever can.

Know too, that since Bob Hawke and co, created this thing called "The Australian Parliament" and the "Australian Government" in the 1970's or 80's whenever, for which they had no constitutional authority to do, it means NO LAW passed by that "government" is legal because bills coming out of the parliament are not given royal assent as is required by Section 58.

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 58
Royal assent to Bills

When a proposed law passed by both Houses of the Parliament is presented to the Governor-General for the Queen's assent, he shall declare, according to his discretion, but subject to this Constitution, that he assents in the Queen's name, or that he withholds assent, or that he reserves the law for the Queen's pleasure.

Recommendations by Governor-General

The Governor-General may return to the house in which it originated any proposed law so presented to him, and may transmit therewith any amendments which he may recommend, and the Houses may deal with the recommendation.

Remember this when you get done for speeding because the same thing has occurred at state level.

So, count the number of times you have been Screwed by our govt that cares so much about our physical security that it has to take our rights, privacy and freedom away from us so they can protect us from those who would take our rights, privacy and freedoms away from us.

1 - the Govt makes a law for the bankers by the bankers to make bank theft from it own customers legal.
2 - the law was passed by less than a quorum so its likely illegal
3 - The bill was passed by a fake government, having no consttutional status.

Should you get annoyed about this that it makes you a little twitchy, you can, go to Change.Org and sign the partition, write to your politician or even listen to Know Your Rights Group.com on a Tuesday night at 8:00 Pm, EST on RAT FM. These people are desperately trying to teach people THEIR rights and how THEY can enforce them.

They are also desperate to get pro-constitution people into Parliament to stop this kind of crap from happening.

BTW, do you realise that by passing this law, they are telling you a crash IS going to happen?

It proves, at least in my book, that the goverment above government, the bankers, have instructed them to pass this law now hoping the Australian people will remain distracted by matters of no consequence; and forget all about this law right up unitl their bank account is looted.

Do you really think they would make this kind of a law AFTER a crash??

Cheers, thoughts?

Interesting indeed if true. I did have a quick read through it but I don't understand the law jargon, so I'll await further comments and see if anyone else understands it. I did read this though.

Application to deposits
The current legal framework for conversion and write-off does not apply to deposit accounts nor does the Bill
allow APRA to write-off deposits or convert them to equity.
First the conversion and write-off provisions contained in the Bill clearly only apply ‘in relation to an instrument
that contains terms for the purposes of the conversion and write-off provisions’.
63 Under APRA’s existing powers

Sounds to me like it says they can't touch deposits, or am I just not understanding it?

a reply to: Azureblue

I'm no bush lawyer but I know enough to keep my bank account minimal, have no debts apart from the ol' mortgage (nearly paid off) and deal in cash. If I can't pay for it in cash, I don't have it.

Thanks for the heads up Azureblue.

Did you ever come across Sir Arthur Rhymil's maiden speech to Parliament on how he would control the Ozzy people?

That was back in Whitlam's day when medicare wasn't around yet.

One of his points was to make the people dependent on the government for their health.

And from memory Sir Arthur was a Liberal.

I lent my copy of that speech to a Labor poli naively thinking he might talk about the idea. He just tore it up with a smile. That was back in the nineteen eighties.

I often think that maiden speech would be an interesting basis for a thread here on ATS. But do you think I can track down an online reference? No luck.

Keep up the good fight Azureblue!

a reply to: Azureblue

Certainly worth keeping an eye on, thanks for the heads up.

originally posted by: R6A6W6
Interesting indeed if true. I did have a quick read through it but I don't understand the law jargon, so I'll await further comments and see if anyone else understands it. I did read this though.

Application to deposits
The current legal framework for conversion and write-off does not apply to deposit accounts nor does the Bill
allow APRA to write-off deposits or convert them to equity.
First the conversion and write-off provisions contained in the Bill clearly only apply ‘in relation to an instrument
that contains terms for the purposes of the conversion and write-off provisions’.
63 Under APRA’s existing powers

Sounds to me like it says they can't touch deposits, or am I just not understanding it?

I think thats just govt spin to hide the ugly bit, to get us think "well, it aint so bad, perhaps it wont affact me therefore I dont have to wrorry about it."

a reply to: Azureblue

Any form of bail-in is insidious, as it forces the banks’ unsuspecting investors and customers to pay with their savings for the reckless and often criminally fraudulent practices of the banks that caused the crisis in the first place, while the banks carry on with those same practices!

It is insane to legislate powers to manage a banking crisis but not make the banks stop doing the things that are creating the crisis, such as gambling in toxic derivatives.

Explained at link.... If a bank crashes, your deposits can be grabbed to cover the banks reckless ars.

link to source

a reply to: CitizenNum287119327

So remove any savings in the bank, get as much credit as possible and invest it all and hope one of the investments is a winner .