Home  Latest News  Press Release  The Book  Newsletters  Links

Introduction  |   Index  |   Next Chapter

CHAPTER 1                    WHAT HAPPENED IN 1981?

The banks had planned their move not unlike the Japanese had 40 years earlier when the then U.S. President Roosevelt described the sneak attack on Pearl Harbour as "a day that will live in infamy".

The sleepy people of Australia were not not aware of what was in store when our politicians passed a Bill called the Consumer Credit Act to replace the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act of 1941. The Moneylenders Act clearly stated that a loan contract shall show the total amount of interest payable which meant that the lender knew exactly what the loan would cost, i.e.: there was certainty of terms in accordance with common law and the fundamental principles of economics governing the setting of interest to be charged on a loan. This and a few other qualities of the Moneylenders Act are explained in a leaflet I produced to support a motion I put before a Liberal Party State Convention in 1994 which is reprinted here.

So anxious were the politicians to institute the banks' plan that the new legislation was passed before the old was repealed which meant that legislation was passed which was repugnant or incompatible which existing statute law. When I pointed this aspect out to some bureaucrats they dismissed it by saying that it didn't matter in which order Bills went through the House.

The banks' Consumer Credit Act introduced the system of variable interest rates under the clause "Variation of Contract" which was and remains a clear and irrefutable violation of common law which demands that there be certainty of terms for a contract to be created. The Consumer Credit Act should never have been granted Royal Assent by the State Governors whose duty it is to reject such legislation which contravenes common law. Their excuse for rubber stamping the infamous document is that they "act on the advice of their Ministers". The reality is that they failed in their duty to the Queen and to the People. They have degraded their role to that of mere puppets being manipulated by politicians who are, in turn, manipulated by the banks. A pathetic state of affairs and one which should enrage all right-minded and patriotic Australians.

The stage was now set for criminal exploitation that would devastate so many ordinary people and swell the coffers of the banks to unprecedented proportions.

When victims protested and said, "The banks have broken their contract!", the ready reply came back, "But the contract you signed gives us the right to vary the interest rate without your consent.". The plan worked beautifully.

However, an Act passed by Parliament is called a Statute Law whereas Common Law has evolved independently over the centuries and based on court precedents accepted by the community.

In Australia we have the protection of our Constitutional Monarchy. Common law is the superior law because, if legislation passed by the Parliament is repugnant to common law, it is the duty of the Queen's Representative to refuse Royal Assent which is necessary for a Bill to become law. The unacceptable nature of a Bill should be made known to the Governor at the time. If it is not then the Ministers are culpable. If the error is realised later, the Act should be disallowed and struck out. Lawyers will tell you that Statute Law displaces Common Law but that is wrong for the reason I have explained. Lawyers will tell you that Parliament is the ultimate authority but that is wrong, too. The people are the ultimate authority and if legislation does not meet the standard of Due Process, i.e.: that it is in the interests of the welfare of the community, then it must be removed from the Statutes. Lawyers have been brainwashed through their universities and the people have been denied knowledge of their own Constitution and inherited rights. The ignorance created has been fertile ground for the banks to sow their seeds for absolute power.

Politicians have already admitted that they lie and must lie to keep their jobs. Now, with the unfolding of my case through the courts, judges are just the same.

What happened in 1981?
The banks performed their own version of Pearl Harbour. Fortunately, the Americans had the resources to regroup and eventually defeat the enemy.

Similarly, we have the resources, in the form of common law and our Constitutional Monarchy, also to win through. All that is needed is the will to do the job. All that is needed is the courage and the spirit of those good men and women who have gone before us to fight for truth and our rights.

The following is the leaflet I put together for the Liberal Party State Convention in 1994 and for the information of the delegates:

A Motion before the 50th Anniversary State Convention of the Liberal Party, the Riverside Theater, Parramatta, 19th and 20th November, 1994:

"that the Consumer Credit Act, 1981, No. 124 should be repealed and the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act, 1941, No. 67 be reinstated."

Put by the Parramatta North Branch.

THE REASON: The Consumer Credit Act is fraudulent in that it makes "use of false representations". It is the means by which an horrendous swindle (defined as "to cheat a person out of money; a fraudulent scheme; a person or thing represented as what it is not") has been perpetrated on the people of Australia.

The Consumer Credit Act represents a "loan contract" to be something it is not, i.e.: that it is an agreement which is not binding in so much as the lender can vary the interest rate. It is "a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or a fact used to take money, rights, or other privilege or property away from a person or persons"... ipso facto ... fraud.

A ""contract" is an "agreement". An "agreement" is "a contract duly executed and legally binding". "Binding means unalterable".

A second definition of a ""contract" is one that it is "a business agreement for supply of goods or performance of work at fixed price". "Interest" is the price of borrowing money.

At common law, eight elements are essential to the creation of a contract:




 a capacity to contract




 legality of purpose


 an intention to enter legal relations


 genuine consent


 sufficient consideration


 certainty of terms

""Certainty" means "that which is certain" or "absolutely determined, regular, fixed, sure to happen, ... reliable, unerring ...".

The Act which the Consumer Credit Act replaced, the Moneylenders and Infants Loan Act, by stating that a loan contract, in s.22, "... shall show ... (2) ... (d) the total amount of the interest to be paid", complied with the common law requirement of "certainty of terms". The Consumer Credit Act is in breach of common law.

The Consumer Credit Act says that a loan contract (s.35 (1) (d)) shall include "where, at the relevant date, it is possible to express the whole of the credit charge as an amount of money, a statement of the total of: (i) the credit charge; and (ii) the amount financed;" and "(e) a statement of the APR (annual percentage rate) in accordance with section 37". Section 37 (b) (ii) refers to "the percentage rate determined according to the method set out in Schedule 6 ... (etc.) ... whichever the credit provider determines". In s.75, and spread thoughout the Act, the concept of "Variation of contract" is indoctrinated.
(Section 12 describes what "credit charge" means in 36 lines and cross-references to Section 59 and Schedule 1. Schedule 6 says "the annual percentage rate may be determined in accordance with the formula: 2NF (300C + NF) divided by 2N squared + 300C (N + 1) where "F" is an amount determined in accordance with the formula: 100C x T divided by N x A.)"
The Consumer Credit Act is 130+ pages of legal gobbledegook and a miriad of cross-references designed to confuse and repel anyone wanting to examine it.

Due Process?
"A course of legal proceedings according to the rules and principles that have been established in a system of jurisprudence for the enforcement and protection of private rights ... If a law may reasonably be deemed to promote the public welfare and the means selected bear a reasonable relationship to the legitimate public interest, then the law has met the due process standard". (Encyc. Brit.). The Consumer Credit Act meets none of these criteria but sacrifices them in favour of the banks.
From that time on the borrower has been at the mercy of the lender and been denied any right of appeal when the interest rates rose "from 5 per cent to 22 per cent" (to quote one example).

Prohibition of Compound Interest:
Another notable feature of the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act (section 28) is that if the loan contract "provides directly or indirectly for (a) the payment of compound interest; or (b) any increase of interest by reason of any default" then the contract "shall be illegal".

The Result of Corrupt Legislation:
Quote 1, from the Sun-Herald, 18/9/94, p.3: "In the New England area a recent survey estimated 80 per cent of farmers had less than 20 pc equity in their farms, making four out of five farmers in the area highly vulnerable to losing their homes. I see what it does to families, it's terrible the divorce, the break-ups and the suicides ...".

Quote 2, from Michael Clough (State Member for Bathurst): "Case No. 6 concerns a Commonwealth Bank customer who borrowed $530,000 and then had two bad seasons. He has paid back $715,000 plus $70,000 in overdraft, but still owes $1,239,000 surely an indictment against the Commonwealth Bank. Case No. 7 ... In this case the State Bank has been charging interest on interest ..."

Quote 3, from Jeanine McRae of the Union of Farmers: "It is quite common for a farmer to have paid for his farm two and three times over the last ten years and still owe more than he originally borrowed."

By manipulating interest rates, the banks can take advantage of and obtain money from innocent clients to pay for bad debts incurred by the failures of other enterprises and other loans.

The Consumer Credit Act was Assented to before the Moneylenders and Infants Loans Act was repealed and all by the Labour Government under Mr. Neville Wran.

You cannot fool all the people all the time. Justice must be restored and the Liberal Party must show that it is truly a government of, by and for the people.

The Consumer Credit Act must be REPEALED and, as a first step, interest rates on existing loans must be FROZEN immediately!

Written by J. Wilson, Liberal Party Membership No. 07-217-2170149

Introduction   |  Index  |  Next Chapter                 Top of Page

Home   Latest News  Press Release  The Book   Newsletters  Links

Site researched and written by J. Wilson jhwilson@acay.com.au and is best viewed with a screen resolution of 600 x 800ppi
or better, using Netscape or MSIE version 4.0 browsers or higher. © 2000