Governance issues continue to plague the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) amid allegations of member silencing, board-stacking and escalating internal power struggles. Stephanie Tran reports.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians is bracing for another explosive board meeting – a snap meeting called for today – after members last week overwhelmingly backed president-elect Dr Sharmila Chandran.

The extraordinary general meeting (EGM), called by a group of members seeking to “remove Dr Chandran as president-elect and board director”, was rejected by 74% of voting members last week, with 7,444 of the college’s 33,000 members participating. 

It was the second time in less than a month members had been asked to vote on the identical proposal, following a string of EGMs costing the college an estimated ($) $1 million.

The latest result also prompted renewed calls from some members for current president Professor Jennifer Martin to resign.

RACP board in turmoil as dissident director prevails at doctors’ meeting

‘Interim controls’ consolidate power in chair’s hands

Since the vote, tensions have intensified within the leadership of the College.

Internal documents seen by MWM show a suite of new “interim controls” for board meetings and communications introduced in recent days by the faction aligned with current RACP president and board chair, Professor Jennifer Martin.

Under the controls, entry to the virtual board meeting room will require chair approval; participants will remain muted unless invited to speak; and the chair will be able to pause proceedings and move directors into a waiting room if she considers conduct to have “escalated”. The controls will be administered by the governance team “at the direction of the chair”.

The measures were drafted by CEO Steffen Faurby and his staff as part of a WHS hazard report addressing what they described as the “psychosocial hazard” of “unsafe behaviour” at board meetings.

Both Faurby and Martin are currently the subject of bullying claims in stop-bullying applications before the Fair Work Commission. Both deny wrongdoing.

Concerns over board-stacking ahead of snap meeting

The RACP board is preparing to meet today to appoint new directors, despite there being no further scheduled board meetings until February.

Sources say the proposed appointments have not gone through an open expression of interest process or been discussed transparently across the full board. 

They raised concerns about board stacking ahead of Chandran’s scheduled commencement as president in May, when she would also assume the role of board chair under current college rules.

The concerns come amid whistleblower complaints about the RACP’s governance, including allegations that members’ funds have been used to pursue internal factional disputes. Martin has previously rejected claims that college funds have been used to “shut down” critics, saying all expenditure relates to maintaining proper governance.

College response

MWM put questions to the RACP about governance concerns within the college. In response, they provided a transcript of a video message from Martin that was sent to College members following the EGM last week.

“The Board respects the outcome and will fulfil the constitutional steps that follow,” Martin said.

“My own position is also clear. I will continue in my role as President. I will not be diverted by campaigns or by attempts to personalise institutional issues. I am here to Chair the Board to ensure the work of the College continues, and it will be conducted under proper governance.”

Shemozzle: RACP in crisis as doctors’ meeting looms, whistleblower emerges

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Lavish renovations to “Bishopscourt” mansion, a host of unregistered trusts and other financial irregularities, present the new Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne with a raft of earthly challenges. Stephanie Tran and Michael West report.

When The Right Reverend Dr Ric Thorpe, Melbourne’s new Archbishop delivers his first sermon at St Paul’s Cathedral, he is unlikely to tee off with an exegesis of the famous biblical passage Mark 12:41. 

This is the parable where Jesus tells the disciples about the poor woman who gave two small coins, all she had, to the Temple offering.

Anglican parishioners in Melbourne have cause for concern over the administration of Church finances. An investigation by Michael West Media has unearthed details about expensive renovations to the $40m Bishopscourt mansion in East Melbourne and long-running governance failures including dozens of unregistered trusts that may be subject to millions in potential tax liabilities.

The revelations come at a time when the finances of establishment churches in Australia are on the wane; are unlikely to please parishioners who part with a fraction of their earnings in the offering plates on a Sunday.

“A vanity project”

According to documents obtained by MWM, the former Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne, Philip Freier, wanted to host the Archbishop of Canterbury at Bishopscourt when he came to Australia for a visit in 2022.

Rather than putting him up in a hotel at lesser expense to the Diocese, the Bishopscourt Trust Management Committee (BTMC) contracted Virtue Construction to renovate the 1850s bluestone mansion. But things did not go as planned and documents show the costs blew out from $190,000 to around $350,000.

A whistleblower familiar with the Church finances claims the works were unnecessary and pushed through without proper authorisation, describing them as “a vanity project”. The whistleblower also alleges the construction contract was split into two to avoid the BTMC’s $200,000 financial delegation limit, and that the Archbishop did not appropriately manage potential conflicts of interest.

Church denies archiepiscopal conflict

“The Archbishop, as the occupant of Bishopscourt, had a conflict of interest in relation to any material improvements or expenditures on Bishopscourt … The works in question included a renovation of a bathroom and bedroom.”

The Diocese strongly disputes these claims. In a statement, a spokesperson said:

“While there is a residence for the Archbishop at Bishopscourt, the overwhelming construction and cost of those renovations have been to the community facilities and upgrade of quarters for visitors to the Diocese.

“While the Archbishop of Canterbury did visit Bishopscourt, there were no substantive renovations conducted in anticipation of this visit, and no splitting of contracts as suggested in your question.”

Internal documents reviewed by MWM confirm that the Bishopscourt trust was not registered with the ACNC at the time. They also record that the construction contract was issued in two parts, though the Diocese denies this was done to circumvent the financial limit.

Departing Anglican Archbishop Philip Freier

A pattern of governance concerns

The whistleblower alleges the Bishopscourt project was only one example of broader systemic problems.

He claims that when he joined the Trust Corporation in late 2019, he encountered minimal documentation, incomplete records and missing trust deeds, and that these concerns went unaddressed for years.

“There were no records handed over. There were no trust deeds. There were no financial statements for any of the trusts. There were no details about who were the signatories on any of the accounts.”

“As I investigated more matters, I became aware that the poor governance had hid a number of legal compliance issues.”

The Diocese holds approximately 300 trusts. Documents seen by MWM indicate that within the top 20 per cent of trusts by value (48 trusts), 30 were not registered with the ACNC.

While not unlawful in itself, the whistleblower alleges the Diocese incorrectly self-assessed these trusts as income tax exempt, potentially leaving the Church with significant tax liabilities.

He described the Church’s response to concerns as “very defensive”, comparing it to the early reaction to the Church’s handling of child sexual abuse claims.

“The initial knee jerk reaction was a denial of the issue and an attempt to minimise and belittle it.”

Church begins to clean up its acts

After years of internal complaints, the Diocese has begun taking steps to address the compliance issues.

Earlier this month, the Diocese resolved to register all unregistered trusts with a corpus over $100,000 by the end of next year.

“Through a lot of pushing, we managed to get a resolution in November that any unregistered trust with a corpus above $100,000 would be registered by the end of next year,” the whistleblower said.

A spokesperson for the Diocese provided the following response regarding steps the Diocese is taking to ensure they comply with ATO and ACNC requirements:

“The Melbourne Anglican Trust Corporation (MATC) is the authority that manages the trusts of the diocese and has been undertaking a project to review compliance requirements for the ATO and ACNC for over two years. Trustee law is a complex area which we are working through with the ACNC and ATO.”

For incoming Archbishop Ric Thorpe, these legacy governance issues present a formidable challenge as he steps into the role.

“There needs to be a commitment to transparency. These issues need to be acknowledged and addressed so that the new Archbishop has the opportunity to come in with it with as much of a clean slate as possible.”

This post was originally published on Michael West.

State and Federal Governments are proposing to add $2.4 billion to the Whyalla Steelworks financial disaster, while the man responsible rides into the sunset. Kim Wingerei with the story.

The South Australian government put the Whyalla Steelworks into administration in February 2025, following years of mismanagement and mounting debts – including unpaid royalties – under the leadership of Sanjeev Gupta.

Despite that, Gupta continues to advocate for the “green steel” dream, a potential nightmare if the South Australian and Federal Governments get their way.

Their rescue plan involves support for transitioning the plant from coal-fired to gas-powered. However, that is only feasible if the Government is prepared to subsidise the gas. At current prices, Australian gas is too expensive.

It is, of course, also not “green”. Natural gas emits less CO2 than coal-burning plants in theory (assuming minimal gas leaks), but for the green steel dream to come to fruition, renewable energy is paramount.

Bluescope to bid?

Bluescope Steel (ASX:BSL) is the preferred bidder, holding a right-of-last-refusal in what the SA Government hopes will be a “competitive bidding process”.

But Bluescope is demanding “multibillion-dollar gas subsidies” if it is to proceed with a bid.

At their AGM this week, outgoing CEO Mark Vassella and CEO-elect, Tania Archibald, were both at pains to reiterate the company’s commitment to Net Zero, but neither made mention of the potential for a Whyalla acquisition.

According to a new report by Climate Energy Finance (CEF), “Gas-based production of iron and steel in SA is entirely uneconomic, with gas prices there some of the highest in the gas-producing world.” And as readers of MWM well know (even if Matt Canavan doesn’t), our high gas prices are caused by the gas oligopoly’s siphoning of gas into export markets.

Gas Empire: how Australians are paying for foreign profiteers

CEF estimates gas supply subsidies for a gas-based Whyalla would exceed $1.7B over a decade, but that may still not be enough to make it competitive.

As the logical supplier of gas to Whyalla, Santos (ASX:STO) would be the principal beneficiary of these subsidies.  Over the last ten years, Santos has paid a total of $3.1m in income tax on $42.8B in revenue.

An opportunity missed

CEF’s Matt Pollard told MWM, “The transformation of the Whyalla Steelworks is a generational opportunity, but South Australia stands at a critical juncture. A methane gas-based ‘transition’ would be a grave strategic misstep and misalignment of economic policy with climate objectives, with lasting budgetary and national interest impacts.

Gas is unequivocally not the solution for Whyalla in the interim, nor the long-term.

Green Steel is a massive opportunity for Australia to move up the value chain of steel production while reducing our emissions. South Australia, in particular, is well-positioned with one of the lowest-cost, highest-penetration variable renewable energy grids in the world, with its 72% variable renewable energy penetration.

CEF Director Tim Buckley points out how “global moves to accelerate decarbonisation of global iron and steel supply chains mean Australia faces a massive strategic threat to our top export commodity,” iron ore.

The report’s co-author, The Superpower Institute, led by former ACCC chair Rod Sims and economist Ross Garnaut, echoes those sentiments, “There is an incredible opportunity for Whyalla to become Australia’s first green iron and steelmaking success story. … Government support for a gas option at this point would be a significant misstep.”

As for Sanjeev Gupta, his company, GFG Alliance, gets a $375,000 slap on the wrist by ASIC for late reporting, with the debts he left behind will be paid by taxpayers.

Whyalla mega-rescue leaves questions for watchdog ASIC

This post was originally published on Michael West.

“Self-management a best kept secret”. Dr Sarah Russell investigates the government’s new Home Care package, finds ‘ka-ching’ for private providers.

The Aged Care Royal Commission was blunt about some aged care providers rorting home care packages.

In their final report, the royal commissioners noted that a Level 4 home care package – then worth around $52,000 a year – offered on average less than nine hours a week support for older people.

Meanwhile, older people who managed their own home care package could buy more than double the support – around 20 hours a week.

And now we find out that the Albanese Labor government is enabling aged care providers to take an even bigger cut of the aged care budget, this time via those who self-manage Support at Home.

Self-management has always been a well-kept secret.

Most older people opt for an aged care provider to manage their support workers and suppliers. They simply don’t know there is an option to manage their home care themselves.

Pay per shower: fully-funded aged care turns market-driven aged support

Although the new Support at Home program allows older people to self-manage, the rules have changed significantly. So too have payment processes.

In the past, invoices from support workers and suppliers were submitted to the self-managed provider. The provider paid these invoices from the client’s home care package. 

The new Support at Home – Self Management Fact Sheet explains that self-management can involve “paying invoices for services and being reimbursed”. As a result, some providers require older people to pay their support workers and suppliers from their own pocket. They are later reimbursed.

This policy assumes people have the cash available to pay for their home care services.

Provider-managed and self-managed care are two fundamentally different approaches to home care. Provider-managed puts the aged care provider in the drivers’ seat. In contrast, self-management is based on shared decision making between the older person their support workers and the self-managed provider.

In my 2021 research Consumer views of self-managed home care packages older people described “choice, control and costs” as their main reasons for switching from provider-managed to self-management. They also appreciated being treated as adults.

With self-management, older people were not only able to choose who worked in their home, when they came and what they did but also able to negotiate directly with their support workers about how much they were paid. 

Support at Home package expensive

The financial benefits of self-management will be much less with the Support at Home program. From 1 July 2026, older people will no longer be able to negotiate lower rates with support workers or services outside the government approved pricing schedule.

In addition, those who self-manage will be charged an overhead for the third-party service. 

This overhead fee has been capped at 10 per cent – with clients encouraged to “negotiate” this fee based on how much work the provider is required to do before paying an invoice (e.g. ensuring the third party supplier meets workforce requirements). Not surprisingly, some providers simply charge their clients a 10 per cent “processing” or “loading” fee on each invoice, irrespective of how much work they did.

Another significant change is the requirement of a co-contribution. With the new system, providers resemble debt collectors – responsible for collecting the government’s co-contribution. 

Complex fee-fest

To ensure providers are not out of pocket for this co-contribution, some require their self-managed clients to pay for their support services out of their own pocket and then submit proof of amount they have paid. They are then reimbursed the full amount they have paid less the amount of the co-contribution.

Some providers have changed the payment process for all clients, both those who have been grandfathered (on home care packages) and new clients (on Support at Home).

Take for example an 88 year old pensioner who has a Level 4 home care package. He lives in a remote location with no local aged care provider. His only option is to self-manage. He employs local support workers and suppliers who are all registered with a provider. 

Previously, invoices from the registered nurse, support workers and suppliers were submitted to the provider. These invoices were then paid in full from his home care package. The provider charged a monthly administration fee.

Since the recent introduction of Support at Home program on 1 November, his provider has changed the payment process – to ensure the provider collects the co-contribution.

Although this man’s home care package has been grandfathered (i.e. he does not pay a co-contribution), his provider recently asked him to pay his monthly support services from his own pocket. The provider would then reimburse these costs.

Just to be clear, a pensioner is asked to pay around $5,000 per month for his support services, money he does not have.  As a result, he has a home care package he can no longer afford to access.

Fortunately, his registered nurse acted as an advocate. The provider agreed to continue to pay the monthly invoices. However, there will undoubtedly be other older people living in remote areas who have an assessed need for support but will be unable to afford to access it. 

The Support at Home program has made self-management a much less attractive option.

As a result, providers, not older people, are back in control. Ka-ching.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Lachlan Murdoch won the battle to follow in his father’s footsteps and obtain control over News Corp, a media conglomerate in decline. Is he up for it? David Tyler asks.

Imagine inheriting a media empire after spending $1.1B per sibling just to buy them off. Then discovering you’ve just spent billions to secure control of something that looks glorious on the surface but is, underneath, a paper tiger gasping for oxygen. That’s Lachlan Murdoch in 2025.

The real story of Lachlan’s consolidation isn’t that he won. It’s that he inherited a media empire at precisely the moment when media empires stopped being empires. A forensic examination of how News Corp became a hollowed-out dynasty, why Lachlan can consolidate control but can’t actually run the thing, and what it means for democracy when the last large-scale independent news organisation enters managed decline.

Rupert Murdoch built an empire on rat-cunning, ruthless leverage, and an almost mystical ability to play politicians and markets like a fiddle. But Lachlan Murdoch, now 52 and finally sitting in the CEO chair, faces a problem Rupert never had to seriously contemplate: what happens when the empire requires actual business acumen to maintain?

Rupert had a superpower: he understood that media power flows from controlling narrative. He was so vast in his hubris that only he could plead humility as the most transparent whopper imaginable. When the News of the World phone-hacking scandal caught him in 2011 and revelations emerged that his journalists had hacked the phone of murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler, Rupert went public, saying he was “humbled.” And the world, weirdly, believed him. At least long enough to let him keep most of what he’d built.

When forced to apologise, Rupert learned the vocabulary of contrition. He already knew the performative theatre. Lachlan learned the jargon, but he’s not even a ham actor.

Now imagine trying to navigate Gotham City with half your father’s cunning, one-tenth his ruthlessness, and none of his instinctive grasp of how power actually works. Nor his theatricality. That’s Lachlan Murdoch in 2025; striding through the ruins of a media empire,

cape-less, clueless, and surrounded by villains he can’t even name.

Latter day Uday

There’s something almost tragic in Lachlan Murdoch; or “Uday,” as media critic Richard Ackland memorably nicknamed him in 2003, invoking the image of Saddam Hussein’s son inheriting an empire he couldn’t actually run. Clutching the reins with one hand while the entire media kingdom staggers and weaves like one of those horses that break down in The Melbourne Cup.

Next, the stewards will bring out the screen.

Murdoch’s kingdom was built with ink, intimidation, and insider tips. Today, it’s a property tech company pretending to be a media dynasty, profitable only in the margins while its core business, journalism, dogs and buckles like newsprint in the rain.

Of course, there’s a tragic twist in the tale. In September 2025, after a drawn-out legal brawl in Nevada, Rupert locks in Lachlan’s control of the empire until 2050. Sounds decisive? Hold on. A Nevada court had already ruled in December 2024 that Rupert and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” trying to amend that supposedly irrevocable family trust.

Bad faith. From a court. That’s not the kind of judgment you want tattooed to your name as you consolidate power.

The family trust circus

The settlement cost serious money: $1.1 billion per sibling to three siblings, meaning roughly $3.3 billion total to buy out their stakes. At first glance, tidy consolidation. But look closer and you’re seeing ego masquerading as strategy. The family trust’s holdings in both News Corp and Fox shrink from roughly 40% to about one-third. That’s material control leaking away, just so Lachlan can wear his father’s rapidly hollowing crown.

And then the coup de grâce arrives. Within weeks of the settlement, the Institutional Shareholder Services; the proxy adviser whose recommendations actually move Wall Street money, tells shareholders to withhold their votes for Lachlan’s reelection to the News Corp board. It isn’t a polite suggestion. They flag his “substantial” pledges of company shares as loan collateral and rip into the dual-class share structure that disenfranchises ordinary shareholders.

Imagine your company’s governance watchdog publicly telling the money managers not to back you. OOPS. That’s not just awkward.

That’s the corporate equivalent of being uninvited from your own party.

The exodus

Two weeks before the shareholder drama landed, Siobhan McKenna, one of News Corp Australia’s top executives and Lachlan’s trusted counsellor for two decades, announced her retirement at the end of 2025. Yes, the Foxtel sale made her role as broadcasting CEO “redundant” in the formal sense. But she was far more than “just another suit.”

McKenna was the architect who steered Sky News and Foxtel through a digital minefield that would have destroyed most managers. She had the technical skill to understand the numbers and the rare capacity to tell Lachlan “no”—and make him listen. That’s not replaceable. That’s gone. Finito. Kaput.

McKenna followed Viet Dinh, the Fox legal mastermind who stepped down in December 2023 after the Dominion Voting Systems settlement ($787.5 million) exposed Fox News’ dangerous liaison with disinformation. Dinh wasn’t just an adviser. He was the architect, the seasoned operator who played the game while Lachlan posed for the company photograph.

Lose one trusted counsellor and it’s bad luck. Lose both within eighteen months, and it’s a more than carelessness. It’s the loss of the architects. It’s Lachlan discovering that he can consolidate control but he can’t actually run the thing.

Can he?

The Foxtel play

When News Corp sold Foxtel to DAZN in April 2025 for a $US2.2B enterprise value, the company dressed it up as strategic brilliance. And fair enough, there’s something to that. They secured $578m in shareholder loan repayment, grabbed a 6% minority stake in DAZN, and scored a board seat. CFO Lavanya Chandrashekar hailed the “balance sheet strength” and the “accretion to earnings per share.”

The numbers look tidy. But here’s the thing: owning a minority stake in someone else’s streamer while your rivals control it isn’t owning the game anymore. It’s a retreat from direct content control, the very guts of News Corp’s Australian legacy, to a position of passive interest.

It’s also a clear signal about what News Corp believes it can actually defend.

Dow Jones (premium business journalism that still has paying readers), Digital Real Estate (particularly REA Group, their 61% stake in the dominant property listings platform), and Book Publishing (HarperCollins, which actually grows). Everything else is being abandoned or contracted. And property bubbles always burst while monopolies get busted.

REA Group is where the real money is now. It dominates residential property listings in Australia, but there’s a problem: it’s currently under ACCC investigation for that very market dominance, with the regulator examining its pricing power and whether it’s exploiting its monopoly position.

News Corp’s profit engine is profitable precisely because it’s monopolistic, and monopolies have political shelf lives. That’s not a stable foundation. That’s a sword hanging by a thread.

Aging readers

Here’s the uncomfortable part nobody wants to say out loud: News Corp’s core readers are old, and they’re not being replaced.

The Australian’s average reader age is pushing toward 65. The Daily Telegraph’s readership skews similarly senior.

These aren’t growing audiences. They’re declining cohorts.

The substitution rate, young readers replacing old readers, is negative across print properties. This isn’t cyclical. This isn’t temporary. It’s a death spiral baked into the demographics.

Digital audiences are younger but fragmented, underpaying, and served by competitors with better technology and deeper pockets. News Corp makes money from premium print readers. Those readers are dying. The replacement cohort prefers TikTok and YouTube. That’s not a market problem. That’s a structural irrelevance.

Political landscape shift

Rupert understood something fundamental: control media and politics will follow. News Corp didn’t just report elections; it made them. Front pages shaped policy decisions, swayed votes, and built governments. That was the real power, not the journalism, nor the game of mates, but the agenda-setting.

That world is gone. Today, News Corp echoes political firebrands instead of shaping the script. Trump doesn’t need the Wall Street Journal; he has Truth Social and an army of podcasters. Real power now accrues to platforms outside traditional media,

to figures News Corp can amplify but not control.

Here’s what’s weird: News Corp’s Australian titles still carry political weight, but their leverage has evaporated. It’s not because they’re silent; they’re louder than ever. It’s because the Senate is now a negotiation chamber, not a rubber stamp.

The cross-bench has learned that Murdoch doesn’t actually control their seat. Labor learned it when they got to government despite News Corp’s best efforts. The Greens and independents never believed it in the first place.

Rupert could make Prime Ministers. Lachlan can influence headlines. That’s not the same thing.

A dying demographic: how Murdoch is slowly killing the Liberal Party

All about the algorithms

Here’s something Rupert never had to deal with, but Lachlan must: Google and Meta determine what percentage of News Corp’s content actually reaches its intended audience. News Corp publishes 8+ billion page-views monthly, but which readers see those page-views depends on algorithmic decisions made in Silicon Valley that News Corp has no influence over.

Google could reduce News Corp traffic by 50% tomorrow and face no consequences. Meta could down-rank News Corp content to irrelevance. These platforms have all the power; News Corp has none. The company can’t threaten them, can’t negotiate from strength, can’t even ensure distribution of what it publishes.

That’s not just a distribution problem. That’s the complete inversion of the power relationship that built News Corp’s empire.

Let’s be blunt: traditional media is dying

and no amount of Lachlan’s ego or corporate strategy stops it. The business model that fuelled Rupert’s empire – mass audiences, mass advertising, mass influence – is shattered. Audiences have splintered across infinite platforms. Advertisers followed the eyeballs. The cash dried up.

As Hemingway once observed about bankruptcy, it happens “two ways. Gradually, then all at once.” News Corp is in the gradual phase, the phase where earnings still beat consensus and the board still congratulates itself, but the trajectory is unmistakable.

The company’s real growth asset isn’t journalism. It’s REA Group, digital real estate classifieds. News Corp is morphing quietly into a property tech firm with legacy journalism assets that used to subsidise profits but now just burn cash.

That’s not a media company anymore.

It’s a real estate company with very expensive baggage.

A hollow victory

November 2025 earnings did beat forecasts, adjusted EPS of 22 cents versus 19 cents predicted. That’s decent. But look at the longer picture: share price down 7.98% year-on-year and 8.54% in October alone. Not a train wreck yet. More like slow choking. The stock isn’t collapsing; it’s being gradually repriced downward as markets slowly accept that this is a declining business that’s not going to turn around.

News Corp isn’t dead, yet. It’s still profitable. It still owns precious mastheads. It’s still diversified with real growth assets in property tech.

But is it dying? Absolutely. The erosion comes from inside, slow, steady, and structural.

Uday’s, aka Lachlan Murdoch‘s, consolidation looks like a victory on paper. But what is he actually controlling? The keys to a castle whose walls are crumbling.

Republished with permission. Read the full version here.

Fake news, old habits. Can Murdoch journalism be unlearned at the ABC?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Lavish spending, a board-room brawl, bullying allegations and a court stoush, a suite of EGMs and doctored documents have the Royal Australasian College of Physicians in crisis. Michael West investigates. 

On June 26, directors and top executives from the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) gathered for dinner at the swish Bambini Restaurant nestled above Sydney’s Hyde park within the grand sandstone of the St James Trust Building.

The bill came to around $6,000 so the top brass must have partaken of Bambini’s ‘award-winning wine list’ as well as its captivating culinary experience, sophisticated ambience and ‘Parisian charm’. It was a convivial evening whose festivities did not portend the intrigue which was to follow.

Move against whistleblower

The very next day, the chair Jennifer Martin and her allies called for an extraordinary general meeting to split the role of RACP president and chair, a move designed to stop popular director turned whistleblower Dr Sharmila Chandran from becoming chair of the Board.

This set in train a tumultuous board stoush at the top of Australia’s peak medical body with allegations of bullying and dubious corporate practices which has since spilt into the courts, the court even closing proceedings to the media.

Documents obtained by MWM show alarming irregularities in corporate governance by the Board, including excessive spending, altered Minutes of Meeting, failure to keep the RACP’s 32,000 members informed and the ignoring of external legal advice on good governance.

Fair Work secret bullying proceedings

Fast forward four months and at a three-day hearing of the Fair Work Commission in October Dr Chandran, who had brought whistleblower claims of bullying against the chair Professor Martin, was herself grilled in the witness box for two and a half of those days.

Chandran was the only witness to be cross examined and, not only did counsel for the College succeed in their request to close the Court for confidentiality, the whistleblower’s lawyers were not permitted to question the other side. 

Curiously, the media was turfed out at the request of the RACP and, despite Dr Chandran’s claim of bullying in the workplace, she was forced to endure a harrowing 15 hours in the witness box. The matter has been held over until next year.

In the meantime, in the wake of the Fair Work hearing, Dr Chandran was re-elected with a handsome majority to the Board, despite the Board’s efforts to depose her. 

An EGM … make that three

The next chapter in this extraordinary board spat is likely to draw the ire of many of the College’s members as another EGM is set down for later this month, November 26, at which the Board is again attempting to have her removed as a director.

All this has come at a high cost, and staff at RACP have come under enormous pressure.

MWM has obtained evidence which shows an extravagant spend by the Board, an extravagant over-spend that is above the RACP Governance Budget, on lawyers and EGMs.

Among the more than $1m in estimated costs is $250,000 on the three EGMs brought to stop Dr Chandran from becoming chair and well over $300,000 for law firm Norton Rose Fulbright.

MWM has put questions to RACP (see questions and responses below). RACP did not directly respond to questions but chair Professor Martin provided a statement which said the College “remained committed to good governance” and noted in respect of the treatment of Dr Chandran: 

“College funds have not been used to “shut down” any person. All actions taken by the Board have been directed to ensuring the proper functioning of governance.”

Jigging the Charter

Further to the governance saga, MWM has viewed changes made by the Chair to the RACP Charter. The new Charter of May 2, 2025 made many changes including inserting clauses to provide for the chair and/or the treasurer to investigate directors. It is an unusual conflict of interest for, for instance, a chair to spend an organisation’s resources to personally investigate a director.

It is also unusual, perhaps counter to the Corporations Act (S203C), for the Board to have powers to dismiss a director. Normally, it is the Regulator who deploys this power, not directors of a company.

The squeamish Requisition

In September 2025 The Board announced it had 100 ‘requisitioners’ signed up to remove Dr Chandran and, later in the same month, announced the second EGM called to remove her, yet the Board did not publish the list of requisitioners to members.. MWM has seen governance advice by an external law firm saying the Board had a legal obligation to ‘publish the lists’.

Tensions had been festering for some time on the College Board. At the meeting in May this year, things had boiled over when the company secretary was impeded in doing her job and the Chair sought to control who was in and out of the meeting. 

According to sources, the Chair removed comments made at the meeting made by Dr Chandran even though they had been included earlier in the minutes, as is routine corporate governance practice, by the company secretary.

Having spent $250,000 already on two EGMs to remove Dr Chandran, unsuccessfully, another estimated $200,000 will be spent by the RACP on the November meeting, again with the aim of removing the whistleblower from the Board.

The only resolution of the looming November meeting is to remove her, this despite the failed motion on October 31 where Dr Chandran romped back in with 65% of the vote (8,200 votes) despite all the Chair’s efforts.

Response to questions by Professor Jennifer Martin, chair of Board and President of RACP

We recognise the importance of transparency and accountability in all aspects of governance.

In recent years, like many member-based organisations, the RACP has faced complex governance issues and at Board level a high degree of conflict, and recently, disruption.
This has required independent legal and procedural advice. All expenditure has been approved in accordance with financial delegations and subject to external audit.

Expenditure on independent professional advice or meetings convened under the Corporations Act has been necessary to uphold those obligations, not to advance any individual interest.

College funds have not been used to “shut down” any person. All actions taken by the Board have been directed to ensuring the proper functioning of governance.

The ACNC and ASIC continue to have independent oversight of the College and its directors.

It’s inappropriate to comment publicly on internal deliberations or on individual directors’ remarks.
The College’s governance processes include mechanisms for any director to raise concerns about minutes, and those processes were followed.

We remain committed to transparency and good governance but not at the expense of appropriate Boardroom confidentiality and will continue to report financial and governance performance through audited annual reports and communications to members.

The questions which were asked

1. MWM has seen email evidence of significant RACP governance spending above Budget (c $1m), much of it has been spent on lawyers and EGMs dealing with the Dr Chandran matter. Could the chair provide her view on how this level of spending of members’ money is justified?

2. Do you agree that this amounts to spending money to shut Dr Shandran down?

3. MWM has viewed changes made by the Chair to the RACP Constitution. The new Charter of May 7, 2025 made a lot of changes. How do you justify the changes in 11.2 which provide for directors to have each other investigated? Is it a conflict of interest for the Chair to spend College resources investigating a director (11.2)?

4. 11.3 provides that a director found to be in breach can be dismissed by the Board. Is it not the Regulator, rather than the Board, which has and should have the powers to dismiss a director (Corps Act 203C)?

5. According to the KWM governance advice to RACP regarding the requisitioners to remove Dr Chandran, the Board has an obligation to “publish the lists”. Has this been done, and if not why not?

6. Should not this information be available to all RACP members?

7. Could you please provide the names of those 100 who signed the requisition?

8. Regarding the Board meeting in May, could RACP please explain on what basis the Chair altered the minutes of the meeting afterwards, adding that “the Chair abstained” from a vote on the RAO report? Also, why were comments made by Dr Chandran removed from the minutes?

9. Was a complaint made about the changing of the Minutes, and how was this complaint dealt with?

10. Has the Board taken legal advice on the Chair altering minutes of meeting and regarding the changes to the Constitution? What is this advice and who provided the advice?

Physician heal thyself: Royal College power-struggle spills into Court

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Sports podcasters who “ought to know better” are enthusiastically promoting online gambling (with all its consequences). Andrew Gardiner reports. 

Still looking for that tiny corner of Australian society, politics and sports media our ubiquitous gambling industry hasn’t reached? Here’s a pro tip: sports podcasts aren’t where you’re likely to find it.  

Problem gambling has established causal links with depression, anxiety and suicide. Yet sports podcasters – some of whom revealed their own experiences of mental illness not long ago – have been happy to take the money and shut up about problem gambling. 

Take former AFL ruckman/forward Daniel Gorringe (who revealed last year he “wanted to be injured” to avoid the pressure of performing up to his status as a top 10 draft pick) and his former co-host (and teammate) Dylan Buckley, who spoke of “vomiting and intrusive thoughts” pre-match, at one stage wishing he would be hurt on-field “and not have to play for six weeks”. Gorringe hosts Dan Does Footy, Australia’s top sports podcast.

Axed by Carlton in 2017, and out of the AFL, Gorringe found himself with “nothing in the bank, no purpose anymore … and it got to a real bad spot where I was seriously considering not wanting to be here”.

An ambassador for mental health training program Tackle Your Feelings, he shows clear empathy for those who have been on the journey – common among athletes – of performance anxiety and severe depression. 

The elephant in the studio

But what of others among the one in six Australians who seriously contemplate suicide, who weren’t elite athletes and took a different path to that same dark place? On air at least, the now-feuding Gorringe and Buckley ignore the elephant in the studio: problem gambling, a known suicide precursor. 

In fact, Gorringe and others actively enable it.  

“Together we ride the wave of each bet,” he told Sportsbet’s website. That’s right, readers: Daniel Gorringe, ‘independent’ podcaster with experiences of suicidal ideation, is the online face of Sportsbet, a leading gambling website accused of promoting a known cause of suicide. 

Sportsbet also sponsors Gorringe’s  NRL counterpart, Get ‘Em Onside, where the website’s trader, Sean, previews the weekend’s rugby league betting action. Its sponsorship dollars don’t end when the footy does, with popular cricket podcast The Grubs also a member of the vast Sportsbet stable. 

Get ‘Em Onside

In return, Gorringe and former NRL playmaker Joel Caine (from Get ‘Em Onside) provide insights, tips, and betting analysis via the company’s online tipping platform. 

Not to be outdone, Buckley co-founded Producey, a podcast producer, and Clubby, a sports network which “helps brands reach one of the hardest audiences to market to and connect with – the 18-34 year old male”. There, he was joined by Sportsbet’s former head of partnerships, Adam Pattison.

Podcasts on the Clubby roster include 200 PLUS, another Sportsbet cohort which went to extraordinary lengths to promote the thorny sport of greyhound racing by buying an actual greyhound, Conqueror, and offering shares in the dog to its audience. “Keep up to date with all things racing and the people’s dog, Conqueror!”, the podcast proudly proclaims. 

Another Clubby stablemate, comedian Broden Kelly (who hosts The Footy with Bro), explains gambling’s sway over sports podcasters. Success in that medium is “hard to sustain unless you’re at the ABC or take gambling money”, he posted. 

“Gambling companies target vulnerable creators and their ad space”. 

Image: Andrew Gardiner

Media and law graduate ‘Tim’ of Adelaide, who brought MWM’s attention to what he called Gorringe and others’ “hypocrisy” on gambling, hit rock bottom himself just 12 months ago. “I attempted suicide in October 2024 and I am so glad that I failed; I love my life (and) am now at a stage where I feel I can help others”, he said. 

Saturation gambling ads in sports (which target 18-34 year old males like Tim) are a particular peeve of his. Tim finds it hard to believe young men like Gorringe, who contemplated suicide, can promote activities that place others in danger of the same fate. 

He also loathes politicians who effectively turn a blind eye. “MPs from both of the major parties take blood money from gambling websites, so they’re allowed to operate unregulated. It’s disgusting,” he said. 

Yet … gambling ad reforms stalled

Canberra has yet to formally respond to the 31 recommendations in 2023’s ‘You win some, you lose more’ report, such as an hour-long blackout on ads before live sports broadcasts, and a limit of two ads per hour outside of this. Nonetheless, arguments for some kind of regulation seem compelling: the Victorian Responsible Gambling Foundation says there were 948 gambling ads daily on the state’s free-to-air television in 2021. 

But Tim says any new regulations on ads won’t impact the gambling companies’ online presence, adding that whatever rules emerge will do little to slow down the juggernaut that is online sports betting.  

Tim and MWM sent a number of questions to Clubby Sports, the most urgent of which were whether or not the company had put in place any strategies to mitigate the downside of sports betting, and what it was doing to support young males struggling with their mental health. We had not heard back from them by publication time. 

“I watched (September’s AFL Grand Final) with 20 of my best mates”, Tim said. “About 80 per cent of the room placed bets on the game through the Sportsbet app”.

“That was harrowing”. 

Isolated … trapped

A case study on the influence and impact of online sports betting is ‘Jack’, whose shocking story aired on The Imperfects podcast in 2023. Listeners were shocked by some of the tactics employed by companies to exploit ’Jack’s’ vulnerability. 

“When I was at my worst and I didn’t have much money to my name … they would call me every couple of days”, ‘Jack’ said. “I had a personal contact at the betting company and they’d call me and they’d say, ‘Jack if you deposit $100, we’ll give you $300 extra dollars, could you do that now?’”.

“I was living pay to pay, as a gambler I would get sucked in. So I’d deposit (the money) and that money would last maybe a couple of hours max and then I’d be back to square one”. 

“At one point, I got a phone call: ‘Jack, do you enjoy your AFL? We can see you bet on it quite a bit. Do you want a couple of tickets to the footy this weekend? You can come into the box’.”

“Because I felt so isolated and trapped from my gambling (addiction), having that person (make an offer like that) made me feel special”.  But ‘Jack’ knows the low points, too, where that short-term buzz of excitement gives way to a brutal reality of financial strain, relationship problems, mental health decline, stress-related health issues, potential legal entanglements and, yes, thoughts of self-harm or suicide. 

‘Jack’ is just one of the 9.3 per cent of Australian men (and rising) who bet on sports, a large number of whom wind up attempting suicide. “(It’s) the sure way of getting nothing for something”, American playwright Wilson Mizner once wrote.   

The process of recruiting vulnerable Australians like Jack begins with the galaxy of retired stars and media personalities on the sports gambling payroll, happily providing tips or producing content on anything from television screens to streaming audio. But Tim’s especially venomous when it comes to podcasters with mental health histories of their own. 

 “Daniel Gorringe contemplated suicide, and Dylan Buckley was in a tough place too. They ought to know better”.

Revealed: 239 million reasons gambling reforms are being smothered

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Electricians working on the national smart meter rollout told MWM in June that low rates were putting lives at risk. Now, they report things are getting worse. Zach Szumer with the story.

The nation’s accelerated smart meter rollout could turn tragic or face a shortage of workers, with a fresh round of rate cuts further worsening conditions in the sector, electricians have told MWM. 

 The government wants every house in Australia to be fitted with a smart meter by 2030 and, with less than 50 per cent of homes in states like NSW, SA and QLD having the new meters, new rules have been introduced to speed up the rollout. 

Already, homeowners in much of Australia can no longer refuse to have a smart meter installed, and a new round of additional rules will kick in on December 1

By that date, over 170 meter installers will also have to find a new source of income as the company they work under has lost its contract with Intellihub – a metering company co-owned by massive private equity firms Brookfield and Pacific Equity Partners.

Smart meters not so smart for underpaid installers

One Service Stream contractor, Richard, told MWM the company “didn’t think it was ethical to lower rates any further than what they were based on the work that we do and that cost them the contract”.

Some said the news came as a shock, as they had been told in August 2023 that Service Stream had secured a four-year agreement with Intellihub.

MWM has seen a copy of a 1 August 2023 email confirming the announcement.

The big squeeze

As we reported, low pay rates were “driving technicians to rush work under unsafe conditions that could lead to serious injury or death,” as one put it.

Many believe Intellihub’s latest round of rate cuts will make things worse.

One Service Stream contractor, Francis*, told MWM: “Intellihub’s just squeezing the companies below them like Service Stream and then Service Stream squeezes us as the techs.”

However, he doesn’t have much hope that change will come from above. “I don’t think anything’s going to happen unless something tragic happens,

like someone dies or some damage to property occurs …

“In terms of people cutting corners, because rates have dropped quite a lot, quite substantially, some techs have said to me things like, ‘Oh, I just skip the testing altogether if I have to, if I’m running too far behind’”.

“I’m sure not every technician is doing that, but at the end of the day, if you rush people enough and they’re going backwards and they’re losing money because they’re not completing enough jobs because the jobs aren’t paid well enough, then of course people are going to skip steps”.

Another Service Stream contractor, Alexander*, said “deaths from electrical shock, houses burning down for electrical faults” were possible if things continued as they are.

Several electricians said the new rates – which flatten out the extra pay they previously received for ‘additional services’ – gave them far less incentive to repair electrical faults they discovered during installations.

Accelerated rollout speed bumps?

Both Francis and Alexander said the accelerated smart meter rollout could suffer from an exodus of qualified technicians.

“With rates where they are today, with the changes, I don’t see why anyone would want to stay in the industry,” Francis said.

Alexander said,

it’s very hard to see businesses being profitable on the rates that are being offered.

“But I feel that some people, unfortunately, might be forced into having to take those options, and I feel that that’s kind of what Intellihub are hoping.”

“I feel it’s been a very selective and devious decision to employ these new standards, if you will, so close to Christmas, when everybody’s really relying on getting those funds in at that time of year”.

‘Pivotal’: major update on $4.8b renewables project

Roger*, who works for a company that will continue to work with Intellihub, agreed, saying: “I reckon a lot of people will quit”.
Based on the new Intellihub contractor rate card he’d been given, his income would decrease by around 30 per cent, he said.
“I won’t return to metering based on these numbers; it’s too unsafe and underpaid.”

He said the situation was redolent of the federal government’s pink batts scheme, the Rudd-Labor government’s rollout of home insulation that led to multiple deaths and hundreds of house fires.

Who’s watching the market?

Several months ago, after hearing electricians’ concerns about Intellihub’s growing dominance of the metering industry, MWM sought data on the company’s market share from the three bodies that oversee Australia’s energy markets.

All three – the Australian Energy Market Commission, Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) and Australian Energy Regulator (AER) – said they didn’t have this information.

Starring role for households in least-cost transition

Intellihub was also contacted – and asked about its market share, as well as a response to electricians’ complaints – but has yet to provide an answer.

Several years ago, an Intellihub representative provided the ACCC with an estimate that, as of 31 December 2022, the company had a roughly 20-30% share of smart meters deployed to energy retailers across the National Energy Market.

*All names have been changed at the request of those interviewed.

This post was originally published on Michael West.

“Keeping perspective” is Michael Pascoe’s mantra. He writes that AI mania has not just warped perspective, it risks blowing up reality.

Over more decades than I care to count of market watching and reporting, I haven’t seen a time when there’s been more wide-spread conviction that we’re experiencing a dangerous bubble that’s sure to pop, yet the money keeps pouring in to inflate it. 

The lead up to the “Crash of 87”, now viewed in the rearview mirror as a minor hiccup, was relatively muted. Not even the “dot bomb” bubble at the turn of the century, when all a company had to do to get a share price boost was to add “e” or “dotcom” to its name, was as widely perceived as over-cooked as the present outlook. 

“This time it’s different”

This time round there is vastly more money chasing itself with a circular investment boom at its core built on promises of revolution and, inevitably, that “this time it’s different”. This time round there are trillions of dollars being splurged on a heady mix of momentum riding, FOMO (fear of missing out), and massive bets that the first movers will win all. 

There are the market telltales of sky-high valuations for inexperienced startups merely intending to build data centres or AI-somethings, but they are sideshows, mere flotsom that will be blown away when the reckoning occurs, as the shells and frauds were when the dot bomb burst. 

As a general rule, things tend to turn out to be not as bad as you fear or as good as you hope.

This time round, the hope is about the level of bad.

The serious game is the impact both the reckoning and the AI promises will have on the real economy, on employment and wealth. That’s where the potential is for a GFC-scale event, not a piddling ’87 or dot bomb. 

And this time round, still carrying the cost of all their COVID efforts, governments and central banks will be less able to ameliorate the pain. We’re already reaping the result of a global easing cycle with global government deficit spending fuelling asset inflation with its subsequent wealth effect. After what was, with the benefit of hindsight, overcompensation during COVID, the ammo isn’t there to fight another shock.

Two quite different articles this month have highlighted the impossibility of the nirvana being promised by the AI investment promoters. Former colleague Alan Kohler writing for the ABC was the bleakest, seeing a future where a GFC-size bust is the least-worst option. 

Returns not there

The other is a note to clients by independent economist Gerard Minack showing the AI spend simply can’t generate the returns for investors  to justify it. 

I’ll come back to that. Kohler first, adding the AI and crypto bubbles together for frightening numbers:

Somewhere between $3 trillion and $6 trillion has been invested in building AI infrastructure and software, and that has been responsible for almost all US economic growth over the past year.

The top 10 American AI companies have provided most of the US stock market’s gains over the past two years and are now valued at $35 trillion, almost half the total market.

Meanwhile there are 20,000 cryptocurrencies worth $5.8 trillion, of which Bitcoin represents more than half.

The total cash in the AI and crypto bets is more than a quarter of global GDP; it’s probably the greatest technology investment boom/bubble in history.

No probably about it, in my opinion. It would not take a total crash to send shocks through the financial and real economies.

Jobs armageddon the quid pro quo

But Kohler’s Doomsday outcome is that it would be worse if the investment ends up being justified by profits created as it would create massive longterm unemployment for the many while the very few at the top continue on their present path of becoming even more unimaginably rich. 

Gerard Minack’s note has a smaller focus and thus more concrete outcome: there’s a lot of capital being burned. 

Minack limits his numbers to the “AI8” listed entities, Alphabet, Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta, Broadcom, Nvidia and Palantir. In this bubble phase, investors keep rewarding companies that increase planned AI-related investment spending. But:

“The larger the investment spend, the greater the revenue that will need to be generated to ensure an adequate return on that investment. In my view that revenue hurdle is already implausibly high. Whatever the technical wonders that AI will generate, the investment returns will disappoint. That will inevitably lead to significant market losses.”

Greatly simplyfying Minack’s analysis, the AI8 will conservatively have investment stock of more than US$1 trillion by the end of next year. That’s allowing for 20 per cent depreciation on an investment spend heading above US$2 trillion in 2027. (And a reminder that this is ignoring the investment spending of unlisted companies such as Open AI.)

$1T for a 10% return

So how much revenue will their AI businesses need to generate to get a reasonable return on this stock of invested capital? I’ll skip the details of Minack’s figuring but AI would need revenue of some US$925 billion a year to achieve a modest 10 per cent return on invested capital. And that return compares with the hyper-scalers’ current 25 per cent ROIC. 

By comparison, Minack quotes Praetorian Capital’s Harry Kupperman’s observation that the incredibly successful Microsoft Office 365 subscription services had revenue of US$94 billion last year. 

“In other words, to achieve an average ROIC, the AI industry will need to support 7-10 firms with businesses as widely deployed, and widely subscribed to, as Office 365.”

And then it gets harder. If the hyper-scalers’ current 50 per cent gross margin falls closer to the S&P500 average, they would require additional revenue of US$1.2-$1.6 trillion. As Minack concludes, “good luck with that”.

A further complication is that AI will cannibalise much of the hyper-scalers’ existing businesses. 

I would further speculate about what competition between that many players would do to margins. There’s also the well-reported phenomenon of much of the AI splurge being circular – the major players are hanging out and taking in a lot of each other’s washing.

Show me the money

It’s all good fun until investors reach the imminent “show me the money” stage and the music stops. 

That’s when the big boys take a hit and the fringe players, the bubble startups, lose their shirts. 

As for the concurrent crypto-bubble, RBA Governor Bullock last week pointed to the challenge for the financial system’s security if quantum computing ever effectively works. 

“If you believe what they say on the tin of quantum computing, what takes 200 years to decrypt now, to break, will take a matter of minutes. So it is a big threat,” she said. 

Decrypted crypto is no crypto at all. 

And the Toddler King

Then there is the little matter of the world’s biggest economy being run by a febrile toddler king and a mob of self-enriching accomplices. 

It all adds up to the biggest mystery: how markets are so willingly charging higher to yet more records regardless of risk with the biggest gains at the riskiest end.

On one hand there’s the view that the reckoning is always a little further off. On the other, the second law of “old bond dog” Anthony Peters comes to mind:

“Nobody gets fired for being long a falling market, but woe betide anyone short a rising market.”

Good luck with that, too. 

All the way with Donald J. Albo supporting mass murder

This post was originally published on Michael West.

A wave of similar AI-generated avatar videos is spreading online claiming a “migrant invasion” and that a “civil riot” is coming from “hard-working Australians. Rachel Jackson from AAP FactCheck investigates.

She looks every bit the city professional – sharp blazer, confident tone, polished backdrop.

But the woman issuing a rallying cry for this weekend’s anti-immigration marches and the end to Australia’s “invasion” hasn’t just stepped out of a CBD boardroom.

She’s a digital creation conjured by a few words fed into an artificial intelligence video generator.

An AAP FactCheck investigation reveals a wave of similar AI-generated avatar videos spreading online, pushing claims of a “migrant invasion” and election rigging, sometimes with violent overtones.

In one video, a gun-toting man stands before a cheering crowd, warning that a “civil riot” is coming from “hard-working Australians”.

A TikTok user has several AI-generated videos opposing immigration and tobacco and alcohol taxes

AAP FactCheck analysed content from two main accounts: LoveMyAu primarily features young, professional-looking female AI avatars across TikTok, X and Facebook; while SaltyHypsi showcases young Anglo-Australian men, often dressed in military gear on TikTok.

Many of the LoveMyAu videos promote anti-immigration March for Australia events, the latest of which was on Sunday.

“We must resist or we cease to exist,” a blue-suited woman says as she looks into the camera in one video.

“Invasions have never been welcomed,” declares another.

“Invaders do not get to walk in and take countries unopposed.”

Another video, which has attracted more than 70,000 views, shows a series of smartly dressed women strolling along a boardwalk, delivering lines reminiscent of a political broadcast.

“I believe the government has used mass immigration to manipulate election results,” one says.

The videos often appear like a slick political broadcast but are entirely created using AI

Other videos from the same account use similar avatars to accuse the government of throwing “our own people” to the streets to house migrants and urge Australians to “fight, fight, fight” or lose everything.

While the avatars are lifelike, they bear familiar AI hallmarks – unnaturally smooth skin, inconsistent lighting and shadows, while the lip-syncing is slightly off. Some clips still display the Veo watermark, identifying Google’s AI video generator.

The SaltyHypsi account includes avatars of soldiers, men addressing rallies and figures prompting viewers to sign petitions against digital ID and taxes on tobacco and alcohol.

One video with more than 60,000 views shows a man in body armour holding a gun before a crowd waving Australian flags.

“Our prime minister is refusing to take Australian citizens seriously,” he says.

“A civil riot is what is coming from hard-working Australians.”

In another, a man seemingly standing in the Australian bush declares: “Australia, the time for marching has ended and taking action might be our final chance to protect Australia and the future of our children”.

One AI-created avatar wears an army-green T-shirt while stating “the time for marching has ended”.

AAP FactCheck put a series of questions to both accounts but did not receive a response.

Such videos can be created in seconds by typing a prompt into one of the numerous text-to-video AI generators.

Dr Jessamy Perriam, a digital sociologist at ANU’s School of Cybernetics, says the appearance of the avatars is not accidental and they are likely designed to be an enhanced version of the people they would like to influence.

“They’re creating avatars to look like their aspirational acceptable Australian to others who don’t match that description,” Dr Perriam says.

AI also enables users to make their messages appear more socially acceptable by having them delivered by a “six o’clock TV news face” while preserving the anonymity of those behind it, she adds.

“Would there be as much engagement with these videos if it were just a video of the person creating it sitting in front of a webcam, saying the same words?”

A social media user created a range of women using AI to promote anti-immigration protests.

Bill Browne, a director at The Australia Institute who specialises in digital technology and political advertising, says the comments beneath many of the videos show some viewers are confused about whether the people depicted are genuine.

“It is disturbing how easy it is to make convincing depictions of something that never happened and someone who never existed,” he says.

“I don’t think politicians, regulators or the public fully appreciate yet the implications of artificial intelligence or large language models.”

University of Sydney academic Fiona Martin has researched AI and the use of deepfakes and says the use of such avatars is likely to expand rapidly in the coming years.

She sees the goal of this kind of content as an attempt to heighten emotional reactions, play to confirmation biases and encourage people to recruit others to the cause.

“The problem is, even if we regulate against AI political personas in Australia, you’re seeing hostile state actors running operations out of countries that will never regulate this activity,” she says.

Artists brace as AI, the greatest theft in history, swamps us now

This post was originally published on Michael West.

Scott Morrison, former PM and architect of Robodebt, got a large ‘secret handshake’ payout when sacked by Tourism Australia. After a 4-year battle the FOIs finally surface for Jommy Tee.

The political career of Scott Morrison was built on punching down at welfare recipients. Yet, in a bitter twist of irony, the architect of the pernicious Robodebt scheme was himself the beneficiary of a massive, secret overpayment when sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia in 2006.

Newly released documents, finally brought to light after a four-year Freedom of Information (FOI) battle, reveal that Scott Morrison was, according to the Remuneration Tribunal, overpaid by up to $212,000 in a “handshake” severance deal designed to facilitate his swift and quiet exit.

While Morrison later launched his infamous Robodebt “welfare cop” blitz a decade later – fronting the media straight-faced determined to crack down on rorters and those that had been allegedly overpaid – the highly inflated severance payment he himself received was never widely reported.

The FOI documents expose the hypocrisy at the heart of the matter: how the political class take care of their own while the innocent are fair game to be hunted, harassed and bullied. Morrison’s own windfall, paid out to ensure a “certainty and seamless” separation from the public service, was never pursued.  No “welfare cop” was sent to his door.

Minister Fran Bailey initiates Scomo’s sacking

The move to sack Scott Morrison from his post as Managing Director of Tourism Australia (TA) began with a single, decisive phone call in the last days of July 2006. It followed the “Where the bloody hell are you” campaign. New documents detailing the crisis – specifically the minutes and papers of Board Meeting No. 18, which spanned three days – reveal the machinations around his highly paid exit.

The sequence of events was swift and brutal. According to the board minutes, then Tourism Minister, Fran Bailey, who had reportedly clashed repeatedly with Morrison during his tenure, rang TA Chair Tim Fischer to deliver the message: she and the government had officially “lost confidence” in Morrison.

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

In response, the board sought a political quick fix—a strategy that led directly to the non-compliant severance deal.

Fischer wasted no time. On the morning of Thursday, July 27, he contacted Morrison to relay the Minister’s message.

The documents reveal Fischer made “seven points in relation to the matter” to Morrison. What those seven points entailed are not recorded in the documents. The message, however, was clear: “as a consequence an amicable ‘agreed separation’ should be sought.”

Loading…

Taking too long?

Reload document

| Open in new tab

Fischer informed Morrison that Deputy Chairman Tony Clark and others would meet with him the very next day, Friday, July 28, to begin discussions that would culminate in his rapid departure.

‘Secret Handshake’ deal finalised

Following the Minister’s wish to sack Morrison, the board papers confirm that the trio of Fisher, Clark and Morrison negotiated the over-inflated severance deal that saw Morrison overpaid by up to $212,000.

The lucrative “handshake” agreement required Board approval.

The proposal presented to the full board stated:

• “Following extensive discussions between the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and Managing Director, Mr Scott Morrison, it was agreed that Mr Morrison would depart TA with effect 15 September 2006.”

The minutes then “invite the Board to fully endorse this and to consider and endorse the preparation of a Deed of Release (in accord with the ‘handshakes’ done)” with the following main component:

• The Deed includes the provision in the broad of a 9.5 month contract separation payment and other standard exit arrangements.
• The Deed recognises that the Board seeks certainty, and to the extent possible, seamlessness in arriving at these agreed separation arrangements.

The document trail confirms the speed of the operation, suggesting that by Monday, July 31, just days after the sacking was initiated, “a handshake had been done with Scott Morrison” and he had “commenced packing up.” 

MWM has previously tried to access the Deed via FOI, but our requests were denied as TA does not hold an executed separation deed. The Information Commissioner cited TA’s failure to produce evidence of a mutual obligation of confidence, namely the relevant provisions of the executed separation agreement, in ordering TA to release this new slew of documents.

Board in breach in scramble for exemption, Rem Tribunal blindsided

Crucially, the documents confirm the board knew it was operating outside the rules.

The board resolved that the “handshake” severance settlement would require subsequent approval from the Remuneration Tribunal (Tribunal) via a special exemption.

The board minuted:

• To gain compliance of the separation package, an exemption was sought from the Remuneration Tribunal to agreed separation terms.
• The Board resolved that should the Remuneration Tribunal approve the exemption then the Chairman be given authority to execute the Deed, effective from 31 July 2006.

With the severance deal finalised through handshakes Fischer moved quickly to convince the Tribunal to grant an exemption from adhering to the official remuneration determinations.

Did Tourism Australia really get a KPMG report, or was it Scomo’s imagination?

The documents reveal that Fischer executed a gambit after the board meeting on the evening Tuesday, August 1, 2006, to secure the exemption. 

At 6:30 PM, Fischer called Tribunal head John Conde to discuss the “agreed separation”. While the content of that conversation is unclear, what followed four hours later was an exemption.

At 10:48 PM, Fischer emailed Conde, delivering a prepared file note: “You can consider the exemption granted, but a Statement of Reasons will be issued… at a later date”.

Fischer used this exemption to push the deal through instantly. He confirmed he had already signed the “Deed of Trust and Release” and that Morrison would sign the same document at 9:30 AM the next morning, “ensuring certainty and separation forthwith”.

By Wednesday, August 2, Fischer emailed his fellow directors confirming the deed was signed by both parties, copying Minister Bailey’s chief of staff, Dan Tehan, into the message. The deal was done.

Tribunal fury: ‘Unacceptable Precedent’ set

However, from the documents, it is apparent the Tribunal was left incensed by TA’s stitch-up. Feeling railroaded into accepting the terms, the Tribunal initiated a meeting with Minister Bailey and Dan Tehan on August 7 to discuss the premature departure.

The very next day, August 8, Conde fired off a blistering letter to Fischer.

While the letter begrudgingly accepted the exemption, it immediately raised serious concerns, noting: “We note that Tourism Australia agreed a termination benefit inconsistent with that fixed by the Tribunal.”

The Remuneration Tribunal’s letter to Fisher didn’t just expose the overpayment to Scott Morrison,

it heavily criticised the Board’s actions.

The Tribunal’s head, John Conde, revealed the massive disparity in Morrison’s severance deal. Based on Fischer’s advice, Conde said the board-approved payment to Morrison was equivalent to one year’s total remuneration, a payout of up to $332,030.

The Tribunal pointing out that official determination should have been based on salary and the remaining term of the appointment. Following the rules, the payment “would have been less than $120,000″—meaning Morrison walked away with up to $212,000 more than he was entitled.

Conde immediately categorised the entire situation as “highly unsatisfactory.”

Tribunal slams Board’s actions

The Tribunal’s letter also exposed how the board secured the deal: by disregarding and ignoring guidelines.

As the board had already given Morrison a “Deed of Release,” meaning he had “left Office on the basis of the deed provided to him.” Fischer had earlier advised the Tribunal the Commonwealth faced “the risk of litigation and additional cost” if they attempted to amend the payment terms.

In short, the board’s actions forced the government’s hand to pay the over-inflated sum.

Conde didn’t mince words, delivering a scathing rebuke that effectively read the riot act to Fischer.

He declared the board’s commitments “set an unacceptable precedent for the federal public sector.”

Conde was particularly incensed by the board’s claim that it was “unaware of the termination provisions” for Principal Executive Offices (PEOs). The Tribunal reminded Fischer of the numerous times it had corresponded with the board, and Fischer’s numerous replies confirming that all terms were to be in accordance with the PEO Determination and that “no consent had been given… for any departure.”

Where the bloody hell is it? Did Scott Morrison lie about the report that saved his bacon at Tourism Australia?

“It will be readily apparent to you… that the Tribunal has considerable difficulty in understanding how these vital aspect of PEO employment arrangements could have been overlooked by your Board,” Conde wrote pointedly.

To conclude, Conde demanded Fischer show cause how the board was implementing its responsibilities, copying Minister Fran Bailey – who initiated Morrison’s sacking – into the letter.

Fischer’s eventual reply on August 23 admitted error but tried to shift the blame, citing a “misunderstanding” between Tourism Australia and Gilbert and Tobin which “encouraged the view, wrong in actuality, that the need for Certainty and Seamlessness could override”.

The documents highlight the board engaged in atrocious governance and maladministration by prioritising a quick, amicable exit for Morrison over due process and fiscal responsibility, a scandal of which the Minister was made fully aware.

Documents reveal Liberal lobby firm Crosby Textor was slung a secret deal at Scott Morrison’s Tourism Australia

This post was originally published on Michael West.

When a Senator, John “Wacka” Williams, agitated strongly for the 2017 Banking Royal Commission. He is now an advisor to Commbank CEO Matt Comyn. Is there more to the story, Kim Wingerei asks?

The revelation that John Williams is an advisor to CommBank chief Matt Comyn comes at an interesting time. The National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) is looking into ASIC’s handling of a case directly linked to Comyn’s role in orchestrating a settlement to the former partner of another bank agitator, Geoff Shannon.

“It feels like a steamy thriller novel with endless twists,” Shannon told MWM. “There is the affair between a bank victim’s advocate’s girlfriend and a top National Australia Bank (NAB) executive, complete with pillow-talk emails. Later, that same woman, Natasha Keys, spilled 16,000 documents to ASIC to torpedo her ex-boyfriend’s career—right after scoring a secret $300,000+ payout from rival bank CBA.”

Shannon is the rambunctious founder of Unhappy Banking, who rallied hundreds of CBA-Bankwest victims against predatory lending, and who walked free in November 2023 after a Queensland Magistrates Court slammed the door on ASIC’s case. Charged under section 206A of the Corporations Act for allegedly pulling strings at Business and Personal Solutions Pty Ltd (BAPS) while bankrupt, Shannon was acquitted when Magistrate M Bamberry ruled the prosecution couldn’t prove he intentionally or recklessly meddled in the company’s core decisions.

The court dissected the tangled ties between Unhappy Banking (a high-profile advocacy outfit) and BAPS (a fee-charging consultancy), siding with witnesses like original BAPS director Robert Fitzalan, who swore Shannon was just a consultant, not a shadow boss.

“Hi Babe” Case: ASIC witnesses mauled in court, Commbank embarrassed, evidence ends abruptly

During the trial, a web of infidelity, fat-cat settlements, and regulatory blind spots was exposed. And now, nearly two years on, Shannon’s fight is with the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), asked to dig into claims of political backroom deals that Shannon suggests ignited the whole mess.

Leaked emails and late-night confessions

It started innocently enough in 2014, or so it seemed. Keys, then Shannon’s partner and BAPS director, was juggling client disputes with the big four banks. But court transcripts later revealed an affair with Simon Graystone, NAB’s director of corporate banking. While championing victims against the very institutions bleeding them dry, Keys was whispering secrets in the sheets.

In an email read in court, Keys wrote to Graystone, tipping him off about Shannon’s Unhappy Banking’s media blitz on a vulnerable NAB client, a disabled woman being forcefully evicted by NAB from her farm. The plan? Leak the story to Channel Nine’s A Current Affair to force a settlement.

In court, Shannon’s defence barrister, Saul Holt KC, grilled Keys until she invoked privilege against self-incrimination over 30 times. Her credibility shredded, the Emails showed her plotting a rival venture behind Shannon’s back, contradicting her affidavit claiming she quit BAPS because banks blackballed him.

As it turned out, Keys had her own personal battle with CBA, and she had met with CBA CEO Matt Comyn in 2018, negotiating a settlement involving her mortgage of $272,000 vanishing in addition to $309,000 “compensation for loss of equity and personal possessions.”

Why the CEO of Australia’s largest bank, with $1.35 trillion in assets and over 50,000 staff, got personally involved in Keys’ case, remains a mystery. Immediately after her settlement, Keys turned to Journalist Ben Butler to publish stories about Shannon and handed ASIC her document dump and volunteers as a star witness in the case ASIC lost.

Under Holt’s crossfire, ASIC investigator Nathan Miller squirmed, admitting he took Keys’ trove “at face value” without chasing Shannon’s exculpatory evidence. No verification of her affair, no probe into her CBA windfall—just a “one-eyed” rush to trial. The magistrate ordered ASIC to foot the bill for the defence to comb through the undisclosed 16,000 files, a humiliating own-goal.

How did it all start?

Geoff Shannon tells MWM that he believes his troubles started many years earlier. In 2013, he learnt of a hush-hush luncheon between John “Wacka” Williams, then a Nationals senator crusading against bank greed, and then CBA General Counsel, David Cohen.

Williams had his own history with CBA, losing his farm after being lured into the infamous foreign currency loan schemes that the CBA was spruiking in the mid-eighties (as documented in Adele Ferguson’s book “Banking Bad”). When he was elected to the Senate in 2008, he became an outspoken critic of bank behaviour and was one of the chief agitators for the Banking Royal Commission. He retired from the Senate in 2019.

Shannon claims that Cohen and Williams inked a confidential settlement that flipped his script. Suddenly, Williams went soft on CBA scrutiny. Shannon also alludes to the secrecy around the BankWest share deal. He did have a copy, and Williams wanted to see it, but Shannon refused. Williams later strong-armed it via Shannon’s media manager, Ross Waraker.

When Shannon confronted Williams about it, threats flew: “Friends in high places would bury him”.

Enter the NACC

In September 2023, Shannon submitted a case to the NACC, where he alleged that ASIC colluded against him and that Williams wielded his influence with ASIC to go after him. It includes a trove of documents, including a lawyer warning him not to spill to then PM Tony Abbott about Williams’ “secret deal.”

After first dismissing the case, the NACC has reopened another preliminary investigation after Shannon provided it with more documents. Shannon is hoping that this may ultimately validate his belief that his ASIC hellfire stemmed from his knowing too much.

From the earlier ASIC slapdown in 2015 (no disqualification) to this courtroom coup, Shannon has weathered the storm. But as NACC pokes the bear, he declares, “My campaign isn’t over. Political strings pulled my ASIC troubles from the start.”

“And what of this alliance between CBA’s Comyn and Williams? A deeper quid pro quo, or mere coincidence?”

With banks still devouring the vulnerable and regulators playing favourites  – why chase a small fry when casino kings walk free?

Shannon’s saga spotlights the rot. Will justice finally bite back? Stay tuned, this tangled tale of sex, secrets, and settlements is far from its final chapter.

MWM put questions to both CBA, who merely referred to media reports, and to John Williams, who replied,

“I first met Matt when he became CEO. He made the effort to come to Inverell to meet with me. Just prior to my valedictory speech, February 13th 2019, Andrew Hall, who was PA for Matt, told me about the Advisory Committee Matt had formed. It is a committee of around 8 people from various industries, and asked if I would be part of the committee. I agreed to join it as it gave me a direct link with CBA once out of politics. I see my job on the Advisory Committee is to inform Matt on regional issues.

Yes we do get paid for each of the three meetings a year but you wouldn’t rely on the payments to keep you alive.”

Did Commbank, corporate cops and senior journos collude to take down bank victims advocate?

This post was originally published on Michael West.

A financial mismanagement scandal has hit the sport of Ice Hockey in Australia, and its President has stepped down in disgrace. Sandi Logan with the story.

Ice Hockey is not a major sport in Australia, or anywhere else in the southern hemisphere. In Northern and Eastern Europe, Russia and North America, however, it has a huge following as a professional (and Olympic) sport. But now the game of heavy padding, squared off sticks, and flat pucks is making headlines for all the wrong reasons.

In what has come as no surprise to many in Australia’s small and disparate (some say desperate) ice hockey community, president, Dr Ryan O’Handley, has stepped down in disgrace, admitting to understating financial losses at Ice Hockey Australia (IHA).

Indications are his board’s underreporting runs into at least six figures – maybe much more.

“Recognising the inconsistencies from the past reporting period, Dr O’Handley will step down as President and Chair of the Board,” newly appointed president Tim Kitching said in a 9 September statement posted to IHA’s website. “Last financial year’s reported losses are expected to be larger than initially stated.”

Kitching said there were no indications yet of potential fraud or misappropriation, but he has ordered “a thorough investigation and review” into the organisation’s finances with a two-week deadline.

He said until such time as the evidence suggests anything more than the re-issuing of an accurate financial statement, he wouldn’t speculate on any matters being referred to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission and/or the Victorian Police Fraud Squad.

Skating on thin ice

In February 2022, the former treasurer of the 5000-member strong IHA, Adrian Miller was was dumped from the board in a coup.

Miller had stood up to then-Melbourne fraudster Grove Bennett, who O’Handley backed into the role as president at the same time. Canadian creditors were chasing the Australian fugitive for over $1M in unpaid debts as he made his run for the presidency of the IHA board.

Corporate chicanery unveiled, Ice Hockey Australia supremo gets iced

“When I was deposed, IHA’s members were left with $1.9m in cash reserves, and that’s now down to $328,000 if the accounts submitted are to be believed – which IHA has admitted they cannot be,” says Miller.

Ice hockey has been played in Australia since 1906, and is one of the International Ice Hockey Federation’s oldest members. It has attracted a cohort of questionable characters to staff its board.

IHA operates under the Corporations Act 2001 as a company limited by guarantee.

Members’ annual dues are essentially its sole income. The only time in recent years the IHA has secured taxpayer (Commonwealth) funding was when the Department of Social Services allocated $342,000 in 2022 for the sport’s fledgling para (or sled) hockey program. Both the men’s and women’s para teams travel overseas, competing in events where they are regularly humiliated by far stronger and more experienced opposition. Scores of 40-0 are not uncommon.

No financial records have ever been published on IHA’s website or released to its membership about this program. “If I were still on the IHA board,” says Miller, “I’d be shoring up my own case against an accusation of impropriety.”

Poor reporting and governance

A respected Victorian businessman (who asked to remain nameless) with a strong community sports background said: “I’m amazed at the continual incompetence being overlooked or accepted by the membership-paying people. Unjustifiable spending seems to go unnoticed or not challenged.”

Kitching, a former NSW police officer and detective, who transitioned into roles in risk management, governance and more recently as an Executive Coach, was appointed to the IHA board in July; weeks later, he has been catapulted into the president’s chair.

“Dr O’Handley stepped down at a Board meeting on September 5,” Kitching told me. “I am not privy to any conversation/s prior to July with the ex-president or treasurer, and would be cautious to speculate as such.”

Those familiar with that 5 September meeting describe it as tense and at times confrontational. O’Handley was queried about a lack of supporting evidence for IHA expenditure. He allegedly said it was not necessary to share that with the eight member associations, let alone the broader membership. Several board members stood up to O’Handley, demanding transparency and accountability, at which point O’Handley threw in the towel.

Kitching told MWM,

In short, this is an issue of poor governance, poor communication and poor financial control.

“I need time to speak with all my fellow directors to establish the best way forward. We cannot simply operate on a break-even basis year in and year out.”

“Ice Hockey Australia is committed to sharing the updated financial position for FY25 with our key stakeholders, and if the regulation requires, an amended statement to ASIC or any other body. The loss relates to growing costs and over-investment with national teams and leagues, a reduction in key income streams, and complications with the timing of funding.”

“Ice Hockey Australia does not believe there’s been any impropriety, and are committed to a full, transparent, and thorough review as we seek to establish the best governance standards in sport. We will be transparent with our member associations regarding the outcome.”

 Another former president of Ice Hockey Australia and veteran company director, Sydney-based Miranda Ransome, says, “I don’t think member associations are all that engaged, so they probably have no idea about the business of IHA and what the pertinent issues may be.

“In most instances, they are struggling to do their jobs at a state level. Clearly, it was a disengaged board that didn’t understand its fiduciary duties,” she said.

Herein lies the great challenge for IHA: its constitution assigns control to its eight member associations, a small pool of electors easy to control and corral into a voting bloc. There has long been a call to adopt an election model in which 5,000 members vote directly for board members to manage and operate IHA.

Cover-up over: Scott Morrison’s ‘Sports Rorts’ advice finally released

This post was originally published on Michael West.