Letters from a Disappearing Country

Interview with Alison Bevege on Migration, Housing, and Lost Sovereignty

Alison Bevege spent a decade as a full-time journalist in Darwin, including stints embedded with NATO piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa and covering superannuation in Sydney’s finance sector. By 2020 she was at Daily Mail Australia, but something felt wrong. The COVID pandemic coverage made her uncomfortable. She didn’t want to be locked down, working remotely with a laptop, so she applied to become a bus driver - essential workers couldn’t be locked down. While driving buses through Sydney in 2021, she heard Matt Taibbi on Joe Rogan’s podcast urging journalists to start Substacks even if their following was small. On December 15, 2021, she published her first post for Letters from Australia at an unvaccinated protest in Hyde Park, documenting teachers, nurses, police, and firefighters kicked out of their jobs for refusing the COVID vaccine. Five likes, two comments. She kept going because it felt like Australia was descending into a digital East Germany, and she needed to document what was happening with primary sources while she still could.

What she found went far beyond COVID mandates. The 2021 Census showed 43.2% of Sydney’s inhabitants were born overseas. Only 31% had both parents born in Australia. The city had fragmented into ethnic enclaves where English signs disappeared entirely, creating what felt less like a home and more like an airport terminal. The housing shortage wasn’t an accident. Australia’s population grew from 19 million in 2000 to a projected 28 million this year, with Sydney’s population jumping from 4 million to 5.6 million - entirely through migration controlled by the government. They knew exactly what domestic housing capacity was. Importing too many people for the market to absorb wasn’t a mistake that happened for decades. Governments loved pushing up housing demand because rising prices made money for developers, super funds, banks, and construction unions, while the tax take from Capital Gains Tax and Stamp Duty climbed with the prices. Both major parties pushed through tax incentives for build-to-rent developers - 50% land tax reductions - while homeowners paid full rates. The federal government announced plans to import 13.5 million more people by 2065, bringing the population to 41.2 million. That’s importing another Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane worth of people, ensuring the housing crisis continues for the next forty years at 235,000 migrants per year - more than double the post-World War II average that was already unprecedented.

Individual home ownership is freedom. People were being pushed out of ownership into smaller and more collectivized dwellings, and then finally into build-to-rent towers owned by corporations they had no control over - like BlackStone pension funds that could set building rules about medical interventions. Without mass migration, these towers wouldn’t be needed. Australia’s birth rate sat below replacement. There was enough housing for the existing population. The introduction of Native Title created a murky overlay of corporate-held rights that eroded the clarity of private property ownership. At least eleven nations rejected the WHO’s International Health Regulations amendments, but Australia embraced them. According to DFAT, the IHR amendments entered into force in September 2025, requiring states to develop core capacity for risk communication including addressing misinformation and disinformation - the same language used during COVID to censor opposition to coercive mRNA vaccine products and lockdowns. The regulations required states to create communication links for the WHO to disseminate recommendations directly to hospitals, airports, ports, ground crossings, and laboratories, including recommendations about the country’s own territory. A global governance body communicating directly with all key operational areas and border crossings.

Most people who consumed mainstream media and were prevented from seeing Substacks like Bevege’s by social media censorship still had no idea what happened. Those who didn’t personally know someone injured by the gene-vaccines still thought a miracle of science saved society from a deadly pandemic and politicians just did their best in a crisis. They moved on, giving medals to the worst perpetrators while the injured were swept aside and the mRNA industry built an empire of influence. Bevege kept documenting it all from her bus driver’s seat and then from her keyboard, building her Substack month by month, taking a break now to finish a book on the COVID panic. She contributed a chapter to Covid Through Our Eyes, edited by Professor Robert Clancy and Dr. Melissa McCann, the Queensland GP spearheading the COVID vaccine class action. Everyone contributed for free, and after repaying publishers, all funds went to help the class action that was still alive. She wrote it all for free and in the public interest, asking only that people read and share the work - primary source documentation of how a country quietly transformed itself while most of its citizens looked the other way.

With thanks to Alison Bevege.

Letters from Australia | Alison Bevege | Substack

1. Alison, can you please walk us through your journey from mainstream journalism to independent reporting? What specific events led you to start Letters from Australia?

I worked as a full-time sub-editor and reporter for the NT News in Darwin, NT, for 10 years with a break in the middle, in 2008-09 where I spent a year in Africa travelling around and freelancing, including stringing for Reuters in Nairobi during which time I did two stints as an embedded reporter sleeping in the sick bay of a Portuguese frigate doing piracy patrols for NATO around the Horn of Africa. I returned from my African adventure to work for a short time on a finance magazine covering superannuation from where I went back up to Darwin to work on the NT News again, which I loved.

I was having a great time being a business and general journalist at the NT News until 2014 when an unexpected family disaster meant I had to urgently fly to Sydney. This entirely derailed my career. By 2020, I was working at Daily Mail Australia in Sydney as a casual reporter four days per week. During covid, at first I did not see through the pandemic scam. But I did become uncomfortable with some of the stories we were doing. I also did not want to be locked down, working from home remotely with a laptop. I did not like where things were going, so I applied to be a bus driver. Bus drivers could not work from home or be locked down as they were “essential workers”. It took quite a long time to go through the hiring process but I left Daily Mail in 2021 and became a bus driver.

It was supposed to be a temporary measure but I quite enjoyed the break, especially as the country descended further into madness and coercion over the covid vaccines. While I was driving one day, I was listening to leading journalist Matt Taibbi on Joe Rogan’s podcast and he urged other journalists to start Substacks even if their following was small. So I did. I really am a journalist, I can’t give it up, so I started Letters From Australia to try to make sense of what was going on, and to document with primary source material, as much as possible, what was happening during the covid panic.

I especially wanted to pin the facts down about the covid jabs that our government was forcing the entire population to take, while dishonestly pretending that we were not being forced. It felt like we were descending into a digital East Germany. It made no sense at all, it was hurting people, the censorship was disgraceful and I wanted to be able to write about it, freely.

My first Substack post was on 15 December, 2021. I went to join the unvaccinated at their Hold The Line protest in Hyde Park. I was shocked at how many professional teachers, nurses, police and firefighters were there, all kicked out of their jobs for refusing a medical intervention, the covid vaccine, that they did not need.

My first post only got five likes and two comments, but I persisted and built it up from there. I have been updating the Substack roughly every month since then, taking a break now to finish a book on the Covid panic. Even though everyone seems to have written a book and perhaps another one is not what the world needs, I feel like I have something to say, perhaps in a new way, that might reach people who still don’t know what happened. You’d be amazed to realise how many people that is. Most people who consume mainstream media and who were prevented from seeing Substacks like mine by social media censorship, still do not have any idea what happened. Those who do not personally know someone injured by the gene-vaccines still think a “miracle of science” saved the whole of society from a deadly pandemic and the politicians just did their best in a crisis. They have just moved on, giving medals to the worst perpetrators while the injured are swept aside and the mRNA industry builds an empire of influence.

2. Your research shows 43.2% of Sydney’s inhabitants were foreign-born as of 2021. How does the government use migration numbers to deliberately create housing shortages?

Yes, the Australian Bureau of Statistics 2021 Census shows 43.2% of Sydney’s inhabitants were born overseas. Only 31% of Sydneysiders had both parents born in Australia.

Source: https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/1GSYD

What that means in reality is that residents who have been here for more than a couple of generations are a minority in their own city. There are large ethnic enclaves where you won’t see any signs in English. The city is fragmented. In some ways that is interesting and vibrant, with different foods, interesting cultures, and people with new perspectives and stories. But in other ways it is culturally tiring and you often get a sense that the city is an airport terminal rather than an actual home. It lacks social cohesion. People are becoming more tribal, especially with the influx of Islam, an ideology which seeks to dominate. And now there is a massive housing shortage.

The shortage is deliberately created because the government sets the migration intake numbers, and policy makers know very well what the domestic housing capacity is. Importing too many people for the housing market to comfortably absorb is not a mistake, it has been happening for decades. They know what they are doing.

In the year 2000, Australia’s population was about 19 million of which about 4 million lived in Sydney. Real estate was already expensive then, but it was then that the government started really ramping up the migrant numbers, egged on by the Big Australia lobby. Because Australia’s housing market is relatively small compared to larger countries such as the US, smaller variations in the migration numbers have a direct effect on housing demand.

The more people you bring in, the more demand there is for shelter. There are more potential renters and buyers competing for housing stock.

Governments, both Federal and State, love to push up demand for housing because rising prices makes money for their friends (developers, super funds, banks and the CFMEU construction union workers) and because the tax take is tied to rising prices (Capital Gains Tax federally and Stamp Duty at a state level).

The housing market is central to the economy and to people’s economic well-being. People save their hardest for a deposit and pay off their mortgage over their working life so they can retire. Their home is their savings. They try to buy an investment property if they can so they can sell it later to fund their retirement. They will then sell their home to pay for aged care services, or will try to leave their home to their children. Their superannuation fund will be invested in Australian stocks, which will include the Big Four banks whose loan books are dominated by domestic real estate. A real estate crash would be devastating. The whole economy would be destroyed. No government wants a crash. So they pursue policies that push the housing market ever upward.

If it were just left stable to slightly rising this might not be a problem. But around 2000 the Federal Government started increasing the migrant numbers by quite a lot – and to keep the ponzi going, the rate has to increase even more. And it has now become completely unsustainable.

Other industries such as the universities (foreign student fees) became addicted to migration and thus lobbied for it putting more pressure on government to increase the numbers.

The universities also helped to filter migrants for wealth, as those who could afford the high university fees came from wealthier families overseas. On graduating, they became the professional class here, able to afford mortgage repayments.

Increased demand puts upward pressure on home prices and creates a shortage where there isn’t enough housing stock to go round and if more cannot be built quickly enough.

Red tape is what developers love to blame as they would like to build rapidly with no rules and make a quick buck. Sydney has seen several disasters such as the Opal Tower and Mascot Towers where residents had to be evacuated due to shoddy and unsafe construction of cheap and nasty high-rise apartments.

In the 1970s it was quite normal for a family live in a three-bedroom brick home with a bit of garden in Sydney. Now people can barely afford a tiny unit.

This year the population is projected to be about 28 million, of which about 5.6 million live in Sydney

The increase was entirely due to migration, controlled by the government, which has directly caused the housing shortage.

3. You’ve documented that build-to-rent developers get 50% land tax reductions while homeowners pay full rates. Who pushed these tax breaks through Parliament?

Both major parties, both conservative (Liberal/Nationals) and Labor are giving tax incentives. Some are at state level and others at Federal level.

The individual politicians who have supported Built-To-Rent through Parliament can be seen on this public interest website here, that tallies how representatives vote: https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/policies/326

Labor and Greens politicians have supported it, and the Teals – an unregistered political party backed by billionaire Simon Holmes a Court that masquerades as a group of independents – also supports it.

Allegra Spender, the Teal MP for Wentworth (my own electorate) has run housing forums pushing Build-To-Rent and developer/finance interests, at which she invites presenters from charities and think tanks who promote mass migration into a housing crisis. At these stage-managed events, Ms Spender sidelines and dismisses the voices of residents who raise mass migration as an issue and presents the economic case for “solving” the problem as supply-side only. Never demand. Demand is never mentioned despite the obvious problem of pumping it up artificially through migration policy, and the obvious solution of simply reducing it.

The conservative Liberal Party (with whom the Teals compete) also does this. So does Labor. The left-wing Greens simply frame anyone who raises objections as “racist” and pretends there are thousands of homes lying empty because greedy people are land-banking. This is absurd because a property cannot be insured if it is empty and damage by squatters or fire would cost large amounts of money to repair.

No major political party in Australia resists mass migration because of the powerful migration lobby, which ties every side of politics in.

On the conservative side it’s the big banks, pension funds and developers such as Mereton and Stocklands and the Business Council of Australia and Property Council of Australia, and the corporations including the universities which now are run like corporations dependent on foreign student fees instead of a social service for the education of the next generation of Australians.

On Labor’s side it’s the construction lobby from the powerful CFMEU: the Construction, Forestry, Maritime Employees Union. They love a building industry boost as it’s jobs for their members. Also, the Superannuation industry now provides an important power base for Labor, because industry super funds by law must have half of their directors nominated by a union. That means Labor is able to control billions of dollars of industry super fund money through their investment arm, Industry Funds Management. That means they are represented with significant share holdings in many of the corporations that will profit from the mass migration boost to the building industry.

Also on the Labor-Greens side, it’s the charities from ACOSS (Australian Council of Social Services) who get a seat at the table and funds from the housing “crisis”. Notable, ACOSS is also a partner to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals, helping to implement them in Australia.

They frame this as helping the poor and reducing inequality but in reality it pushes globalism and mass migration, eroding national sovereignty with global governance.

ACOSS participates in the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals summits, where they get together with other groups to work out how they will collaborate with government, academia, civil society and business to implement the UN’s 2030 blueprint.

For example here they are in 2016: https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/FINAL-Australian-SDGs-Summit-Outcomes-Document.pdf

ACOSS has a five-year impact strategy from 2023 to 2028 which can be seen at this link here:

https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/ACOSS-Five-Year-Impact-Strategy_FINAL_14-July-2023-accessible-version-2.pdf

I have broken down some of the reasons behind the demonisation of private property ownership and the promotion of Build-to-Rent here:

Link is here:

Globalists won the election and they are coming for your house

There is also the economic problem caused by decades of the migration Ponzi. Because so many industries now depend on ever-increasing levels of migration, it would cause widespread hardship if it were reduced. Property price falls would cause universities to lose revenue, the construction industry to lose jobs and bank shares to crash, harming the superannuation of retirees and sending the economy into a tailspin.

It’s not easy to fix - but if something is not done to reduce mass migration soon the country will cease to exist in any meaningful or continuous sense. Some entity will be here but it won’t be “Australia”.

4. Physical title deeds were cancelled on October 11, 2021, with all records moved to Amazon Web Services. What does this mean for homeowners’ actual ownership rights?

It doesn’t affect the actual ownership rights. Those have not changed to my knowledge.

But yet it undermines them profoundly in other ways. Extrajudicial ways. Process ways. By injecting systemic uncertainty.

It introduces uncertainty into a system that previously was rock solid. Proof of ownership for NSW home-owners is now digital only. Amazon Web Services (AWS) holds the sole-source of this proof of ownership on behalf of NSW Land Registry Services, the private consortium that bought the rights to manage land titles when the Land Titles Office was sold off as a 35-year lease by the NSW Liberal Berejiklian government in 2016.

On October 20 this year (2025), AWS went down, bringing down more than 1000 sites and services including Lloyds Bank, as the BBC reported. Australia’s ABC News reported on it here - but with no mention of how it might affect home-owners in NSW.

If a person in NSW has a dispute over land ownership, their print-out of their digital certificate of title is NOT a legal proof of ownership that can be taken to court.

By contrast, the old written title deed WAS legal proof of ownership.

I find this profoundly disturbing.

What if there is a power outage from say, a solar flare or an EMP attack. Boom – your record is gone.

What if Amazon Web Services sustains a massive hack attack that is much more permanent than the outage they suffered in October. How will you argue ownership? What if they make a mistake on an entry in their system - even a small one such as on a caveat on the property or a boundary marker?

The Audit Office of NSW when it looked at the regulation of the land titles registry (7 years into the 35 year concession) said there was “limited transparency to Parliament and the community about the concession deed and the ORG’s approach to regulation”. (ORG is the Office of Registrar General).

It said:

“The land titles registry contains significant spatial, financial, commercial and personal data. Despite its importance, there is relatively little publicly available detail about the concession or the ORG’s approach to the regulation of the private operator and other system participants.”

Again, this is profoundly disturbing.

Also, if you need to correct something or challenge something, for example an obsolete caveat error on the deed, in the past an individual home owner could simply go into the Land Titles Office and talk to staff and sort it out, usually filling out a form for a small fee. Now, because it is digital, you are forced to use a lawyer who has been accredited to use the new digital system, increasing the costs and complexity.

The certainty of title, the rock-solid faith in the land ownership system is the central pillar of Australian society. If that is knocked out, it’s a national security issue. We can’t function as a nation.

5. The TGA claims only 14 deaths are “linked to” COVID vaccines out of 1,039 reported fatalities, despite 304 deaths occurring within the first week of injection. How are they dismissing these deaths?

They simply blame the proximal cause rather than the distal cause. They don’t go looking for evidence that the vaccine might have caused the death.

They don’t investigate, and you can’t find what you don’t look for.

For example: if someone dies of a heart attack within a week of their shot, then how do you know if it was caused by the gene-vaccine or if they would have died anyway?

If you don’t go looking for the reason why they had a heart attack, then you can just say they died of a heart attack, as the TGA does.

If you conduct an autopsy and take heart tissue samples and get a pathologist to see if there are vaccinal spikes present in heart tissue, then you can find out if the vaccine was implicated in the heart attack or not.

But the TGA did not urge people to conduct autopsies, didn’t recommend it or even mention it. I even asked them in a media request quite early on, and no, they did not recommend them. So why would anyone look? Nobody looked.

The TGA just dismisses these deaths as by other proximate causes on an individual basis. You can see them on the Database of Adverse Event Notifications here: https://daen.tga.gov.au/medicines-search/

But you have to search by individual vaccine, and then find the deaths. They don’t break them down to those in the first week (that number comes from the TGA’s FOI log, request 25-0047)

For example if you search the DAEN for Spikevax (moderna) just now, you will find 44 reported deaths and they are listed by category. There are 14 listed for “adverse event following immunisation”, then 7 for cardiac arrest, 5 for general disorders and administration site conditions, and 4 for infections and infestations (pneumonia).

If you search DAEN right now for Comirnaty (Pfizer) you will find 485 reported deaths, and they will be broken down to say: Nervous System Disorders (dizziness) – 7 deaths. Cardiac arrest – 50 deaths. Adverse Event Following Immunisation - 108 deaths.

If someone has a stroke in the week after their shot, who is to say whether the shot caused it especially if there is no autopsy to look for vaccinal spikes. Who knows what caused the stroke? The person died of a stroke. The doctor will certify that they died of a stroke, they’ll report the death and the TGA will look at the records and just say it’s unrelated.

Journalist Rebekah Barnett reported on the fact that of 35 reports of deaths that occurred the same day as injection, the TGA only did a causality assessment for 24. The remaining 11 had no causality report available. You can see her story here.

6. You obtained FOI documents showing 35 people died the day of vaccination, 52 the next day. What’s the TGA’s standard protocol for investigating deaths after a new drug, and how did COVID change that?

It wasn’t I that obtained the FOI, I just found it on the published FOI log, after I heard regulatory expert Phillip Altman refer to it in a podcast. I looked it up and downloaded it, checked it, saw it was true, and wrote it into a story and linked to it so people could see the primary evidence.

The TGA is supposed to first investigate deaths reported to the Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) first by checking the basic details and then, if it was unexpected and without an obvious non-vaccine cause, escalating it to the Vaccine Safety Investigation Group (VSIG) which you can see here.

Its members include officials from the Advisory Committee on Vaccines, TGA, Office of Health Protection, the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation (ATAGI) and others.

This VSIG then assesses causality using an internationally accepted method to rate the level of certainty, and fills out a form using a template.

The TGA is then supposed to publish the results of these independent assessments on its website, accompanied by a summary of the case.

However during covid, very few reviews were conducted and some sudden unexpected events such as child deaths were not referred to VSIG.

As the Covid Vaccine Class Action alleges here, there were systemic faults in the process for those reviews that were conducted, including refusal to publish results.

Freedom of information request 3727, lodged by Queensland GP Dr Melissa Mccann who is spearheading the class action, showed deaths with a causal relationship to the vaccine – but they were withheld from publication from the freedom of information public disclosure log, because they could “undermine public confidence” (see p.446 of the Class Action statement of claim, here).

Of five reported deaths listed in the DAEN including two child deaths, only one had been published in the TGA safety reports, as Rebekah Barnett documents here.

During Covid, the drug safety investigation system was completely broken, and not just by deficiencies in the TGA’s internal processes.

It was comprehensively broken by a whole-of-society system of propaganda and censorship.

The drug safety system was compromised back in 2018 when the new category of provisional approval was created, allowing new drugs onto the market faster and with less testing than is required for full approval.

The TGA was therefore supposed to be more vigilant with provisionally registered medications, which are subject to increased reporting requirements since they have not been tested to the degree of a fully registered product.

The black triangle scheme was introduced to alert doctors and the public of the need to report any suspected problem or side-effect as you can see here.

People were supposed to report any new medical condition that even “might” be ascribed to the new medication – even if it wasn’t proven or they weren’t sure, so that it could be investigated.

They needed this to build the safety profile of the new drug.

That is why the Black Triangle Scheme was introduced as part of the 2018 legislation that introduced the new category of Provisional Registration, which allowed products onto the market at speed without testing to the standard of full registration.

You can see the TGA’s 2018 provisional approval pathway explanation here.

But nobody heard of this. The government short-circuited this entire reporting system during covid by simply not advertising the Black Triangle and what it meant – even some doctors say they hadn’t heard of it.

The combination of no public awareness of the need to report suspected injuries coupled with a massive and extensive advertising campaign pushing the gene-vaccines as the “best way” to “protect yourself and your loved ones” from covid meant that people were effectively brainwashed.

All health workers were given the clear message not to complain about the new gene-vaccines when their licensing bodies AHPRA and the Medical Boards told them not to say anything bad about them on social media or risk disciplinary action in March 2021 in this statement here, which came complete with a handy link to report any transgressors.

Well you can imagine what this did to a voluntary injury reporting system.

This is the reason why thousands of people were injured but never reported it. And their doctors didn’t either.

Even if they knew they had been vaccine injured, people didn’t know they were supposed to report it or how to report it even if they wanted to.

So the official figures that built the safety profile of the covid gene-vaccine are all wrong.

The figures are completely wrong and yet the TGA gives them out in reports and statements as if they are fact.

The drug reporting system in Australia for the covid vaccines was completely broken. It doesn’t work. It might as well not even exist at all, it’s just theatre. It’s all lies.

Any journalist who reports the TGA figures on covid vaccine deaths and injuries as if it is fact now, instead of a disputed claim, is no better than a propagandist. No better than Pravda under the old USSR.

7. John Skerritt went from heading the TGA straight to Medicines Australia. How common is this revolving door between regulators and the companies they oversee?

In May last year John Skerritt co-wrote regulatory recommendations on mRNA platform technology with Moderna employee Carolyn Tucek-Szabo, in a paper funded by Moderna, whose mRNA product the TGA approved for covid.

That’s WAY WORSE than simply going to work for the company. He is helping them write the rules.

Mark McDonald went from the TGA (21 years) to work at GSK Australia.

I can’t give you a percentage or a number. But I would say it only takes a couple of people to do it, for the rest of the workers to see this and modify their behaviour in order to keep their future career options open.

Also a problem is the excitement of funding agencies and government bureaucracies to foster the mRNA industry. They want to fund an industry that creates lots of jobs and more funding, and then these projects are co-funded by industry.

The former regulators and medical scientists who want their research funded will then go to work in research hubs that are co-funded by the companies that profit from it. So then their resume will look clean, as in they are not directly conflicted by working for the company – but the translational science hub that they work for, is.

So the problem is systemic. The drug cartel launders its influence by creating consortia and alliance partners with universities, governments and NGOs, then launching “independent” research, like Sanofi has in Queensland, or Moderna in Melbourne. That’s how influence catches the whole system.

The revolving door is a problem not just here but across jurisdictions including in the US (FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb went to the board of Pfizer, FDA chief scientist Jesse Goodman went to the board of GSK) and UK (Jonathan Van Tam went from UK deputy chief medical officer to Moderna as a senior medical consultant).

The same model is globally applied.

Industry always tries to recruit regulatory officials because they have the expertise and the contacts to help streamline their products through the regulatory process.

The situation is amplified by NGO third-parties who act as proxies for industry, such as the Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust in the UK.

They and their proxies act as respectable go-betweens to the political class, recruiting former politicians, the military and spy state, and the drug cartel.

Where it would look bad for Pfizer, Moderna, GSK or Astrazeneca, or the US military, to directly fund the WHO, the Gates Foundation does it. Where it would look bad for the CIA or DARPA to tell Australia to pay $8 billion for gene-vaccines, CEPI can do it. The Wellcome Trust funds Oxford University - which conducted an unfavourable trial on Ivermectin (competitor to the gene-vaccine), with the results delayed for a year. It was headed by the former head of MI6. They are connected to the Anglo-American security state as well as the Big Pharma drug cartel.

Gates Foundation and Wellcome trust give out billions in funding and create subsidiary entities.

So worse than regulators directly going to the companies they oversee, is that their entire ecosystem is stitched up by the drug cartel and the security state through organisationally laundered third party proxies – of which there is now an entire ecosystem. There are hundreds of them.

Then it’s arms-length and hard to track. Then it doesn’t raise eyebrows. But it’s the same thing. They are still using their expertise and contacts to further the commercial interests of the donors to the NGO.

In Australia we have one called the Immunisation Coalition, funded by the Big Pharma cartel. Its board members are often the loudest media spokespeople – they are the ones who give their mobile numbers to mainstream journalists for quick quotes or an interview piece to camera on whatever medical product is coming out. Journalists don’t question or look at their funding, they are just glad to get a quote to put in the story and get it out.

This is worse than a simple revolving door.

A revolving door is easy to solve.

We have complete systemic capture.

8. Harry Triguboff owns 10,000 rental units while lobbying for more migration. How do Australia’s biggest landlords shape immigration policy behind the scenes?

They lobby the government. They make submissions to parliamentary inquiries. They meet and talk to politicians who are always anxious to appear pro-jobs and pro-business.

Direct donations have to go on a public register so it’s not the best way.

They use their money and influence to get favourable press or make public statements, or host breakfasts where politicians are invited, they try to form Public Private Partnerships to help advance the goals of government and their own at the same time.

They use their influence to advertise all the great things about migration and promote them.

They join industry lobby groups such as the Property Council of Australia or fund think tanks to put out reports that seem to show evidence for the outcomes they want. They fund conferences and make media releases easy to access for journalists.

And perhaps – where we can’t see – they also fund campaigns to smear and demonise people that get in their way as ‘racists’. I don’t know who does this only that it is done.

The culture is run against people who oppose mass migration. In the 1990s Pauline Hanson (One Nation) was against migration. Songs (eg: Pauline Pantsdown, “I don’t like it”) were made mocking her and got massive airplay so we could all hear them. She was vilified as a racist. She was made to be culturally radioactive. People who wanted to go and hear her speak would have to run a gauntlet of protesters who would spit at them.

That kind of thing still goes on today. Recently we had a March For Australia protest against mass migration, and a bunch of fake neo-Nazis was sent in specifically so that the ABC and the Guardian could dismiss all the ordinary people who attended as racist white “ethno-nationalists” when this is obviously not true. You can see the story on them here.

Things that are done behind the scenes I can’t know any more than you can. I can only see what is public or what I can find – but you will notice the outcome is what is needed by those who profiteer from mass migration to pressure politicians to keep on giving them what they want.

9. Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200 spent over $300,000 on Facebook ads for Teal candidates. How does this “independent” movement actually operate?

This “independent” movement is about to devastate Australian politics, and I’m not sure if people realise the extent of it.

When I wrote the story here, I spent some time adding up the election tallies for all the Teal candidates. When you look at all the seats that they only lost by very small numbers of votes – if they had won those seats, they would have more MPs than the Nationals.

Simon Holmes à Court himself says his outfit identifies “grass-roots” candidates he thinks will fly, and whose views align with his goals, then he funds them.

But when he gave a National Press Club of Australia speech on March 12 (2025), Canberra Times journalist Dana Daniel asked him an actually tough question (she was the only one).

She asked if his funding model incentivised “voices” groups to spring up around a pre-chosen candidate who ticked Climate 200’s boxes instead of being genuinely organic.

She gave the example of Jessie Price, the contender for the ACT seat of Bean, selected by the Voices of Bean “community group” that was established by Jessie and someone who didn’t live in the electorate - who then ran her campaign.

“As of this morning the group was still getting together 100 signatures from supporters who live in the electorate to register their candidate with the AEC,” Ms Daniel said.

Simon said he didn’t know who had “fed her” the idea they’re running around Canberra looking for nomination form signatures.

“The AEC hasn’t issued nomination forms for this election,” he said, adding they had metrics to ensure candidates were viable. But this is the AEC nomination guide, Dana Daniel was correct.

Simon studied cognitive and computer science at Dartmouth College, a US ivy league research school in New Hampshire before spending five years in Silicon Valley.

So it is fair to suspect he is linked in with the globalist faction of the Silicon Valley deep state, which is linked to the US military via DARPA.

His Teals claim to be independents but they have a set of policy goals in common, so they should be designated as a political party. But - they masquerade as independents.

They all promote mass migration as good and that “supply” is the only answer to the housing crisis, and they all promote the carbon nonsense.

They are all pushing the globalist WEF/ UN agenda, undermining Australian sovereignty in favour of global governance and “stakeholder capitalism”. This agenda presents itself as pro-environment, and helping the poor but in reality it’s a front for funnelling tax money into big corporations and promoting the policies wanted by the WEF, which is partnered with the UN to implement Agenda 2030.

The WEF is a lobby group for the world’s largest multinational corporations and billionaires – including the large pension fund Blackrock, which owns the largest shareholding in almost every corporation and whose CEO Larry Fink is now head of the WEF.

Simon’s political funding body Climate 200 backed around 35 Teals at the 2025 federal election, mostly for the lower house. It bankrolled up to 75 per cent of campaign costs for some, with 19 candidates receiving an average of 40 percent of their donations from the foundation, as the ABC reports.

Climate 200 bought social media advertising, spending more than $300,000 on FaceBook and flooding women’s Instagram feeds on International Women’s Day to highlight the Teals’ 28 female candidates, with more money for Google ads, as Katina Curtis reports.

Simon is the son of Australia’s first billionaire, the late Robert Holmes à Court, who owned John Holland Group, an infrastructure builder of roads and bridges. The family sold the company to China in 2015.

10. Australia gave $386 million to Gavi and $100 million to CEPI. How do these organizations funnel taxpayer money into pharmaceutical company profits?

So Gavi is the Gates Foundation proxy that secures funding from developed nation governments to make markets for vaccines in countries that otherwise couldn’t pay for them. The Covax facility now does the same thing.

As Gavi says on its website “The number of manufacturers supplying prequalified Gavi-supported vaccines has grown, from 5 in 2001 to 19 in 2022 (with more than half based in low- and middle-income countries) … Gavi shares the cost that implementing countries pay for vaccines, which has resulted in more than 637 vaccine introductions and preventive vaccination campaigns”.

Source: https://www.gavi.org/our-alliance/about

They say it themselves. They make markets for pharmaceutical companies where before there were none. It partners with the WHO (funded by Gates) which then promotes vaccines as the best solution to health problems.

It may not be.

For example, cholera. Cholera is spread by fecal contamination of food and water. You could combat it very effectively by funding plumbing, clean running water, flushing toilets and sewage treatment plants in crowded third world slums.

Or, you could fund a vaccine. The Gates Foundation and its proxies push the vaccine. That funnels money to the pharmaceutical company that makes that vaccine. Public money from developed nation donors is then directed to financing that vaccine to be given at low or no cost to the poor country. The drug company profits – they don’t give it out of charity!

Another example of how the Gavi-Gates complex funnels tax money to drug companies, is TB.

I detail that scam here:

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Australian Government officials now working for Big Pharma cartel

There is already a perfectly good TB vaccine, the BCG. It’s cheap and not under patent. You could pay for it to be widely distributed through the third world and wipe out TB the same way it was wiped out in Britain.

Instead, the Gates-funded WHO, and Gavi, and the Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust (the British version of the Gates Foundation) all promote brand new patented TB vaccines because of the bogus argument that you need one for adults, so the old one isn’t good enough any more.

The new one will generate billions in profits for big pharma, to solve a “problem” that could have been wiped off the board already. Those billions will be funded by tax money from developed nations donating to the WHO and to Gavi and to Covax, to subsidise it for poor countries.

CEPI is another Gates Foundation proxy. Its job is to liaise and link in and gain influence with developed nation governments by hiring key former leaders from the bureaucracy such as Australia’s former Health Department Secretary Jane Halton. These influential leaders can then push CEPI objectives and be listened to.

Would Australia have been so keen to pay billions of tax dollars for mRNA vaccines for covid if Jane Halton had not been chair of CEPI? I cannot say. Who knows? There were other traditional vaccine candidates or simply early treatment options. Professor Halton is respected as a long-running leader of the entire department of health, advised the government’s Covid taskforce, and her position as chair of CEPI puts her squarely behind mRNA.

CEPI’s CEO Richard Hatchett was a key player in the covid panic and CEPI assisted Moderna, with Hatchett making an announcement of their backing of Moderna’s covid product beside Moderna CEO Stephane Bancel and Wellcome Trust’s Jeremy Farrar at the WEF in February 2020, just as the Pandemic was kicking off.

This creates markets for drug companies.

They also directly fund manufacturing and supply chain capacity worldwide and directly funds the development of vaccine candidates.

Source: https://cepi.net/our-portfolio

CEPI lobbies governments for tax money to create a library of viruses and to push mRNA as a vaccine platform for 100-day lab-to-jab products.

This benefits the pharma companies who will manufacture those products and those who hold patents on those products.

The library of viruses they create will all be used to make endless new vaccines which will require taxpayer funding to develop, manufacture and distribute, and subsidise.

Basically the entire drug industry benefits off taxpayer money funnelled through CEPI, Gavi and Covax, and the WHO, to pay for the research, development, manufacture and distribution of their products, then Covax also funds insurance so they don’t have to pay compensation when people are injured. They keep the profits. Then they advertise this to the public as helping the third world.

11. You discovered the eSafety Advisory Committee keeps its members secret. What excuse did they give for refusing your FOI request for their names?

They said the individuals are not publicly known and weren’t told their names would be made public. Therefore they have to ask permission from each one, which would be too hard and take too long,

They said: “we examined the documents containing the names of the people representing the organisation who were members of the Committee. We identified more than 20 third parties who would need to be consulted before information can be released to you. Our FOI team estimated that processing these consultations could take eSafety more than 40 hours, without even considering the time required for other tasks in processing your request.”

I argued that eSafety states on its website that it is required by law to publish who it is and its organisational structure, and that therefore anyone participating in the advisory committee has no reasonable expectation of privacy and their names should be made public without this time-consuming third-party consultation.

However, as you see above, they would not say.

12. The Covid Vaccine Class Action couldn’t identify who actually approved the vaccines. How have bureaucrats structured the system to avoid personal accountability?

The law has been written in such a way that even if products approved are harmful, you have to prove negligence, bad faith and misfeasance of public office to get any justice and this is very difficult.

The part in question is Section 61a of the Therapeutic Goods Administration Act 1989.

This gives: Immunity from civil actions

(1) No civil action, suit or proceeding lies against:

(a) the Commonwealth; or

(b) a protected person;

The government has legally insulated its bureaucracy personally from the consequences of their decisions.

For example, the Covid Vaccine Class Action sought redress from four individuals in addition to the Commonwealth Government as a whole.

These four were:

• Brendan Murphy, former Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care

• John Skerritt, former head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) Deputy Secretary Health Products Regulation Group;

• Paul Kelly, Australia’s former chief medical officer;

• Greg Hunt, former federal health minister;

But to prove misfeasance by Murphy, Skerritt, Kelly and Hunt, the applicants would have to show they either acted outside their powers, intended to cause harm or were recklessly indifferent to the likely risk of harm - it’s not enough just to have a reasonably forseeable risk of harm, according to the April 2025 judgement by Justice Anna Katzmann.

Negligence requires a duty of care - but the bureaucracy is protected by Section 61a of the Therapeutic Goods Administration Act 1989 which gives immunity from civil actions to the Commonwealth or its “protected persons” unless their actions can be proven to be “in bad faith”.

The TGA decides whether to authorise vaccines, and gets advice on this from the ACV, the Advisory Committee on Vaccines.

The named persons were the heads of the chain of decision making, one could think that ultimate responsibility for the decisions made by their organisations rests with them.

The Morrison Government’s vaccine policy from 2020 stated that the TGA had responsibility for the safety monitoring of the covid vaccines and that it would launch an investigation if it suspected a safety issue.

However, the law is written so that individual people cannot realistically be prosecuted because they are all “protected persons”.

And almost EVERYONE is a protected person. As the law states:

“protected person” means any of the following:

(a) the Minister;

(b) the Secretary;

(c) a person to whom powers or functions are delegated under subsection 57(1) or (1A);

(d) a member of a committee established under this Act or the regulations;

(e) an authorised person in relation to a provision of this Act (other than this section);

(f) an authorised officer (within the meaning of the regulations);

(g) an authorised person (within the meaning of the regulations);

(ga) a person of a kind prescribed by the regulations;

(h) a person assisting a person (a primary person ) referred to in paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) or (ga) in relation to the performance or purported performance, or in relation to the exercise or purported exercise, of a primary person’s functions, duties or powers under this Act or the regulations.

Murphy, Skerritt, Hunt and Kelly are all “protected persons” - so whether they had a duty of care or not is irrelevant. They are immune from prosecution even if people are injured by their decisions unless you can prove they acted in “bad faith”.

Bad faith is the exercise of power for an improper motive, and the absence of an honest attempt to perform the functions of the office - so you have to prove intent.

The Australian Government Solicitors successfully argued that none of the decisions to approve the vaccines were made by Murphy, Skerritt, Hunt and Kelly.

Another really great way to obscure decision making is to ensure a group does it. So who did it? We don’t know. Can we see the meeting minutes or who voted for it? No.

Is Australia’s system transparent like the US? No. The US has ACIP meetings that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr has ensured are livestreamed so that the public can see. Wow. I wish we had an easy-to-see transparent system. I wish we could have a Robert F. Kennedy here.

The Covid Vaccine Injured Class Action is still alive because there is one more named respondent who it is possible to sue: the Commonwealth Government.

More generally, Australia’s system is simply too mind-bogglingly time consuming and difficult to try to work out for ordinary people. You can only FOI documents if you can specify the document. So if you don’t already know you can’t even FOI what would show it.

One of the main problems of course is that the manufacturers were granted immunity from prosecution with the Commonwealth taking on the liability risk for injuries and deaths.

This was done under secret contracts. We cannot see the contracts for the Pfizer, Moderna and AstraZeneca gene-vaccines that caused so much damage.

But we can see the Pfizer contract for the US, and it shows that the products were actually contracted by the US Military – specifically US Army Contracting Command, as prototypes defined as “countermeasures” and not as medical products at all. The contract is here.

Is this why our contracts are secret?

13. Native title can only be held by corporations, not individuals. How is this collective ownership model now being pushed on regular Australian housing?

Native title only confers various access rights, it’s the Aboriginal Land Rights Act (ALRA) ownership structure you’re thinking of, where remote Aboriginal communities are on land that is communally owned in perpetuity - so no individual person can ever own their own house.

The collective ownership model is a complete failure. The remote communities under ALRA are completely dysfunctional. No enterprise is possible and the people are like pets kept in a cage of government money. Everything is provided by government money including the jobs which are make-work schemes. People don’t even take care of the homes they live in because they don’t own them and never can.

You would think the government in 50 years would move to solve this problem by, for example, introducing 99-year leases that give private property ownership while at the same time ensuring future generations of Aboriginal people are not dispossessed of their land.

Instead of that, there appears to be a push to expand this concept to the rest of the country!

It’s only my opinion, but I see the propaganda groundwork being laid and the entire concept of individual right to private property ownership being eroded.

It’s not done directly. It’s done by underhanded, subterranean and subversive means.

For example: pricing people out of the property market so they can only afford units instead of houses.

Now instead of owning a home you have to own a strata-titled unit, which means the collective of people who own all the units have to answer to the body-corporate for communal areas.

Now you can’t do what you want, have a dog or a cat, paint the unit’s door whatever colour you want, unless the collective agrees.

But you still own what is inside your unit.

However, now a new form of development is being pushed: build-to-rent. Tiny apartments smaller than a double garage. So small you couldn’t borrow from the bank to buy them because they wouldn’t lend on it. But they aren’t for sale anyway.

They are for people who will rent forever in a collective tower.

Big Four accounting firm EY (WEF member) is pushing this together with the Property Council of Australia.

Nobody wants these. But the government is creating the need for them with the mass importation of migrants into a country that doesn’t have enough homes for them.

Now there is a housing crisis – so this is being pushed as part of the “solution”.

This destroys the entire concept of private property ownership because now you just rent forever in the build-to-rent tower, in your tiny double-garage-sized apartment.

Now, the collective that tells you what to do is the building manager, which will be a large pension fund like BlackStone.

Just imagine if you want to say no to the next covid vaccine, and your building manager (some large pension fund from overseas) tells you: it’s the building’s rules. No unvaccinated people allowed. Will you be evicted? Congratulations you are now a slave. No better than a feudal peasant.

Individual home ownership is freedom.

People are being pushed out of home ownership into ever-smaller and more collectivised dwellings, and then finally into a collectivised dwelling owned by some corporation you have no control over.

It’s deliberate because without the policy of mass migration, it wouldn’t be needed. Australia’s birth rate is below-replacement. We have enough housing for our population to live without these towers.

And worse, the government has already said it will swamp this new supply anyway, so that the housing crisis will continue even with the towers.

To swamp this new supply, the Federal Government says it will import 13.5 million people by 2065 bringing the population to 41.2 million. That is the same as importing another Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane full of people - for which you need all the housing and infrastructure of those cities, as Macrobusiness reports.

That will keep the housing crisis going for the next 40 years.

That is 235,000 more migrants per year, which is more than double the average 90,000 per year we had in the entire 60 years since World War II – which was already an unprecedented rate.

Globalists won the election and they are coming for your house

The introduction of Native Title (that confers various access rights like hunting or fishing) is a way of legislatively eroding the concept of private property ownership by giving a new and murky category of rights that is less certain, an overlay over existing rights - sort of symbolic but also not - and it can only be held by a corporate structure not by individuals.

14. At least 11 nations rejected the WHO’s IHR amendments but Australia embraced them. What new powers over Australians did our bureaucrats just acquire?

According to DFAT, the IHR amendments will enter into force on 19 September 2025.

https://www.dfat.gov.au/international-relations/themes/global-themes/global-health-reform

DFAT talks about how they will build capacity and strengthen information sharing in response to disease outbreaks

But the actual IHR regulations show that in the name of responding to the international spread of disease, a set of regulations will be implemented that are guided by the charter of the United Nations and the Consititution of the World Health Organisation, and that states should uphold the purpose of the regulations when setting their national laws.

By definition that erodes our national sovereignty. We are agreeing to change our health responses to fit into global governance body diktats which ordinary people have no say in.

By standardising our procedures to fit a global governance framework we erode the amount of power our democratically elected representatives who are responsive to their constituents who have the power to vote them out.

That is because decisions that would have previously been consciously taken by a Health Minister are instead automatically set under these global governance procedures.

https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA77/A77_ACONF14-en.pdf

Even though the IHRs are voluntary, it gives our elected government the excuse they need to say “it’s not our decision, it’s our international obligations” when they want to implement an unpopular measure.

Health systems will have to be modified to ensure that data can be kept in an interoperable format to be shared overseas with the WHO, further standardising the system across borders.

The IHRs require states to develop a core capacity for risk communication “including addressing misinformation and disinformation”. This was used during the covid panic to censor everyone who opposed the coercive mRNA vaccine products and inappropriate lockdowns which were implemented worldwide.

These IHRs are creating the warrant and justification for our bureaucracy to censor us again, which they will enthusiastically do.

They also require (at annex 1 (3. L)) states to develop a core capacity to create communication links for the WHO to disseminate its recommendations directly to hospitals, airports, ports, ground crossings, laboratories and other key operational areas, including recommendations about the country’s own territory.

Quite frankly that sounds like laying the groundwork for a coup: to have a global governance body directly communicate with all your key operational areas and border crossings?

15. What are you currently investigating, and where can readers find your work and support independent journalism in Australia?

Right now I am halfway through writing a book on covid. I will eventually finish, but this is why the Substack is quiet at the moment despite multiple stories that need writing. Readers can find my work at Letters From Australia on Substack. I would be most grateful if people simply read and share my work. I wrote it all for free and in the public interest.

I have also contributed a chapter to the book Covid Through Our Eyes, edited by Professor Robert Clancy and Dr Melissa McCann, the Queensland GP spearheading the covid vaccine class action. It’s a superb book that covers the covid scandal from all angles, with many different expert contributors.

It would be wonderful if people could buy a copy from CovidThroughOurEyes.com.au or from Amazon. It would make a great Christmas present for “normies” who still don’t understand that there was anything wrong.

Everyone contributed for free, and after repaying the publishers, all funds go to help the Covid Vaccine Injured Class Action – which is still alive.

I appreciate you being here.

If you’ve found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While 99% of everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I’m always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don’t hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.