The Great Property Heist: How Climate Policies Are Stealing Australian Homes

Interview with Kate Mason

Kate Mason represents one of Australia's most essential yet underrecognized citizen investigative journalists, whose meticulous research reveals how global technocratic agendas are being implemented at the grassroots level across Australia and New Zealand. I am grateful to Paul Collits, interviewed here, for first introducing me to Mason's work. A former welfare and community development worker who lost her position in 2021 for refusing mRNA vaccination, Mason transformed personal adversity into rigorous investigative work that exposes the mechanisms through which international climate change narratives—traced by researchers like Jacob Nordangård to Rockefeller Foundation origins in the 1950s—are now being weaponized to systematically strip property rights, food sovereignty, and individual autonomy from ordinary citizens. Her granular analysis of managed retreat policies, synthetic food deregulation, digital ID implementation, and agricultural transformation provides a crucial microscope through which to examine how abstract global governance frameworks translate into concrete threats to home ownership, bodily sovereignty, and traditional ways of life.

What emerges from Mason's investigation is a coordinated system designed to gradually make private property ownership financially impossible through climate risk assessments, insurance manipulation, and escalating adaptation requirements, while simultaneously forcing populations into high-density "smart city" developments under corporate control. Her documentation of the NSW Reconstruction Authority's powers to compulsorily acquire properties based merely on projected climate risks, the deregulation of genetically modified foods without labeling, and the creation of digital identity systems with emergency override capabilities reveals how UN frameworks and public-private partnerships are reshaping Australian society from within. Through her work on platforms like Substack and YouTube, Mason provides citizens with the detailed policy analysis and corporate network mapping necessary to understand and resist what she characterizes as a wealth transfer mechanism disguised as environmental protection—a transformation that threatens to convert Australia from a nation of homeowners into a population of renters living under perpetual technological surveillance and corporate dependency.

With thanks to Kate Mason.

Kate Mason | Deconstructing 4IR Narratives | Substack

Kate Mason - YouTube

1. Kate, can you please start by telling us a bit about your background and what initially inspired you to begin writing about topics like private home ownership, agriculture, and government policies?

I had a long career in welfare and community development, which I was working in when the pandemic was announced. When the Australian government started locking people down, closing down businesses and people’s work spaces and closing essential welfare services I saw first hand the detrimental effects of these policies on people who were in vulnerable positions. By the end of 2021 I was fired for not getting injected with a transfection technology (mRNA “vaccine”). Initially I experienced large amounts of fear and shock regarding the brutality being unleashed on people who dared to ask questions or to protest regarding the government covid policies, I was completely taken by surprise, and didn’t know what I was looking at. After I was fired I worked with a group of welfare workers, collecting testimonials and writing sector letters which we sent off to relevant government officials regarding the harms caused by the covid policies, asking them to outline how they decided covid was more dangerous than the policies they either enacted or supported. We were, of course, either gas lit or ignored. After this I decided I needed to research what was going on globally, what the power structures are and who is really pulling the strings, and to what end. This took me to where I am now, over three years later, having explored a number of fronts of this technocratic regime. These fronts include climate change modeling- insurance- managed retreat and home ownership, the synthetic transformation of our food systems, natural asset accounting and the commodifying of nature, eugenics and genetic editing, digital ID and children’s wellbeing- social impact bonds.

2. Your article on threats to private home ownership highlights significant concerns. What do you see as the biggest challenge facing individuals trying to maintain ownership of their homes in the current economic and political climate?

The biggest challenge to maintaining home ownership over the long term is the multi faceted attacks that are being prepared in the background. These include:

Widespread managed retreat plans based on extremist climate modelling

According to the NSW Disaster Adaption Plan “Managed relocation is defined as the permanent and purposeful movement of people and existing homes and infrastructure exposed to existing or anticipated effects of natural hazards.” It’s pre-emptive, i.e. before a disaster hits, and relies on extreme climate modelling.

In February 2024 the NSW government released the NSW Disaster Mitigation Plan 2024-2026. This plan discusses large scale managed retreat for NSW, with the managed retreat policy to be released in 2025. The large scale managed retreat policy uses multi hazard modelling, meaning different climate change models are used to come up with the most extreme ranking for a number of risks. One model is used for a projected fire risk, another model for a projected flooding risk, the different scores are compounded until a final score is arrived at for an area. This will determine adaption/ mitigation plans and managed retreat. Additionally, the plan states the government is using the IPCC high emissions pathway of 8.5 for their modelling- this is the most extreme model that can be used and was not intended to be used for climate change decision making.

Communities moved together

The plan discusses the need for community relocation “These programs aim to move a number of people and keep those people together in their community.” Sounds to me like there’s a newly built “resilient” housing complex which the government will move people to en-masse. The plan concerningly goes on to state, “There may be potential opportunities to leverage private sector funding to assist in managed relocation, for example using potential planning mechanisms, such as transferable development rights, to provide incentive for intervention by the private sector.” Put simply, corporations can pay for people to be moved out of their homes and they will receive the land in return. How much more blatant does this need to get!

Laws which allow the government to take your home

The NSW Reconstruction Act 2022, allows for the Minister to declare areas of NSW a disaster prevention area for primary or secondary reasons if the “Minister is satisfied the declaration is necessary to help prevent, or mitigate against, potential disasters for a community.” Once an area is declared a disaster prevention area the Reconstruction Authority can compulsorily acquire properties, do what they like with the properties and sell them. To note a Director within the Reconstruction Authority was previously employed in Resilient Sydney, which is a Rockefeller initiative. The Rockefeller foundation has been very influential within the climate change narrative and solutions. See Jacob Nordangard’s book “Rockefeller Controlling the Game”.

Broke governments and privatised infrastructure

Another strategy discussed is the privatising of infrastructure. The Disaster Mitigation Plan states: “Engage with the private sector… to develop an approach to prioritise and coordinate place-based infrastructure resilience interventions by private sector operators.” According to the article Reimagining Infrastructure Megaproject Delivery: An Australia—New Zealand Perspective “Globally, the need for infrastructure investment is forecast to reach USD 94 trillion by 2040. A further USD 3.5 trillion will be required to meet the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals for electricity and water.”

According to Larry Fink, BlackRock founder and CEO, as reported in the Financial Times article BlackRock to buy Global Infrastructure Partners for $12.5bn “The global need for infrastructure combined with high deficits constraining government spending creates unprecedented opportunity for private capital to invest in infrastructure.”

Larry Fink’s quote about governments being broke is backed up by LGNSW report- Inquiry into the ability of local governments to fund infrastructure and services, which states “Most councils are reporting a deterioration in their financial position and many fear that they are financially unsustainable or approaching unsustainability” and “..smaller rural and regional councils.. are the most vulnerable.”

The Federal National Adaption Plan Issues Paper March 2024 states “If private capital is shifted towards adaption and resilience, investors can secure their assets, unlock new investment opportunities.” and “…there is also a need for government initiatives that incentivise private sector investment in adaption...”

In plain language, we will be paying private corporations for new and existing infrastructure and private corporations are going to have a big say in whether they want to keep up infrastructure to certain towns. This is an asset and wealth transfer and has serious implications for private home ownership.

Local council adaption plans

NSW Council’s are soon to roll out disaster adaption plans. The adaption plans will cover disaster prevention (based on modelling), preparedness and adaption. Each LGA will have climate change risk forecasts (expect insurance to go up even more). The NSW Disaster Mitigation Plan states “There are a range of challenges involved in implementing risk reduction. For example, risk reduction can have significant upfront cost…” The trajectory is increased Council rates and levies for privatised disaster infrastructure.

Unaffordable insurance

Climate Council of Australia report Uninsurable Nation: Australia’s most climate vulnerable places uses high emissions modelling, the most extreme modelling, they state 1 in 25 Australian homes will be uninsurable by 2030.

The NSW Disaster Mitigation Plan states- “data on insurance affordability will be used to inform strategic land use planning responses.” Meaning that if an area has too many uninsured homes you may not be able to live there.

The insurance companies will “incentivise” you to upgrade your house to receive lower insurance rates. What you will need to do will incrementally increase. Article NRMA Insurance rewards customers for improving their household bushfire resilience outlines NRMA’s Bushfire Resilience Rating system, paid for by the commonwealth government. If people upload their information on the app and do the suggested upgrades they receive lower insurance.

As insurance prices are going up exponentially many people are forced to no longer insure their homes. A large amount of uninsured homes in an area can also be a trigger point for managed retreat, the justification is it would be too costly for recovery if a disaster came through.

Home energy Ratings and Net Zero

The government document Home Energy Ratings Disclosure Framework discusses the need for houses to move beyond energy ratings (see energy ratings below) to making houses resilient to disaster. As we head closer to Net Zero and disaster adaption deadlines people will incrementally need to keep upgrading their homes, this will become cost prohibitive for many and, of course, will involve the usage of smart technology.

To sum up, existing homes will now have an energy rating. The proposed energy rating is 5 stars, quite an issue when the average rating of Australia’s existing homes is under a 2 star rating. The Australian government Home Energy Ratings Disclosure Framework 2024 states “The average NatHERS' rating of existing homes is estimated to be less than 2 stars out of 10. Research in 2016-2018 found that 81.7% of new housing is designed to meet only minimum NatHERS requirements, and 98.5% of existing housing stock falls below optimum economic and energy performance.' Worth repeating is 98.5% of existing houses will need an upgrade to get to 5 stars.

The government is proposing that energy ratings will be in prime position on house sale, this will influence how much the house is worth. To sell for a fair price many will need to upgrade, if people can’t afford to upgrade their house it will be worth less. The ratings will also kick in if you want to do a large renovation on the home. Banks need to progressively get the assets on their books (mortgages) down to Net Zero, as well do insurance companies. People will find it difficult to secure a loan for a low energy rating house, and the insurance will be much higher. This leaves the market open for Big Corp (who don’t need to secure mortgages) to come in and swoop up your home for the best bang for buck- for them! The government likes to call these sorts of “gotcha” techniques, “incentivising”.

Just so people are kicked even further when trying to sell their home the Committee for Sydney (check out their partners), with assistance from Resilient Sydney (Rockefeller alliance) report Defending Sydney calls for house planning certificates to include climate risk forecasts. The paper ominously states this will have “controversial implications for property owners”.

To lease a house there will be a mandatory energy rating system. I am supportive of people being able to lease good quality homes at an affordable price, but what we will see is an ever-increasing number of small players falling out of the market and an increase in initiatives such as Build to Rents, which the government is currently “incentivising” (giving financial kick backs to).

The common themes are, incrementally higher costs to homeowners and renters (the costs will be passed on), and a boon for corporate entities. The government will “incentivise” private capital through “de-risking” investments and giving financial kick backs to corporations, the government will “incentivise” the public to oblige with increasingly punitive financial obligations, or just remove people from property.

The government is creating the conditions for a converging “perfect” storm and it may look like this- your town has a climate forecast overlay on it, costly mitigation strategies need to be implemented through private interests (not to forget conventional infrastructure being privatised), so your rates and levies go up. As climate change is a “wicked problem”, meaning no matter what measures are put in place it will never be enough, there will be trigger points where managed retreat needs to occur (this could be the percentage of uninsured houses). Your house is reviewed for its energy rating, it’s non-compliant; the banks start to put the screws on you and your insurance increases, noting it has already increased due to the climate overlay. Maybe you can upgrade your house now, but can you in another 5 years? What if you don’t agree with the upgrade measures including smart appliances being installed? How secure do you feel when managed retreat is an ever-present threat? Fait accompli, private home ownership is now at the mercy of the government, their private partners, and whatever climate modelling they choose to use.

The government plans outlined in this document are anchored in United Nations disaster adaption frameworks (Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030- is one) and framed under Agenda 2030 and the Sustainable Development Goals. That’s why we are seeing global lock step plans, as an example Scotland is stating that the upgrades to homes will be mandatory by 2033.

Under the guise of climate change asset shifts (upwards) will occur incrementally, and the rights of homeowners will increasingly diminish.

Read more here:

Threats to private home ownership

3. You’ve written about the deregulation of genetically edited food. For readers unfamiliar with this topic, can you explain what this means and why you believe it’s a critical issue to address?

Australian and NZ has a food standards body (FSANZ). Currently for a GMO to be approved in to the food market, the company has to go through a somewhat drawn out process through FSANZ (including two public consultation time frames). So as not to “impede innovation” FSANZ has recently approved changing the definition of GMO’s which will allow GMOs to not be considered genetically modified, hence they’ll be in our food systems without testing or labelling. Hence, we will not know if we are eating genetically engineered food or not, this includes organic food. Over time we may no longer have the ability to choose to eat food from natural seeds, plants or animals. We will not know if genetic modification has occurred.

Read more here:

Lab Created "Quail" entering the Australian & NZ Food Market

Genetically edited food to be deregulated in Australia and NZ

4. Australia’s mandatory digital ID, as covered in your article, has sparked debate. What are your primary concerns about this policy, and how do you think it might impact the average Australian?

Over the last few years I have watched with horror as the government passes legislation and enacts policies which mean that when the next pandemic is announced they will be able to create a lock out system for those who won’t inject themselves with transfection mRNA technology. The Digital ID Act states it’s voluntary unless….there’s an emergency and a few other clauses which means there is no way that the Digital ID will be voluntary. Imagine a world where facial recognition cameras can bring up your digital ID with information on your vaccine status or whether you are a threat to democracy (did you protest about something, post something that could “threaten public health” on social media?) For anyone paying any attention, you would be aware of the vast amount of cameras popping up all around us over the last few years.

Bill Shorten, when unleashing the next layer of Digital ID technology last year, stated Digital ID “is just a thumbs up from the government that you are who you say you are.” In one fell swoop we are moving from a social contract which states that we can access goods and services based on our financial capacity and if we haven’t broken the law, to you can access goods and services if the government says you can. Very, very dangerous! Particularly as we have a government that is transparently in bed with powerful interests, signed up to international agreements where UN SDG16.9 involves a digital ID.

Read more here:

Australia's mandatory Digital ID is one step closer

5. Regenerative agriculture seems to be a recurring theme in your work. Can you share what drew you to this topic and why you believe it’s being undermined, as you’ve noted?

I appreciate farmers, I like to eat fresh fruit, vegetables, grains and meat that are grown as close to where I live as possible, I like to support small farmers, those who work on their farms and have a small enterprise going, who protect and respect the land and the animals. Farmers who do this often use organic, regenerative, biodynamic, or permaculture principles. I became curious as to why soil health was being discussed so much in the Paris Agreement, why documentaries on soil were on Netflix, why Club of Rome and Rockefeller funded or aligned people were involving themselves in Australian regenerative conferences, why there were social impact markets being created on regenerative farming, why the WEF had articles on Regenerative Agriculture etc.

This lead me to watch a COP27 presentation on regenerative farming, hosted by Rockefeller and CGIAR. Speaking were reps from CGIAR, CropLife, Ernest and Young, Corteva etc. They were all waxing lyrical about local farming, regen farming, equity and inclusion. I researched all of these entities and what they were really talking about under the cover of regen agriculture are climate smart seeds (genetically engineered seeds which are purportedly better for the “climate”), nano tech in the soil, bio tech, full scale surveillance on farms (from farm to plate), and more. Additionally, this is all tied in with ESG scoring, in this new world order “synthetic is sustainable”. I do not believe for one minute that genetically edited food is safe for human consumption or for the environment, I do not support the threat that small farmers should be forced to use ‘climate smart’ seeds and be at the mercy of the savagery of this next iteration of the green revolution. I want genuine food sovereignty for farmers, and I want choice regarding what sort of food I eat.

Read more here:

Regenerative Agriculture is being co-opted by powerful interests

6. Globally, farmers seem to be under significant pressure, as you’ve written. What do you see as the root causes of these attacks on farmers, and how are Australian farmers specifically being affected?

There are two main justifications for the central control of our food systems. Firstly is the biosecurity we have now found ourselves living in, and the second is climate change.

The Biosecurity State falls under the One Health model, which focuses on the human animal interface. If we just look at Australia in the last couple of years, the government has killed vast amounts of bees (Varroa Mite), is repeatedly dropping poison out of planes into the bush and laying poison on farms, childcare centres, schools, back yards (Fire Ant), has killed millions of chickens (Bird Flu). Under biosecurity threats whole chucks of our food systems can be removed. If you consider that an MOU was formed in 2022 between the UN FAO, WHO, UNEP and the World Organisation for Animal Health for “Cooperation to combat health risks at the animal-human-ecosystems interface in the context of the “one health” approach and including antimicrobial resistance” and that their remit involves “reinforcing food security”, it’s worth considering who funds these organisations.

You’ll find funders and partners include organisations and “philanthropists” who are heavily invested and involved in synthetic food, such as Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation and CropLife (Bayer Monsanto and the ilk). I am of course not proposing that the onslaught started in 2022, I am just giving a recent example of how those who profit from the wiping out of traditional food systems are placed in powerful positions which determine government policies.

Climate change- there are endless documents from the Australian government, the WEF, the UN, Rockefeller Foundation and ad nauseum discussing how climate change is already and will increasingly disrupt the growing of crops. The answer is twofold. To try to stop climate change- genetically edited seeds which are more “resilient” and “draw down more carbon” must be used instead of natural seeds. Nano tech must be used in the soil to assist with the “health of the soil”. Additionally due to climate change there is the need for alternative highly processed proteins, synthetic “meat” and food grown indoors.

You can listen to Larry Ellison- founder of Oracle- explain in his discussion: Reimagining Technology for Government: A Conversation with Larry Ellison and Tony Blair stating that through the next generation of AI and satellite imagery “WE CAN TELL individual farmers that part of their fields need additional irrigation, part of their fields need additional fertilizer, so we can improve yields to individual farms….” “…the type of seeds that farmers will use for their crops.. there’s a whole series of innovations..” “.. we will be able to lower the cost of growing and increase yields by having a whole new generation of seeds.. that will really provide food security for the planet.”

This is all particularly galling as the toxicity of the Green Revolution is being used by the organisations who implemented the Green Revolution (Rockefeller, Gates, CropLife are a few examples) to bring in this next iteration of synthetic biology. And food new world order is looking like there will be no option to opt out, thanks to satellite systems, AI, carbon tracking and tracing on farms, ESG scoring, and the government’s ability to wipe out crops, animals, pollinators with one bureaucratic blow after another.

Elison and Blair:

7. The introduction of lab-created quail into the Australian market is a unique topic you’ve covered. What are the potential risks and benefits of this development, in your view?

Two and a half years ago Matt Kean (ex treasurer of NSW- now chair of the Climate Change Authority- of course) made the "daring " move of cutting a ribbon to open a synthetic "meat" factory in Sydney, Vow Foods, even though it was not legal to sell synthetic cell line "meat" in Australia.

Even though it was not legal to sell, the government invested in the company (as did the ex CEO of the CSIRO).

In the last few weeks the Food Standards Body for Australia and NZ (FSANZ) has amended the food code to allow Vow Foods synthetic quail to be seen as a food and allowed into the Australian food market.

The process for creating this synthetic lab quail goes something like: cells are taken from a quail embryo and put in a substance which is genetically engineered barley with pig genes, this substance allows the quail cell to multiply (cell immortalisation- technically a pre cancerous process). A substance is created, artificial vitamins and minerals are put in which somewhat line up with the vitamins and minerals in a real quail. Then because these synthetic vitamins and minerals can be compared to real vitamins and minerals, FSANZ declares that the lab quail is the same as real quail and because there are no health issues with eating real quail there are no issues with eating lab quail. That really is the level of farce involved in the “comprehensive” analysis conducted by FSANZ.

Oh, and though there are plans afoot to make farms account for the carbon they use on their farms in the sake of transparency and accountability (remembering that synthetic innovations are better for carbon drawdown – the “experts” say) there's around 24 reports that VOW requested the public to not be able to see through the FSANZ process (the public was asked to comment on Vow’s lab quail proposal without being able to see important documents). So much for transparency!

I’m concerned for the impacts on human health. I’m concerned regarding the lack of accountability to this highly synthetic product, which is not even considered or labelled a GMO. I’m concerned about the intersection between the wiping out of traditional crops and the greenlighting of synthetic factory created goop that we are expected to eat. Whilst the FSANZ application was in process Vow co-founder George Peppou went to great lengths to state that this cell line lab “quail” is not going to replace meat, but you can also hear him say in an interview on Disruptors for Good that eating meat will in the future be only for the wealthy, and the rest of us will be eating synthetic biotech substances.

Lab Created "Quail" entering the Australian & NZ Food Market

8. Many of your pieces focus on Australia, but the issues you discuss often have global parallels. How do you see Australia’s policies fitting into broader international trends?

In a nutshell both Labor and Liberal governments have just been implementing policies which are pushed through the United Nations agreements or through the G20, or through other global bodies and think tanks. Australia is already part of a global governance systems and our politicians are basically engaging in theatrics to keep up the illusion of democracy (in saying this I am aware that there are minimal differences between Labor and Liberal- but those differences are all allowable within a global governance system).

9. Your work often challenges mainstream narratives. What has been the most surprising reaction you’ve received from friends, family, readers or critics in response to your articles?

There’s a concerted effort by the global bodies, our governments and media to equate anyone concerned with bodily sovereignty with a far right extremist NAZI, just note the amount of times Nazi and Anti Vaxxer are used in the same sentence in news articles. I have a history of working with people in vulnerable positions, doing innumerable volunteer hours for human rights and have always cared for the natural environment. I always considered myself on the “Left” of politics. I’ve heard a number of people on the Left lament the viciousness with how the Left responded to those who questioned covid policies. I felt the same.

What has surprised me the most is the lack of curiosity from those who knew me well, as to why I have taken the positions I have in the last few years, even though it came at a cost.

What has surprised me is the complacency of those who love to tell others to follow harmful government dictates for the “common good” yet aren’t furious when it turns out the justification for the dictates have holes in them like a piece of Swiss cheese. They just want to move on at this point.

And what has surprised me is that you can write about what the government is doing, pull out the excerpts from the government and global body documents. You can point out the conflicts of interests in the corporations sitting on the Treasurer Round Table or funding the United Nations, and people still say “the government wouldn’t do that..” even though the government documents say they’re going to.

10. What are you currently focused on in your writing? Are there any new topics or developments you’re exploring that readers can look forward to learning about?

Lately I have been quiet on my channels as I’ve needed a rest. I have decided to hone down my focus on to genetic engineering. I could not have imagined three and a half years when I started researching that I would come to staring smack bang at a eugenic plan to synthetically engineer biological life. In Australia we do not have anywhere near the scrutiny we need on these “innovative” advancements, and currently there are organisations running citizen juries on the ethics of mapping babies genomes at birth, as well as many more advancements. I will start writing about this soon.

I have also started studying homeopathy to learn more about how we can protect ourselves in this increasingly toxic and dystopian environment.

11. Finally, for those who want to stay updated on your work and continue engaging with your insights, how can they best follow your journey and connect with you?

I have a substack and a YouTube account which has documented much of what I’ve spoken about here. You can find me here

and here Kate Mason - YouTube

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.