Neil Hermes Story

My name is Neil Hermes. This is my story relating to the bank’s misconduct and its devasting effects to my family and life.

In 2007, I signed a loan contract with Bankwest in order to purchase a tourism property at Jervis Bay on the south coast of NSW. This was an important tourism property, and I was borrowing 50%, which is normal in the tourism industry.

It was not until April 2009, that Bankwest required us to change the way we operated the business and appoint new lawyers and accountants, and required us to provide the bank with a new valuation. This meant the bank breached the loan contract and treated my wife and me very disrespectfully. This was unacceptable as we always had a good record with the bank and had always paid our interest on time.

The changes forced on us by the bank destroyed our business and was served with a demand by Bankwest, which meant I was bankrupted. I cannot believe that a major bank could treat its customers so poorly when there were provisions in the loan contract to protect small businesses and people like me.

In October 2021, I wrote to Commonwealth Bank again and asked it to review my case and find my missing securities. Again, the bank did not act in good faith which concerned me. Until recently none of Commonwealth Bank’s employees could deal with disputes that should have been addressed as services out in the 2004 Code, which was not included in the documents handed to me.

This is the details of my experiences with the bank.

Since 1991, I have operated a successful tour business in Australia titled Discovery Ecotours. The business ran tour operations across three locations at Ayers Rock, Darwin/Kakadu National Park, and Jervis Bay.

On 23 September 2002, my company (formerly Australia Ecotours Pty Ltd, Discovery Ecotours Holdings Pty Ltd, Discovery Ecotours (QLD) Pty Ltd) was registered as a Proprietary Company with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

My company had a lease-to-buy contract for the purchase of staff headquarters and depot in Rapid Creek Darwin.

On 12 February 2007, my company purportedly (in its own capacity or in the capacity as Trustee) acquired the leasehold over property ‘Christians Minde’, Sussex Inlet, Commonwealth Territory (surrounded by NSW), Jervis Bay for $1.4M with Bank of Western Australia Limited (‘Bankwest’) providing $810,000 loan towards the purchase. The property contained Northern Guest House, Self-Contained Flat, Southern Guest house, Manager’s Cottage, Derelict Flat, Boatshed, Workshop/Storage Area, and Grounds.

The 2007 financial statements showed that the trading income increased from $2.18M to $2.54M from 2006 to 2007. The gross profit from trading increased from $1.879M to $2.21M from 2006 to 2007. The net profit before income tax increased from $236k to $429k from 2006 to 2007. This meant that my company was performing well with growing revenues and profits.

Bankwest provided $810,000 towards the purchase of Christians Minde in February 2007.

It appears that Bankwest was purportedly unaware of there being any Trusts and that my company held the security in a capacity as Trustee thereof. Bankwest also had no fixed or floating charges over any Trusts.

Bankwest sought to rectify the Credit Risk Review findings with the recommendation, among other recommendations, requiring a 3% Penalty Rate above margins to apply until I provided the financial statements clarifying the Bank’s facility and corrected Debtor’s name.

Bankwest’s Credit Risk Review indicated that general account conduct had been unsatisfactory over the preceding 12 months, that the loan could be high risk or impaired and that the credit rating has deteriorated.

Martin Darcy, at the time, was a 50% shareholder and Director of my company. As per the Credit Risk Review, he resigned as Director and requested that his Guarantee be released. Bankwest declined to release Martin Darcy’s Guarantee considering he was still a shareholder.

On 13 March 2008, Bankwest provided a loan extension to the Company for $168k to part purchase Odyssey Tours. Bankwest noted my company’s excellent relationship, record, company structure, and reporting.

On 8 October 2008, Commonwealth Bank acquired Bankwest.

In December 2008, my company began its internally funded $500k improvement plan for the Resort.

On 24 April 2009, Bankwest issued the Company with a Notice of Breach of loan conditions.

In June 2009, on the back of the Bankwest Credit Risk Review and pressure to reduce loans, the Company commenced looking for alternative lenders to refinance the existing Bankwest loan facilities.

For the year ended 30 June 2009, my business turnover was $2.72M, and recorded a net profit of $450.5k. The turnover and net profit in 2007 were $2.54M and $429.5k respectively, illustrating the Company’s continued strong financial performance.

On 6 August 2009, I received Commonwealth Bank’s Letter of Offer for a $850k facility to payout Bankwest and for resort improvements. On the back of the offer, my company makes financial commitments for further resort upgrades ready for the 2009 summer season.

On 26 August 2009, Commonwealth Bank withdraws its loan offer, which was done so at the direction of Bankwest. Due to the Commonwealth Bank withdrawing its loan offer, resulted in significant losses due to financial commitments on the Resort upgrades along with losses from summer season deferral.

At the end of 2009, due to significant pressure from Bankwest, we suffered from:

1. cost of numerous meetings, phone calls, and emails;
2. cost for numerous updated accountant reports;
3. cost for valuations;
4. default charges and interest;
5. the opportunity cost of seeking alternative finance;
6. cost for changing accountants;
7. losses from lost trade in the 2009-10 summer; and,
8. the significant emotional toll on my family.

On 31 March 2010, due to Bankwest pressure and Commonwealth Bank pulling refinance funding, I had to place my company into voluntary administration.

As a consequence of the voluntary administration, valuable exclusive licences for tour operations at Ayers Rock, safari campsites in Kakadu National Park, and safari campsites in Litchfield National Park were lost.

From mid to the end of 2010, we received demands for payment from Commonwealth Bank for loan fees for the withdrawn offer in August 2009.

On 31 January 2011, I received Bankwest’s Demand for Payment for $1.16M, even though my business was in administration and the Christian Minde leasehold and business were owned by my company.

On 1 February 2011, due to Bankwest demands, I put my family home on the market for sale. Two days later, I made a formal offer to Bankwest, via my lawyers, but Bankwest did not respond.

On 26 March 2011, under significant financial duress, I accepted an offer for my family home.

On 1 April 2011, the administrator had Christians Minde valued, with a resultant value of $1.1M. Only two weeks later, I went bankrupt. In a run-down state and with no trade the administrator then sold Christians Minde for $740k.

On 21 October 2012, ASIC deregistered my company.

On 7 May 2018, I submitted a complaint to the Australian Banking Royal Commission, then on 18 May to Commonwealth Bank and Bankwest.

On 16 July 2018, Commonwealth Bank and the next day Bankwest rejected my compensation claim. A Bankwest employee told me that it influenced the Commonwealth Bank refinancing decision and that no refinancing would be permitted by Bankwest from any other source. It was the group organisational structures that placed the debt facilities in breach, even though there was no financial default. The group organisational structure was the same at the time of original finance (February 2007) and at loan extension (March 2008), and it was Bankwest’s incompetence that created the debt facility breach in April 2009.

Since then, I have filed many complaints against the banks, AFCA, and other regulators. Our matters with Bankwest and CBA are still open today.

We now have little to no assets because the Bankwest and Commonwealth Bank:

1. provided loans without considering the overarching structure of the business and how it interacted;
2. created debt facility breach by way of not being a prudent and diligent lender and overall incompetence due to a lack of understanding of the overall group structure;
3. bullied, intimidated, and put undue pressure on us;
4. breached the loan contracts by withholding documents pertinent to our rights;
5. did not act in good faith or ethically when influencing refinancing, which caused material losses in lost trading, and under sale of assets; and
6. caused material financial losses and irreparable reputational damage.

The forensic accountant’s financial loss report states that the result of the assessment of my net past financial loss is $17.8M on a pre-income tax basis.

I attempted to explain the serious allegations of misconduct and practices by these banks which were more serious than the practices by Bernie Madoff, who was America’s greatest fraudster. However, I have not received any response nor an explanation of why the banks destroyed my business and my family’s financial lives. I will still keep going filing complaints until the banks provide me with fair compensation and an apology.

I have also contacted other small businesses and farmers who were suffering from the bank’s misconduct and we have reviewed the relevant documents which support our points:

The 2004 Code of Banking Practice has been found to not meet the Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) procedures in particular when a customer wants to resolve disputes free of charge because the ASIC guideline which we now know was ASIC Regulatory Guide 165 (2001) which the bank must comply with already having been omitted.

The bank did not meet the timeframe as set out in clauses 35.3 and 35.4, nor did it provide us, complainants, with written reasons (clause 35.1(d)).

The bank did not prominently publicise the Code in branches (clause 37.1(a) especially in regional and rural areas (as noted in the CCMC’s Bulletin 4).

The bank did not meet the standards in AS 4269-1995 Standard (clause 35.1(b) nor could they comply with clause 37.2a.

We expect the bank to meet these requirements services in clause 2.1(b)(i), especially as banking services which are defined as ‘any financial service or product provided by the bank to you’.

We did comply with the definition of small businesses, as stated ‘a business having less than 20 fulltime employees and equivalent people’. Therefore we believe the bank did not ‘comply with all relevant laws relating to financial services and products (Clause 3.1), the bank did not provide us information in plain language (clause 2.1(d) nor act fairly or reasonably towards us (Clause 2.2). The bank directors did not ensure its staff and authorised representatives were trained (clause 7(a)(b) and it did not comply with clause 34(b)(i)(ii).

In the event that the bank has not complied with its responsibilities and rule of law, ASIC must withdraw or suspend Commonwealth Bank’s license until its misleading statements and dishonest practices are dealt with appropriately by its directors. I do expect the bank and regulators to comply with the standards, the Code, and all relevant documents so that our rights should be protected.

Craig Perry Story

My name is Craig Perry. This is my story, my worst experience with one of the leading banks in Australia for ages. I was cheated by the bank since we accepted the bank’s first offer for our loan facilities.

In 2010, my family signed a loan contract with Commonwealth Bank at Swan Hill branch as we needed to restructure our family partnership and pay out the loan we had with Elders bank. The arrangement we had with the bank was unsuitable, as it was interest-only and we were purchasing the bank’s commercial bills. We did not understand the bank’s method of financing which we raised verbally with Tim Triplett (Swan Hill Agri Manager) over several years adding further that it was extremely expensive and not in our best interests. However, Tim Triplett simply ignored requests to provide alternative options for funding, stating “sorry it is a commercial world, and this is the only way Commonwealth Bank can do it.’

The bank did not require us to have a business plan, instead, we provided an annual budget for cropping and livestock costs, which meant the bank did not carefully assess our risk before approving our budget.

The unstructured relationship with Commonwealth Bank was inappropriate for the farming business that suffered from significant variations in livestock and grain prices as the market determines farm earnings after the running costs have been paid. It is more serious because seasons varied and there must be sufficient cash reserves, which are part of every agribusiness program but cannot be assumed when budgeting.

On 17 November 2010, we received the bank letter for a temporary increase to the overdraft to $350,000 which required clearance by 28 February 2011. The total debt facilities to $2.85M.

In 2011, the bank introduced covenants that required the sale of land if fiscal targets were not met. The facilities offered by Commonwealth Bank provided no opportunity for principal repayment. Then the bank took unreasonable amounts of time to approve new facilities and temporary adjustments to the Overdraft. The timing of planting barley and wheat crops is extremely important for its success, especially more so in dry years. The delay in funding is the difference between a profit and no profit, which means the difference between income and no income. On 25 April or anything up to 2 weeks prior thereto, is the industry best practice for barley and wheat planting. The bank’s approval dates, which were applied for well before the cut-off date for planting, were delayed.

With a number of variations of sessional finance increasing the overdraft until 20 March 2015, our debt facilities increased to $3.75M.

We experienced drought in 2014 and 2015, which the bank was unwilling to support and its recommendation to us was to require our suppliers and creditors to carry out debts so that the bank did not have to increase our loan. Again, we were the victims of a bank that was not an appropriate agribusiness lender. Around this time, the bank forced us to sign unreasonable forms against our will, inclusive of agreeing to sell land to obtain crop finance. Further, the finance given was not sufficient to run the farm, but sufficient to meet interest payments. The bank advised us to make small creditors carry farm input costs.

In 2016, when we were likely to have a good year and the bank was confident that we could continue financing our term loan, it did not reconsider the way it was dealing with our business. It continued to look at our financial situation in arrears. This year, the bank again did not support by way of funding to plant crops. In converse, it forced us to sign documents that would result in a lump sum repayment on the debt. Further, we received support from creditors, enabling the planting of crops and a very profitable year.

In early February 2017, we requested crop finance from the bank, to ensure adequate timing of funds for April planting. The bank took until 30 June to offer a $500,000 facility for crops, two months past the optimal time for planting crops. It wanted to charge a $25,000 fee for the finance and we did not take up this offer, as it was too late to plant seed. It was a great season but due to the time it took for approval of funds from the bank, we missed the opportunity for seeding and the crop was only half-sown.

In 2017, the bank took us to the farm debt mediation which was not an appropriate way to resolve disputes free of charge. At that time, Commonwealth Bank had not provided us with a copy of the relevant documents that would support our loan and any difficulties we face. The Mediator, a former banker, and the bank bullied us at Farm Debt Mediation and the Mediator tried to force us to sell the farm with the bank’s control.

After the mediation in 2017, we had to attend further mediations because, while Commonwealth Bank should have known that it had to comply with the essential elements of complaints handling set out in the AS 4269-1995 Standard.

Throughout this period, the bank’s practices were disgraceful because there were two further periods of mediation, and our debt with Commonwealth bank was less than 50% of the value of the farm.

In 2018, I met with Commonwealth Bank Chief Executive Matt Comyn in Canberra. On the back of this meeting, I attended three additional meetings with him and other senior Commonwealth Bank staff on 7 December 2018, 30 May 2019, and 27 June 2019 to no avail and ended back at Farm Debt Mediation.

In 2019 and 2020, I attempted to outline my loss at Farm Debt Mediation, on the back of Commonwealth Bank’s conduct, totalling $16.9M. The bank denied any wrongdoing and ignored our claims completely. During this time, we missed two good seasons of crop and because of the bank’s actions, we had virtually no cropping income since 2016. The bank forced us to sign a deed of settlement, essentially giving my family no choice in the matter.

From 2015 to 2020, I had to spend $100,000 on accounting, legal, and other independent experts, through various channels trying to resolve our disputes with the bank, which should have been dealt with free of charge as set out in the 2004 Code and AS 4269-1995 Standard.

The bank had a series of misconduct in my case, including:

1. providing pure asset or ‘predatory’ loans without considering serviceability requirements;
2. providing short-term high interest-bearing loans not suited to our circumstances, not in our best interests, and not suitable for the underlying assets;
3. breaching the loan contracts by withholding documents pertinent to our rights;
4. prejudicing the signing of the Deed of Settlement in 2020;
5. harassing and intimidating us during FDM; and
6. causing material crop losses due to unreasonable delays in funding along with disruptive conduct during disputes.

I now believe that all these Commonwealth Bank’s practices should not have happened and that ASIC had a responsibility to protect my rights. I have discussed this with people who attended meetings at Parliament House in 2018 and 2019 and believe ASIC was not an honest cop because it claims it cannot act for any individuals, which has been the case since self-regulation was introduced by banks in 2003.

I believe that Commonwealth Bank had a duty to advise me of my rights under the 2004 Code of Banking Practice and the AS 4269-1995 Standard, which were an essential part of our loan contract. The bank, its directors, and its licensee had not complied with the internal dispute resolution procedure in the Code, which stated banks must resolve disputes free of charge (clause 35.1(a)). The bank and ASIC knew this but were involved in deception by omission when keeping this information from me.

The deception by omission occurred throughout my dispute period. The Code, in clause 35.1(b), noted leading legal minds at this time had published the essential elements of effective complaint handling in the AS 4269-1995 Standard. As I did not have access to this document, ASIC took no action when it must have known that Commonwealth Bank could deceive me when I was attempting to resolve my disputes.

I understand that Commonwealth Bank’s directors, according to ASIC Regulatory Guide 165, were responsible for causing us a financial disadvantage, which is a crime.

It seems that Commonwealth Bank directors and their associates are determined to trust luck to protect them because by omitting ASIC Regulatory Guide 165 (2001) from the Code, the bank profited and cause customers like me a financial disadvantage. This is a massive crime and far more serious than the practices of Bernie Madoff when he was described, in 2009, as America’s greatest fraudster and was jailed for 150 years.

We have obtained evidence that the bank damaged us by not complying with the 2004 Code including:

• clause 2.1 when it did not provide us with information in plain language
• clause 2.2 when it did not act fairly or reasonably towards us
• clause 7(a)(b) when it did not ensure its staff and authorised representatives were trained effectively.
• clause 35.1(b) when it did not deal with our complaints free of charge
• clauses 35.3 and 35.4, when it did not complete the investigation or inform us of the outcomes nor did it provide us, complainants, with written reasons (clause 35.1(d)); and
• clause 37.1(a) when it did not prominently publicise the Code in branches especially in regional and rural areas (as noted in the CCMC’s Bulletin 4).

I have been writing to the bank’s Chair, Chief Executive, and directors during the past 12 months because the bank placed me in a position whereby its conduct was misleading. This was also an act of fraud because the bank’s directors dishonestly obtained profits from misappropriating my business’ funds.

John Wharton Story

My name is John Wharton. I would like to tell you about my experience with my lenders, which committed one of Australia’s greatest crimes.

I was a Councilor in 1991, before being appointed Mayor of Richmond in 1997. At that time, I was managing my family’s farming business with my wife. In 2007, we owned two properties, Runnymede, purchased in 1992, and Yarrabong, purchased in 2004.

In 2007, we had a Bankwest Agri One Overdraft 625-000895-5 with a limit of $750,000, and Landmark debt of $3M. However, with additional Bankwest funds, we could purchase two more properties, Red Rock and Canyon. At that time, it was not easy to service the debt because we had limited working capital.

On 30 June 2008, I was having discussions with Bankwest so that I could purchase Red Rock and Canyon. In July, Runnymede and Yarrabong were valued by Herron Todd White (HTW) at $11M for Bankwest. In August, Red Rock and Canyon were also valued by HTW at $6.3M.

In September 2008, after we purchased Red Rock and Canyon, we agreed to sell Canyon to reduce debt.

Bob Kayes, Bankwest’s Agribusiness Manager, Rockhampton, was managing our account at that time. When we finished mustering Red Rock/Canyon’s 6,006 head of cattle, Kayes said: “You would have missed a few, wouldn’t you? If you can make it 6,606 it will save me having to go back and do another cashflow review.”       

The contract for the Red Rock and Canyon included 4500 branded cattle, so any more was a bonus.

Bankwest knew we only had 6,006 cattle, but Kayes ‘created’ cattle (phantom cattle), so he could have the bank’s loan application approved. Kayes said without additional cattle, the bank would require a full review of the loan application so cashflow was acceptable. It posed a problem for my business because the cash flow provided to the bank was not accurate.

This also put me into a difficult financial position because more debt increased my servicing costs and pressure on cashflows. In December 2009, I received a letter of Facilities Variation from Kayes. It secured the properties and cattle on all four properties.

This became more serious in 2010 because the debt had escalated to $13.7M. During the next two years, we were in a worse position and there was a declining market, the Global Financial Crisis, and floods.

In March, I received another letter of Facilities Variation from Kayes. In April, the bank claimed I had defaulted on the Facilities, and the bank appointed Korda Mentha to carry out an Investigative Report. It cost us $37,000 and did not come up with changes to the existing program. At that time, we had a good line of cattle and had often topped the sales.

Four months later, the bank again engaged Korda Mentha to prepare a Review and required the investigating accountant to prepare a report on our business. It charged us $39,914.42. Taylor Byrne’s report now showed Yarrabong was valued at $1.2M, Runnymede at $5.5M, Red Rock at $3.9M, and Canyon Station at $1M. The valuations cost us $12,850, Gadens’ legal fees were $5,461, and accounting fees of $8,000, which meant the total cost of the review was $66,225.42.

In October 2011, we put Red Rock on the market and Elders estimated it would bring in between $3M to $4M, with no cattle. It was going to be auctioned prior to the end of the year and we receive a lot of interest.

In November, the bank’s receivers moved in and took the property off the market. Elders claimed they had never seen such aggressive behavior from the Receivers Korda Mentha and the Ray White agent, Kevin Currie. When it became a receivers’ sale, the property’s value dropped and with 1200 cattle, it was sold for $2.6M in 2012. This caused us a significant loss of $1.6M. Red Rock sold in the last 12 months for $11M.

We had numerous bank meetings attempting to resolve our differences, but I found the bank, Korda Mentha, and Ray White Rural were aggressive. We employed a Farm Financial Advisor, who previously worked with Government Department to review our books and make an independent offer. It was submitted to the bank but was then rejected. I wrote to the bank and met with the managers in Brisbane and Townsville, but they did not show any leniency.

On 20 December 2010, I signed a Deed of Forbearance hoping to slow the enforcement action before 30 June 2011. We were requested to:

1. unconditionally sell Yarrabong by 28 February 2011,
2. unconditionally sell Canyon by 30 June 2011,
3. provide the bank with a monthly marketing report from 31 December 2010,
4. direct all livestock sale proceeds to the bank’s overdraft, and
5. provide copies of monthly accounts from 31 December 2010.

On 30 June 2011, the bank claimed I had not complied with the obligations in the Deed of Forbearance, as Canyon had not been sold and the loan-to-value ratio had not been satisfied. I was selling Canyon to the Qld Government as a National Park, and this process took more than 12 months, as we were dealing with Government, and it was taking a long time. The bank knew this but showed no empathy and moved on us with Receivers and Managers two weeks after the funds went into our account.

In early September, a contract for Canyon was entered into and due to be settled by 31 October 2011. Later that month, the bank wrote to me regarding my ability to meet the ongoing servicing and other requirements. The bank advised me that the sale of Canyon would not remedy my concern and I needed an alternative plan to rectify defaults.

In September and October 2011, Steve Esdale helped me prepare a letter for the bank which provided details of my proposal for facilities extension to 30 June 2015.

On 11 October 2011, Gavin Nolan of KordaMentha replied confirming their engagement to provide an addendum to the Independent Accountants Review of our Group that was conducted in October/November 2010, as part of the bank’s process in considering my offer.

On 4 November 2011, the bank rejected my offer.

On 15 November 2011, the bank appointed Richard Buckby and Robert Hutson of KordaMentha as Receivers and Managers of my properties. The next day, my access to my business bank accounts was suspended.

A week later, Lorin Bishop, Elders, Rural Property Specialist, wrote to me stating the best sale result for Red Rock would have been achieved by continuing the marketing program, which had started two weeks prior. Bishop said the property received favorable interest from initial promotion and, in his opinion, marketing as a Receiver’s sale usually negatively impacted the eventual sale price.

In early December 2011, I was concerned for the welfare of the livestock, which was now under the management of the receivers. I engaged Veterinarian Elizabeth Lynch BVSc, who wrote a letter to examine the welfare of Runnymede cattle based on their proposed transport for sale.

In January 2012, there was a fire that burned for a week through the Canyon untreated, lick was not being distributed on Red Rock, and livestock were not being managed correctly by the Receivers.

On 7 June 2012, I found myself being charged with Contempt of Court on 4 May 2012, in relation to the above matters that were being managed by receivers.

In 2014, there seemed no other way to resolve disputes with the bank and I commenced an action against it for unconscionable conduct by its associate, Bankwest. It changed my budget to justify Bankwest’s 2008 loan. The hearing was set down for 7 days but lasted for 1½ days. I was the only person to provide evidence to Honor Justice Greenwood. My lawyer, Stewart Levitt wanted me to sack him the morning of the Court Case, for lack of effort, but I refused as I needed to get on the stand and tell my side of the story.

We had agreed to a budget for the purchase of Red Rock and Canyon in July 2008 with Bob Kayes, which would have given us a total of 10,000 head of cattle in total between our properties. In late August, Bob Kayes rang me and informed me that they had approved the loan, and we could start mustering Red Rock/Canyon. We immediately began mustering with the sellers in attendance, as the sellers had guaranteed 4500 heads of branded cattle, and once that number had gone through the yards and been ticked off, the sellers could leave the property. Bob Kayes even came up for a few days and participated in the muster. He would have seen how poor in the condition the cattle were from a lack of management. On 4 September my wife and I drove to Townsville from Red Rock, where we were mustering, to sign the final Loan documents, which seemed odd, since we were already on the property and moving cattle off. We signed these documents in a hurry, in our Lawyer Arthur Browne’s office, as we needed to get back to Red Rock that night. Having faith in our Bank manager and Bank, we were under the belief that these documents were the same as our July budget. Our lawyer also witnessed us sign a blank page, which the Rockampton branch of Bankwest asked us to do, and they would fill in the necessary details later. Unknown to us, the bank had changed the budget from what we agreed to back in July with Bob Kayes and included a statement that we had to reduce the debt significantly within 12 months of buying the properties. This would have required us to sell 7000 head of cattle the following year, leaving us with fewer cattle than we originally started with. I refused to agree to such a plan, and that is when we found out about the changed budget. Plus, the inclusion of having to muster 6600 head of cattle, not the 4500 head in the contract.

At the Federal Court hearing with Justice Greenwood, I was the only person to give evidence, and when I provided the 2 differing budgets, which Justice Greenwood showed much interest in, asking me to refer to them again, Gadens walked out of Court. We adjourned for lunch 30 minutes after that, and Gadens called my lawyer during the break and offered to write off all debt. My wife and I were totally exhausted, traumatized, and broke that we accepted it, so we could go home.

There is no doubt that the bank shafted us badly in this process and we lost everything that we had worked so hard to achieve over a lifetime. In the period after my court case, many banks began to write off huge amounts of debt with many of their clients in our region. About 50% of the debt was written off.

We paid $450,000 in legal fees fighting this case with Bankwest and Commonwealth Bank, yet under the law, the Code, and the AS 4269-1995 Standard, which were all part of my loan contracts, disputes had to be resolved free of charge. It surprised me that the bank and its lawyers had not read my contract carefully because, under Code Compliance Monitoring Committee Bulletin 8, they had to tell me that they would comply with the Internal Disputes Resolution procedures in clause 35 of the Code. At no time did they attempt to deal with this. It seems the rules of law did not comply with either the bank or its lawyers.

In 2018, I attended a meeting at Parliament House with other small businesses and farmers who had also suffered damages due to misconduct by these banks. I believed the directors had hidden documents, but ASIC and APRA had not taken any action. It surprised me and other Queensland farmers that throughout this period, ASIC could have suspended or cancelled bank licensees but never protected customers.

In July 2021, I was advised that Commonwealth Bank was operated by officers in Sydney and was therefore an NSW bank. Some of the other Commonwealth Bank farmers told me to purchase a copy of the AS 4269-1995 Standard, which was included in the IDR procedures in clause 35.1(b) of the 2004 Code. The government, regulators, and banks do not meet their requirements under the Code or the Standard.

The Standard represented the interests of the Committee OB/9 Committee members including the Australian Consumers Association (CHOICE); Department of Consumers Affairs NSW; Law Consumers Association (ACCC); and Law Society NSW. It was unacceptable that these organizations did not remove the Standard from the 2004 Code when there was evidence of a scam which is defined as a dishonest scheme, a fraud.