Preamble
On the evening of June 25, 2025, I had the privilege of addressing a group of foreign investors, many of whom I have come to know through my business consulting practice or through connections with my clients. These individuals sought an honest assessment of the risks associated with investing in Australia, particularly in the context of its legal and political environment. What follows is a detailed summary of the material I presented, grounded in my personal experiences with Australia’s justice system – specifically, the systemic failures of the Australian Capital Territory’s (ACT) legal framework, the pervasive influence of racism and corruption within its institutions, and the infiltration of white supremacist elements within the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and public service. This essay expands on those remarks, offering a critical examination of how these issues undermine the rule of law and pose significant risks for investors.
Introduction to the Canberra Swamp
My personal connection to Canberra, Australia’s capital, is deeply rooted in family and history. My cousin, Aunty Isobel Coe, was a stalwart of the Aboriginal Tent Embassy (ATE), a symbol of Indigenous resistance since its establishment in 1972. Her partner, Billy Craigie, was one of the ATE’s founders and their legacy shaped my understanding of systemic injustice. Growing up in Sydney, I encountered racism, but it was not the all-encompassing force I found upon arriving in Canberra. The capital’s environment shocked me, revealing a level of prejudice, incompetence and corruption that was both overt and entrenched.
Canberra, as the seat of the Commonwealth government, is often perceived as a bastion of order and governance. However, it operates under the overlay of the ACT’s government, which I have found to be small, incompetent and deeply corrupt. This territorial layer exacerbates the challenges posed by a public service culture that rewards mediocrity and insularity. The AFP, which serves as the ACT’s police force is similarly compromised, with evidence of racism and infiltration by white supremacists and white nationalists. This toxic combination contributes to the ACT’s shameful distinction of having the highest per capita Indigenous incarceration rates in Australia, a statistic that reflects not just systemic bias, but a deliberate failure to address the issues.
The public service, Canberra’s dominant industry, fosters a culture of complacency and entitlement. Drawing on the timeless satire of Gilbert and Sullivan, one might say of Canberra’s public servants, “He thought so little, they rewarded he / By making him the Ruler of the Queen’s Navee!” This culture of rewarding mediocrity has produced generations of public servants with little exposure to the world beyond Canberra’s insular “swamp”. The result is a governance structure that prioritises self-preservation over accountability, allowing corruption and racism to flourish unchecked.
Silent Zombies: A Quarter-Century of One-Party Rule
The ACT’s political landscape is defined by a quarter-century of unbroken rule by the ACT Labor government. Despite overwhelming evidence of corruption and incompetence, Canberra’s public servants – whom I refer to as “silent zombies” for their unthinking loyalty – consistently return Labor to power. This phenomenon is not merely a reflection of political preference, but a symptom of a deeper malaise: a lack of critical engagement with governance and a willingness to tolerate systemic failures.
The Labor government’s 25-year dominance has allowed it to entrench its influence across the ACT’s legal and administrative systems. A particularly egregious example is the appointment of an incompetent and allegedly racist government solicitor, who later became the ACT Solicitor-General. This individual’s tenure, spanning approximately 20 years, exemplifies how corrupt and prejudiced actors perpetuate their influence by appointing like-minded individuals. Such appointments create a self-reinforcing cycle of incompetence and bias, undermining the integrity of the justice system.
The consequences of this entrenched power are profound. The ACT’s legal system, including its tribunals and courts, have been systematically stacked to favour government interests over those of individuals, particularly disadvantaging those from marginalised communities. For foreign investors, this raises serious questions about the reliability of legal recourse in disputes with the government or its agencies. A system that prioritises political loyalty over justice cannot be trusted to uphold the rule of law.
Personal Experience with the ACT’s “Just-Us” System
To illustrate the extent of these systemic failures, I turn to my own experience with the ACT’s justice system, which I have come to call the “just-us” system, a term that reflects its exclusionary and biased nature. In 2013, I made a seemingly straightforward application to the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) requesting that the Chief Minister, Treasury and Economic Development Directorate (CMTEDD) provide a document that the Commonwealth Ombudsman had confirmed was in their possession. What should have been a routine administrative matter escalated into a monumental confrontation with a corrupt government and a compromised legal process.
My application was supported by a meticulously prepared affidavit, drafted by a lawyer, reviewed by a second lawyer and settled by an independent barrister. The affidavit was concise, spanning three pages and included two critical annexures: a letter from the Commonwealth Ombudsman confirming that CMTEDD held the requested document and a publicly available report from the Ombudsman’s office highlighting deficiencies in the filing practices of Mr. Angel Marina, a section manager in the ACT Revenue Office. These documents provided clear evidence that CMTEDD was withholding information it was legally obligated to disclose.
Despite this evidence, the ACAT president claimed she lacked the authority to compel CMTEDD to produce the document, asserting that the directorate denied its existence. This ruling defied the Ombudsman’s findings and set the stage for a series of events that exposed the depths of corruption within the ACT’s legal system.
A Fraudulent Accusation and a Forged Document
Following the ACAT’s refusal to grant my request, I prepared to escalate the matter to the Human Rights Commission. However, before I could do so, I was contacted by an AFP officer who informed me that an unnamed government official had accused me of submitting a fraudulent document to the ACAT. I immediately dismissed the allegation as baseless and refused to engage with the officer without my solicitor present. The officer then contacted my legal team, requesting a copy of the affidavit submitted to the ACAT. Complicating matters, my Canberra-based solicitor had transferred all relevant files to my Sydney solicitor after the AFP became involved and no copy was readily available.
The AFP officer claimed to possess a scanned copy of the affidavit, provided by CMTEDD, but refused to produce the original. My legal team repeatedly informed the officer that the document he was relying on was a forgery and demanded to see the original. To this day, the original affidavit has not been produced by the ACAT and its whereabouts remain unknown. The registrar, who could potentially shed light on the matter, was unavailable for cross-examination during my subsequent criminal case and the identity of the individual who tampered with the document remains undisclosed.
I submitted multiple Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to the ACAT, seeking information on who accessed my file between the conclusion of my ACAT hearing and the AFP’s accusation. None of these requests have been answered. I also wrote to the ACT Attorney-General, who holds ministerial responsibility for the ACAT, requesting that he direct the tribunal to respond to my FOI requests. The Attorney-General has not even acknowledged my correspondence, a failure that underscores the government’s contempt for accountability.
A Malicious Prosecution
The AFP ultimately charged me with 16 counts of fraud-related offences, based on the alleged submission of a fraudulent affidavit. In 2017, I stood trial in the ACT Supreme Court and was acquitted on all counts – a resounding 16-0 victory. The jury saw through the AFP’s baseless accusations, which were rooted in malice and racism rather than evidence. The trial itself, however, revealed further flaws in the ACT’s justice system.
My barrister observed that the presiding judge appeared more concerned with avoiding an appeal than ensuring a fair trial. During his summation, the judge smiled in a manner that seemed to undermine my defence, as if signalling to the jury that it should not be taken seriously. Despite this apparent bias, the jury’s unanimous acquittal affirmed the weakness of the prosecution’s case and the strength of my defence.
The trial also exposed additional evidence of tampering within the ACAT. After my ACAT hearing, my solicitor obtained a transcript of the proceedings, which included a statement by the ACT barrister accusing me of misconduct without evidence. When my solicitor requested a second transcript prior to my criminal trial, that statement had been deleted. This discrepancy was no accident; it was a deliberate alteration of an official record, raising serious questions about what else in the transcript may have been manipulated.
Why This Matters: Implications for the Rule of Law
The events described above are not isolated incidents, but symptoms of a broader collapse of the rule of law in the ACT. The ACAT’s ability to make an affidavit disappear, replace it with a forgery and alter an official transcript undermines the integrity of the entire justice system. If such misconduct can occur at the tribunal level, there is little assurance that higher courts are immune to similar abuses. The ACT’s courts handle a significant portion of Commonwealth litigation, making these systemic flaws a national concern.
For foreign investors, the implications are dire. If a government agency can withhold documents, fabricate evidence and manipulate legal proceedings with impunity, what protections exist for investors litigating against the Commonwealth in the ACT? The answer is clear: none. The same tactics used against me – disappearing affidavits, altered transcripts, biased investigations – could be deployed against any party challenging the government’s interests.
The AFP’s role in this saga further erodes confidence in the system. The force’s willingness to pursue baseless charges, coupled with its failure to produce the original affidavit or identify the complainant, suggests a lack of independence and accountability. The infiltration of white supremacist elements within the AFP, as evidenced by its disproportionate targeting of Indigenous individuals, only compounds these concerns. A police force that operates with prejudice and malice cannot be trusted to uphold the law impartially.
Adding Insult to Injury: A Denial of Justice
Despite my acquittal in May 2017, I have been unable to obtain basic information about the case that upended my life. The AFP, the ACT Attorney-General and the ACAT have refused to disclose the identity of the government official who accused me of fraud. This secrecy violates a fundamental principle of the rule of law: the right of the accused to confront their accuser. By shielding the complainant’s identity, the ACT government denied me the opportunity to challenge their motives or pursue legal recourse for what I believe was a malicious and racially motivated accusation.
The complainant’s anonymity also raises questions about accountability within the public service. If a government official can make a false accusation, trigger a criminal investigation and hide behind institutional protections, what incentive exists for ethical behaviour? The ACT’s public service culture, characterised by cowardice and a refusal to accept personal responsibility, enables such abuses. As I remarked to the investors, it is “easier to hide behind an institutional wall than accept personal accountability for your actions.”
Broader Implications for Investors
The systemic issues in the ACT’s justice system have far-reaching implications for foreign investors. Australia markets itself as a stable, rule-based jurisdiction with robust legal protections. However, my experience demonstrates that these protections are illusory in the ACT where corruption, racism and incompetence pervade the legal and political landscape. Investors who rely on the courts to resolve disputes with government entities or seek redress for unfair treatment may find themselves ensnared in a system that prioritises government interests over justice.
The ACT’s one-party rule exacerbates these risks. A government that faces no meaningful electoral challenge has little incentive to reform its institutions or address systemic failures. The public service’s insularity further entrenches this status quo, creating a feedback loop of mediocrity and corruption. For investors, this translates into heightened uncertainty and exposure to arbitrary government actions.
Moreover, the AFP’s compromised state poses additional risks. A police force infiltrated by white supremacists and willing to pursue malicious prosecutions cannot be relied upon to protect investor interests or uphold the law impartially. This is particularly concerning for investors from diverse backgrounds, who may face disproportionate scrutiny or bias in their interactions with authorities.
Counterarguments: The Other Side of the Coin
While the issues raised in this paper paint a grim picture of the rule of law in the ACT, it is essential to acknowledge counterarguments and the perspectives of those who maintain faith in Australia’s legal system. Proponents of the current legal framework argue that the rule of law is fundamentally intact and that isolated incidents of corruption or bias do not represent the system as a whole. They point to Australia’s robust legal institutions, independent judiciary and democratic processes as evidence that the rule of law is upheld.
Supporters also argue that the Australian Government has made strides in addressing systemic issues, particularly concerning Indigenous rights and social justice. Legislative reforms, increased oversight of police conduct and efforts to combat racism within public institutions are cited as examples of progress. Furthermore, they argue that while challenges exist, the presence of mechanisms for appeal and review provides a safety net for individuals who believe they have been wronged.
Additionally, some might argue that my personal experience, while compelling, is not representative of the broader population’s interactions with the justice system. They may contend that the majority of cases are resolved without incident and that the legal framework continues to serve as a reliable means for dispute resolution.
What no-one knows is how many people have been forced to endure a fate similar to mine. More importantly, how many lacked the financial and legal means to contest malfeasance and either lost or simply given up. A law enforcement and justice system that does not hesitate to attempt the fit-up one man must be considered to have form.
Conclusion: A Call for Vigilance
In concluding my remarks to the foreign investors, I emphasised the need for vigilance when considering investments in Australia, particularly in the ACT. The death of the rule of law in Canberra is not an abstract concern, but a tangible reality as evidenced by my own experience with a corrupt justice system, a racist police force and an unaccountable government. The “silent zombies” of the public service, who perpetuate this system through their unthinking loyalty are complicit in its failures.
For investors, the lesson is clear: due diligence must extend beyond financial metrics to include a thorough assessment of the legal and political environment. The ACT’s justice system, with its history of tampering, bias and impunity, poses significant risks to those who rely on it for protection. Until meaningful reforms are implemented – such as independent oversight of the AFP, transparency in government processes and an end to one-party dominance – the ACT will remain a hazardous jurisdiction for investment.
My experience is a cautionary tale, but it is not unique. If the ACT’s institutions can target an individual with fabricated evidence and malicious prosecutions, they can do the same to any investor who challenges their authority. The rule of law is the foundation of a stable investment environment and in Canberra, that foundation is crumbling. Investors must proceed with eyes wide open, recognising that the “just-us” system serves the interests of the powerful, not the principles of justice.
