Home > EYE-BALL's ZombieLeaks, Politics - Domestic, The EYE-BALL NovelZone -, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL NovelZone’s Zombie-Leaks – 1981 Documents

EYE-BALL NovelZone’s Zombie-Leaks – 1981 Documents

EYE-BALL Zombie-Leaks –
1981 Document Uploads.
Updated 5th Jan 2012
Hello – this page forms a part of the Document upload database as a part of the State Bank of NSW – (SBNSW) and NSW Government’s – (NSWG) Corporate RAPE of the State Building Society – (SBS) in 1988.

The Documents linked below were obtained under FOI applications and relate to the SBNSW and NSWG efforts to get the entity structure right both in terms of the Building Society Acts i.e. there were three NSW Acts in play – 1901, 1923, and 1967 – the mix sought was to allow the SBNSW and NSWG to retain complete control over the Management and Board of the SBS.   These documents go some way to exposing how pressure was bought to bare on the Office of Fair Trading and the Minister, the Registrar, and Deputy Registrar.

Below the table of links – some of the image files have been pasted and commentary is made as to what the Letter means in the overall scheme of the SBNSW and NSWG’s intentions.

Uploaded Documents – 1981:
Date: Link: Information:
05/01/2012: 1981 Docs – PDF

1981 Docs – Word

The documents included in this file are all Administrative files but do include a selection of files that highlight the pressure the Office of Fair Trading – or Co-Operatives as it was known in 1981 – was exposed to by the SBNSW and NSWG in forming the SBS.


First image of the rack is a declaration by the Deputy Registrar – Ron Baker dated 31 July 1981.


This note in the FOI documents went unnoticed for some time – but a refresh look and closer inspection ignited suspicion – attempts to find ore documents surrounding this note are ongoing but the researcher is told that it is unlikely that further connective documents will be found.

In essence the words included in this declaration –

“Notwithstanding that the consents in writing of the holders of two-thirds of the whole number of the shares of each of the societies hereunder have not been sought …”

This would suggest that the Deputy Registrar was under instruction to approve the ‘transfer of engagements’ even though all the Legislative process’ had not been met.  This is just another of the unanswered questions in how the Government of the day – the Ministers and back benches collectively could allow an ‘entity’ to be formed when defying all the Administrative urgings to the contrary.

The Premier wanted it done and just what was his motivation and who was pulling his chains?



This is a copy of a memo under the heading – ‘Government Objectives and Undertakings’ and covers comments relating to the formation of a Society and the Legislative requirements needed. In the fourth paragraph of the yellow highlighted section – there is clear evidence that the proposed Building Society was targeted as being the ‘Savings Bank’ arm of the SBNSW. It also confirms that in pursuing this ‘entity’ that the 1931 Amalgamation Agreement – (1931 Agreement) – might be called to account. The Bank officer refered to at the State BAnk is Mr Paul Kearns – head of the State Banks Legal Department. Mr Kearns hands are all over this formation strategy and he was largely responsible for the SBNSW winning the Court case against the Commonwealth Savings Bank.

There is no doubt that the aim if the formation of the SBS as an ‘ENTITY’ was with the intent to bring about a legal challenge to the 1931 Agreement.

The Green highlighted section gives insight to the motivation of the NSWG and the SBNSW – they were preparing to amend Llegislation to allow for the SBS to be formed. There is much history in how this whole idea became a live agenda. That history is still being researched and all that can be said at the moments that sources close to Premier Wran have indicated that the Jack Lang influence and how the Government Savings Bank was forced into the 1931 Agreement back in 1931 had a lot to do with the motive.

Men’s ego’s and the carnage they can engineer.



This note is an extract from Hansard records – it gives the Minister for Housing, Minister for Co-Operative Societies, and Minister Assisting the Premier – Mr Sheahan – views on how the SBS will be structured.

What is of note is that the Minister claims that the SBS will be separate from the Rural Building and Investment Society (RBIS) previously known as the Tamworth Building and Investment Society – (TBIS) – yet only nine months later the SBS was merged with the RBIS and then the name was changed to the State Building Society. It was a switcheroo purely to get the SBS structured under a Legislative structure where the SBNSW and NSWG retained all the fixed-capital – and then had the rules changed to allow the NSWG and the SBNSW to control the SBS via 4 of the 8 SBS Board numbers with the Chairman also to be appointed by the SBNSW.

This ‘ENTITY’ was structured in such a way that it circumvented the 1967 Building Societies Act, it required specific Legislation to be enacted to allow it to be stry=uctured the way it was – and in doing so – the aim was to make it the ‘Savings Bank’ arm when the 1931 Agreement was overturned. One could easily say a premeditated action given that the court battle with the CSB had not even started as yet – someone knew something about how the court case was going to go …

Are you all confused yet – sorry my fault – as stated earlier this is a complex story and its framework and sub-plots would render its understanding to those who only have a committed interest. Hope you can stay with the roll-out – it gets better – or more involved depending on how you like it.



In reality – the Premier was wanting to set up a Building Society that was owned and operated by the NSWG under its existing agent – the SBNSW.  All the posturing to amend the legislation and merge, and transfer engagements back and forward, was all a strategy to allow the SBNSW and NSWG to keep the SBS under lock and key whilst they did battle in the courts with the CSB over the 1931 Agreement.

The idea was clever in that they wanted the fight.  The problem was that under Building Society Legislation – the NSWG and the SBNSW were not able to have the appearance of ownership – hence the ‘skullduggery’ employed to structure the ‘ENTITY’ with a flawed Constitution and Rules that formed a natural ‘conflict of interest’ to any long-term ownership issues.  At the time it appears that everybody in Government and other vested parties were being asked to turn a blind eye.

At no stage in these formation years is there any talk of ‘members entitlements’, or how the members will benefit from the SBS being formed other than a generalisation atached to an election promise to try and make housing cheaper.

This can only lead to a conclusion that the main game was the battle with the CSB over the 1931 Agreement.  The trail of evidence to support this is massive – they never even tried to cover their tracks – this was as premeditated an event to collude, to defraud, and to outright ignore the Law and obvious ‘conflict of interest’ warnings as could be put together.

The above letter from the Minister Mr Sheahan – gives some idea that he wanted his department out of the loop – he was trying to pass it on to Treasury – and as further documents in 1982 will show – Treasury did not want anything to do with it either.  In fact there is a letter from the Co-operatives Department that tee’s off at the SBNSW over their manhandling of Departmental staff.

It is noted that the Registrar David Horton left his position shortly after the SBS had been formed in late 1982.  One wonders what precipitated that exit – guilt or another involvement that required he leave his position.  Mr Horton has not been contacted as part of this research – efforts have been made but he is still to be found.

Mr Baker was found – he was the Deputy Registrar under Mr Horton and became the Registrar after Mr Horton left – his contact details came from a third-party and when he spoke to the researcher and was made aware of what the enquiry was about – some interesting things came forth – notes from that conversation appear below:

16th Mar 2010:  Spoke to Mr Baker… at the outset he indicated even after reading the letter to O’Neill [9th May 1988] … he has no recollection of ever writing the letter … he said it was his signature but recalled nothing about what prompted him to write the letter … he said that after the new Government [Greiner], he was shifted to the city from Parramatta to head up a new Dept that was an amalgamation of three other Dept’s that included the Dept Of Co-Operatives … he was still Registrar but indicated that he was only contacted on Co-Operative matters when he was required …

He vaguely remembers the sale to St George but after he read his letter he alluded that he thought its comments only related to the merger and not any future sale …

He mentioned that he really has no interest in any story … When asked further if he wanted to be kept informed he was indifferent … did not want to be rude and say no … but his life has moved on and all this is behind him….

16th Mar 2010:  Mr Baker rang back and requested a number of things:

Upon reflection and after he was offered an alias to keep his name out of the story, he wanted to accept that offer … his claim was that because the story was going to be critical of some parties, he did not want to be quoted or have his name used … He then indicated that he did not want any further contact … he said that I had to do what I had to do … but requested that I think about not using anything that refers to him in the story …


A very strange call … he said that he had not spoken to anybody since he had spoke with me earlier … I asked the question about that … he sounded like he wanted to keep himself hidden because he feared what might happen if he was seen to be assisting in the research investigation …  That suggests that his promotion to a higher position under Greiner before the sale to St George went through … may have been linked in some way … there was no Government or Co-Operative intervention on any level after O’Neill resigned as Chairman in July 1988 …

There is no evidence of anything untoward – but that would be the case in anybody wanting to cover their tracks … what is not explained is the Unsigned Peacocke letter dated 25th Aug ’88 and three days after the sale to St George went through. Mr Baker would have been involved in that up to his eye-balls. Him nor wanting to speak was another red-flag … every other witness has been prepared to cooperate – Mr Baker’s position only inflames opinions as to how this hold sage played out.


1982 Documents will ne uploaded next – there are 10 times the documents as compared with 1981 – 1982 documents will be a progressive upload process.

Back to EYE-BALL NovelZone Zombie-Leaks home page


Please – if you want to stay in touch with developments – please complete the FORM below.   The FORM submission allows you to register your details and comments if you so wish. Your registration will place you on a mailing list for all future updates relative to document uploads and other matters being pursued in this dispute.   You can unsubscribe from this Mailing list at any time – and just a confirmation reminder that all your details will be kept private and confidential.


%d bloggers like this: