Mangled Thoughts

The ACTU is silent on the claim broadcast last Friday funds in super firms controlled by unions are being siphoned into ‘alternative energy schemes’.

Will engineers employed in ‘alternative energy companies’ defend the claims made by their ‘employers’ for windmills, ethanol, and solar ‘energy’, against those equipped to debate them? To date none have and the reason is straightforward, they cannot.

ASIC (Australian Securities & Investments Commission) is investigating one ‘alternative energy company’ that has, unsurprisingly, folded - “Firepower”. Unsurprisingly, Firepower too was subsidised by the Federal Government.

Austrade … played quite a role in the “success” of Firepower. It provided the group with almost $400,000 in development grants.

Yet Firepower’s chairman, Tim Johnston, told shareholders for more than three years that Firepower would make tens of millions of dollars selling its products to the Russian Railways network - a business that was duchessed at the Australian ambassador’s residence in Russia.

But internal Firepower documents obtained by the Herald show Russia refused to buy the product after it discovered some trial results had been falsified. Firepower blamed one of its Russian distributors for the forged results, but kept the news from its 1200 shareholders. New tests were conducted, which showed no fuel savings. Again this was kept from shareholders.

The Herald has also learnt that the scientist Firepower claimed was going to rewrite the fuel specification was being paid as a consultant by Firepower. And the price of the consultancy was being costed against the Australian taxpayer in export grants handed out by the Australian Trade Commission.

But the documents obtained by the Herald show Firepower knew all along there was no scientific proof to back any of its fuel-saving claims.

Its former chief executive, John Finnin, a former senior Trade Commission official, warned the company in November 2006 that Firepower’s “passion and enthusiasm” for its products was not worth “a pinch of shit in the marketplace” without that proof.

THE Australian Trade Commission signed a deal with a phantom subsidiary of the controversial fuel technology company Firepower…

Austrade offered the services of Australian trade officials to the company for $190 an hour, a price that also bought it official “endorsement” from the Federal Government.

But one of the service agreements - dated December 1, 2005 - was with Firepower Group Pty Ltd, a company unknown to the corporate regulator.

Firepower claimed it had invented:

Fuel Pill showed an increase in the octane rating of fuel, thus leading to an increase in power, faster burn and decreased chance of detonation under high load. Improved performance and fuel economy and the reduction of exhaust emissions thus resulted…

The superior performance of environmentally compatible fluids means that operators can improve operations safety and performance, without putting the environment at unnecessary risk – prolonging business success and ultimately, the protection of the environment.

Firepower raised $80m in funds from investors, and it’s gone. There was nothing there and thus the funds went right down the sewer. Well, Firepower and the Government had a good time squandering over $100 millions of dollars on sponsoring sports clubs. A number of sports ’stars’ believed the bunk and sunk savings into the scheme, and lost every cent.

Firepower was, in short, a shell, as are the other ‘alternative energy companies’ into which Unions, according to the reports, are siphoning member’s savings into.

To repeat, ‘alternative energy companies’ are nothing less than shells for the commission of larceny. They do not rate as even completely new start up enterprises. Due to the risks involved, super funds cannot allocate savings held in trust as venture capital, unless it is a type of fund under which savers can allocate some amount, and only after the risks have been understood and the saver signed a document expressly authorising the allocation. Even then, the allocation is small as a ratio of their total fund so that if risk is realised the loss does not detract from the overall and long term performance of their fund.

Unions siphoning super funds into ‘alernative energy’ schemes satisfy none of the above conditions. Indeed, to siphon funds into shells and behind the backs of the owners of those funds indicates criminal action under common law. This is before regulations enforced by ASIC, and the extensive regulations under the Tax Act. Therefore, will the ATO also investigate the ACTU in view of the serious allegations broadcast by Melbourne radio stations last Friday and not yet refuted?

Will, ASIC investigate ‘alternative energy companies’? Their claims are no better than those made by Firepower. Will ASIC investigate them for violations under the legislation it is bound to enforce.

Will the Federal Police investigate for other offences bound up with such schemes that may have been committed to date by the parties involved?

These matters are all the more urgent as it was reported this morning that an ‘alternative energy company’ is trying to convince Victorians to switch to its ‘windmill power’ scheme. This must also trigger Federal and State Government’s Acts governing such matters ‘false advertising’, and measures governing selling of products (real, or non-existent as in the case of ‘alternative energy).

While I am at it, will the ACCC investigate the ACTU for price fxing in labour markets, since this comes under the Act it enforces and would thus be a gross dereliction in their duty if they do not proceed?

Both the ACCC and ASIC claim to ‘protect’ consumers and investors. It is clear they are refusing to do their statutory duty in not investigating and acting againts ‘alternative energy schemes’.

NB. I have searched to discover whether ASIC has launched any investigations into ‘alternative energy companies ( apart from Firepower). The result, so far, shows ASIC has not pursued such ‘companies’. Why not! Why do they refuse to tackle them for what is deliberate deceit of investors, as well as consumers!

Are ASIC, ACCC and ATO refusing to do they duty because of cowardice? Or, are they motivated by ideological correctness? What is their excuse, because whatever it is, it is a bad one.

This renders the inaction of ASIC all the more curious:

AUSTRALIA’S securities watchdog was warned that the fuel technology company Firepower “may in fact be a scam” more than six months before it became a public issue, but allegedly chose not to investigate.

…accountant whose client was offered shares in Firepower made a complaint to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in May 2006 alleging it could be a scam. The commission said it was “taking no further action at this time”.