ROC Australia

ROC Australia If you’ve been looking at the current landscape thinking
“there has to be a better version of this”…
This is it.

🗞️ BIG CHOCKY FINDS $10.8 BILLION BESIDE A TENTChocky:“$10.8 BILLION into homelessness & housing in WA, yet this is just...
12/09/2026

🗞️ BIG CHOCKY FINDS $10.8 BILLION BESIDE A TENT

Chocky:

“$10.8 BILLION into homelessness & housing in WA, yet this is just ONE street.”

Holy s**t.

Ten point eight billion dollars spent fixing homelessness...

and people are still sleeping in tents?

WHERE THE F**K DID IT GO?

Well...

mostly not where Chocky's sentence makes you think it went.

Because the $10.8 billion isn't a giant homelessness cheque.

It isn't $10.8 billion already spent.

And it certainly isn't $10.8 billion that was supposed to clear Memorial Drive.

It's the WA Government's cumulative headline figure for additional housing commitments since 2021, including billions announced in the latest budget, future social housing, land development, water and electricity infrastructure, affordable housing, first-home-buyer programs and even tax measures.

The latest budget alone added $4.7 billion to the number.

So apparently Chocky has discovered an astonishing new form of government waste:

MONEY THAT HASN'T F**KING BEEN SPENT YET.

And that's the frustrating part.

Because Chocky doesn't need this trick.

WA really does have a housing disaster.

More than 23,000 public-housing applications were sitting on the waitlist in May.

Rents have exploded.

Rental availability has collapsed.

People really are living around Memorial Drive.

Labor really has governed WA since 2017.

THERE'S A F**KING STORY HERE.

But instead of asking:

“After record investment, why is demand still overwhelming supply and are these programs delivering quickly enough?”

we get:

$10.8 BILLION!
TENTS!
EXPLAIN THIS!

That's not an audit.

THAT'S TWO FACTS BEING INTRODUCED AT SPEED AND ENCOURAGED TO F**K.

The photograph proves people are homeless.

The budget proves government has committed $10.8 billion across housing initiatives.

IT DOESN'T PROVE WHAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THEM.

And the funniest part?

Chocky's actual article is considerably better than his fu***ng headline.

He brought real rent data.

Real wage data.

Real rental-listing data.

Real political accountability.

Then social media apparently walked into the newsroom and said:

“YEAH, BUT CAN WE MAKE THE NUMBER F**KING MASSIVE?”

DAILY BU****IT VERDICT:

REAL CRISIS. ✅
REAL $10.8 BILLION FIGURE. ✅
REAL GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY QUESTION. ✅
$10.8 BILLION ALREADY SPENT FIXING HOMELESSNESS. ❌
ONE STREET PROVES $10.8 BILLION FAILED. ❌
HEADLINE DOING MORE WORK THAN THE F**KING BUDGET PAPERS. ✅

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT🔒 TOPHER FIELD HAS SEEN THE FUTURE. IT'S F**KING TERRIFYING.Welcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where we ta...
11/09/2026

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT
🔒 TOPHER FIELD HAS SEEN THE FUTURE. IT'S F**KING TERRIFYING.

Welcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where we take claims from politicians, media outlets and influencers, remove the dramatic music, and see whether there's anything left underneath.

Today's contestant is Topher Field, who published a video with the reassuring title:

“Digital ID is the foundation of a Digital Prison.”

According to Topher, digital ID isn't merely an identity-verification system.

Oh no.

It's the beginning of a chain that ends with governments controlling where you travel, what you eat, what you say online and eventually who you're allowed to associate with.

Fu***ng hell.

And I thought myID was just annoying.

Apparently it's North Korea with Face ID.

🚨 THE CLAIM

Topher starts with something real.

In 2025, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced plans for a digital ID to be required as proof of the right to work.

That's a perfectly legitimate civil-liberties debate.

Should government make digital identification compulsory for employment?

What happens to people without smartphones?

What data is retained?

Could the system expand?

What safeguards prevent function creep?

GREAT F**KING QUESTIONS.

Unfortunately, Topher then apparently gets bored with questions and decides to write the next fifteen years of government policy himself.

Because from there we go:

UK DIGITAL ID

⬇️

PERSONAL CARBON TRACKER

⬇️

SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM

⬇️

CARBON RATIONING

⬇️

GOVERNMENT CONTROLS YOUR TRAVEL

⬇️

GOVERNMENT CONTROLS YOUR FOOD

⬇️

GOVERNMENT CONTROLS WHAT YOU SAY

⬇️

GOVERNMENT DECIDES WHO YOU CAN HANG OUT WITH

⬇️

🔒 DIGITAL PRISON.

Mate.

YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP ADDING F**KING ARROWS.
🧠 WELCOME TO THE TOPHER FIELD SCHOOL OF EVIDENCE

Here's where the trick becomes beautiful.

Topher says:

“you can bet”

a personal carbon tracker will eventually be attached to digital ID.

Then:

“I think”

the eventual social-credit system will take the form of a personal carbon score.

Then he predicts carbon credits could prevent people travelling far, eating disapproved foods, saying certain things online or eventually associating with people on the government's “naughty list.”

Notice something?

THE LANGUAGE CHANGED.

We've quietly travelled from:

HERE'S SOMETHING A GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY ANNOUNCED

to:

HERE'S SOMETHING I PREDICT WILL HAPPEN

to:

WELCOME TO THE DIGITAL PRISON.

That's not evidence.

That's a screenplay.

🌎 BUT WAIT — THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM HAS ENTERED THE CHAT

Of fu***ng course it has.

Topher plays a 2022 World Economic Forum clip in which Alibaba executive J. Michael Evans discusses technology capable of allowing consumers to measure their individual carbon footprint — including travel, food and consumption.

That quote is real.

And that deserves scrutiny too.

But watch the magic happen.

A corporate executive discussing:

TECHNOLOGY THAT MEASURES CONSUMER CARBON FOOTPRINTS

becomes evidence for:

GOVERNMENTS WILL ATTACH CARBON RATIONING TO DIGITAL ID AND CONTROL YOUR LIFE.

There is a rather important piece missing between those two propositions.

EVIDENCE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY F**KING DOING IT.

Instead, Topher supplies the missing connective tissue himself.

🔬 LET'S CHECK AUSTRALIA

Because Topher specifically warns that if this happens in Britain, Australia won't be far behind.

Excellent.

Australia already has a Digital ID Act.

So we don't need to consult Klaus Schwab's horoscope.

WE CAN READ THE F**KING LAW.

Section 74 of Australia's Digital ID Act 2024 is titled:

“Creating and using a digital ID is voluntary.”

For participating relying parties, the Act generally requires another reasonably accessible way of obtaining the service without using the Australian Government Digital ID System, subject to specified exceptions.

The Act's stated objects include providing “secure, convenient, voluntary and inclusive” ways of verifying identity online.

There are exceptions — including some professional/business circumstances — and the regulator can grant exemptions in limited circumstances.

So:

SHOULD WE STILL WATCH FOR FUNCTION CREEP?

ABSOLUTELY.

Laws can change.

Governments can expand systems.

Exceptions matter.

Centralised or interoperable identity infrastructure creates legitimate questions about privacy, cybersecurity and state power.

Daily Bulls**t isn't here to tell you:

“DON'T WORRY, GOVERNMENTS WOULD NEVER ABUSE ANYTHING.”

That would be equally fu***ng stupid.

But there's an enormous difference between:

“This infrastructure could potentially be expanded or abused, so we need strong safeguards.”

and:

“Soon your carbon credits will determine whether you're allowed to eat a steak with Dave.”

One is scrutiny.

The other is fu***ng fan fiction.
🥷 THE SNEAKY BIT

Topher's argument uses one of the oldest tricks in conspiracy-flavoured commentary:

EVERY INDIVIDUAL STEP ONLY HAS TO SOUND POSSIBLE.

Digital ID exists.

TRUE.

Carbon-footprint technology exists.

TRUE.

Governments regulate carbon.

TRUE.

China has various social-credit and blacklisting systems.

TRUE.

Governments sometimes restrict citizens.

TRUE.

Therefore:

YOUR DIGITAL ID WILL BECOME A CARBON SOCIAL-CREDIT SYSTEM CONTROLLING YOUR FOOD, TRAVEL, SPEECH AND FRIENDS.

WOAH THERE, F**KING SHERLOCK.

The truth of the ingredients doesn't prove the truth of the recipe.

I own flour.

I own eggs.

I own milk.

THIS DOES NOT PROVE THE GOVERNMENT IS SECRETLY BUILDING ME A F**KING PANCAKE.
🇨🇳 AND THEN THERE'S CHINA

Topher describes China's “social credit system” as though it's essentially one giant nationwide citizen score connected to social media, spending habits and even the people you associate with.

That's an oversimplification of what China actually operates.

China has extensive surveillance, court-enforcement blacklists, regulatory credit systems and various local/sectoral schemes.

Those systems raise very serious authoritarian and civil-liberties concerns.

But the popular Western image of every Chinese citizen walking around with one universal Black Mirror number determining whether they're allowed to buy noodles has itself repeatedly been criticised by researchers as misleading.

Which is awkward when China is being used as the final boss in your PowerPoint presentation.

🤯 AND THEN TOPHER ACHIEVES PEAK TOPHER

After warning that digital ID will eventually underpin a system controlling:

your travel

your food

your speech

your social relationships

Topher tells viewers what they should do.

Among his recommendations:

get set up for crypto transactions,

get a VPN,

look into Tails,

learn about Tor and dark-web networks,

build a community...

and...

CHECK OUT HIS MASTERCLASS.

Yes.

After explicitly telling viewers he's not a fear-mongering salesman posting clickbait for commission, Topher warns that you're facing:

“THE FIGHT OF OUR GENERATION”

against governments trying to build a digital prison...

and then directs you towards his books, DVDs, T-shirts, hoodies and Getting Your Head in the Game Master Class.

Absolutely fu***ng magnificent.

THE GOVERNMENT MAY SOON CONTROL WHAT YOU EAT.

Anyway...

MERCH LINK BELOW.

📈 THE TOPHER ESCALATION-O-METER™

Let's reconstruct the argument:

1. UK government proposes mandatory digital ID for right-to-work checks.

⬇️

Reasonable concern.

2. Digital identity systems could expand.

⬇️

Reasonable concern.

3. Companies are developing carbon-footprint technology.

⬇️

Also true.

4. Therefore carbon tracking will be attached to your digital ID.

⬇️

Evidence required.

5. Then it becomes social credit.

⬇️

More evidence required.

6. Then carbon gets rationed.

⬇️

Hello?

7. Then government controls your travel and food.

⬇️

Topher?

8. Then government controls your speech.

⬇️

TOPHER?

9. Then you can't associate with undesirable people.

⬇️

BUY MY MASTERCLASS.

What a fu***ng journey.

🧯 THE DE-BU****ITTED VERSION

Digital ID does deserve scrutiny.

Mandatory digital identity raises genuine civil-liberties questions.

Australia's system is expanding into more public- and private-sector uses, while its legislation contains privacy safeguards, regulation and a general requirement that individual use remain voluntary.

People are entirely entitled to worry about:

privacy.

data breaches.

cybersecurity.

centralisation.

exclusions and exemptions.

future legislative changes.

function creep.

Those aren't conspiracy theories.

They're reasons to demand good fu***ng legislation.

But there is presently a vast evidentiary canyon between:

AUSTRALIA HAS DIGITAL ID

and:

THE GOVERNMENT WILL USE YOUR CARBON SCORE TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU CAN DRIVE TO BUNNINGS, EAT A STEAK OR VISIT YOUR MATE GARY.

Topher hasn't crossed that canyon with evidence.

HE'S FIRED A F**KING ARROW OVER IT.
🐟 DAILY BU****IT VERDICT

DIGITAL ID EXISTS: ✅

UK MANDATORY RIGHT-TO-WORK PROPOSAL WAS REAL: ✅

PRIVACY / FUNCTION-CREEP CONCERNS ARE LEGITIMATE: ✅

CARBON-FOOTPRINT TECHNOLOGY EXISTS: ✅

AUSTRALIA'S DIGITAL ID LAW GENERALLY MAKES INDIVIDUAL USE VOLUNTARY: ✅

AUSTRALIA HAS ANNOUNCED TOPHER'S CARBON-RATIONING SOCIAL-CREDIT PRISON: ❌

PROOF YOU'LL BE BANNED FROM EATING CERTAIN FOOD: ❌

PROOF GOVERNMENT WILL DECIDE WHO YOU CAN ASSOCIATE WITH: ❌

NUMBER OF ARROWS REQUIRED TO GET THERE: Fu***ng heaps.

Topher begins with legitimate questions about government power.

Then instead of investigating them...

he predicts the answers...

connects them to China...

throws in the WEF...

adds carbon rationing...

adds censorship...

adds government-controlled friendships...

and presents the destination as though the fu***ng bus timetable has already been published.

And that's the tragedy.

WE SHOULD SCRUTINISE DIGITAL ID.

We should demand safeguards.

We should oppose unnecessary compulsion.

We should watch governments for function creep.

But screaming:

“DIGITAL PRISON!”

because you can imagine a sequence of future governments changing a sequence of future laws to create a sequence of future policies that currently don't exist...

isn't exposing the future.

IT'S WRITING SCIENCE FICTION WITH FOOTNOTES.

And the best part?

After warning you the government is preparing to control your food, travel, speech and friends...

TOPHER CAN HELP YOU SURVIVE IT.

Books.

T-shirts.

Hoodies.

Masterclass.

Because nothing says:

“I'M NOT FEAR-MONGERING”

quite like:

“THE DIGITAL PRISON IS COMING — MERCH AVAILABLE NOW.”

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT🌿 THE GREENS DISCOVER THAT NOT COLLECTING TAX IS NOW A “HANDOUT”Welcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where w...
10/09/2026

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT
🌿 THE GREENS DISCOVER THAT NOT COLLECTING TAX IS NOW A “HANDOUT”

Welcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where we don't care whether the bulls**t comes wrapped in an Australian flag, a corporate press release, or a reusable h**p tote bag containing an ethically sourced megaphone.

Today's contribution comes from the Australian Greens:

“GREENS CALL ON LABOR TO AXE $33B IN PROPERTY BARON TAX HANDOUTS.”

And according to Greens leader Larissa Waters:

“Labor has chosen to lock in $33 billion worth of tax handouts to protect property barons.”

Holy f**k.

$33 BILLION IN HANDOUTS?!

Are landlords lining up outside Centrelink?

Is Jim Chalmers wandering through Toorak firing $50 notes out of a T-shirt cannon?

Has Australia quietly introduced JobKeeper for c***s with six townhouses?

Not quite.

Because the Greens have taken something real...

and given it a spectacularly loaded fu***ng name.

🚨 THE CLAIM

The Greens say Parliamentary Budget Office analysis based on 2023–24 ATO data shows people with two or more investment properties claimed $33 billion in what the Greens call “tax handouts.”

They highlight approximately 11,000 landlords with seven or more properties, who claimed $1.9 billion across 98,100 investment properties.

And here's the important bit:

THE $33 BILLION FIGURE ISN'T SOMETHING THEY FOUND IN A B**G.

There is a serious policy argument underneath it.

Australia gives property investors substantial tax advantages through mechanisms including negative gearing and the capital-gains-tax treatment of investments.

Those concessions disproportionately benefit higher-income Australians; previous PBO analysis requested by the Greens estimated the top 10% of earners would receive 76% of the residential-property CGT discount in 2025–26 and around 40% of the negative-gearing benefit.

That's absolutely worth discussing.

But apparently:

“TAX CONCESSIONS FOR PROPERTY INVESTORS”

wasn't quite punchy enough.

So somebody in Greens communications opened the thesaurus and selected:

HANDOUTS.
💰 WHAT THE F**K IS A “HANDOUT”?

When most Australians hear government handout, they imagine the government giving somebody money.

A payment.

A subsidy.

A grant.

Cash leaving government coffers and arriving in somebody's account.

But that's not a particularly useful description of everything bundled into this argument.

Negative gearing, for example, allows investment losses to be deducted against other assessable income under the tax system.

CGT concessions alter how taxable capital gains are calculated.

You can absolutely argue those rules are:

too generous.

economically distortionary.

unfair.

bad for housing affordability.

overwhelmingly beneficial to wealthy investors.

Go fu***ng nuts.

But calling the resulting tax treatment “$33 billion in handouts” makes it sound like Canberra spent $33 billion posting cheques to landlords.

THAT'S THE RHETORICAL TRICK.
🌿 THE GREENS' MAGICAL MONEY MACHINE

And then we reach the really sexy bit.

The Greens say:

“For the same amount of money the government spends on tax handouts to multiple property landlords, they could give a $2,200 cost of living payment to every Australian renter and mortgage holder.”

Ohhhh.

That's beautiful.

We've now gone from:

TAX CONCESSION

to:

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

to:

HERE'S YOUR $2,200 CHEQUE.

All in about three sentences.

There's just a fairly important distinction.

Foregone tax revenue isn't automatically a pile of cash sitting in Treasury waiting to be redistributed dollar-for-dollar.

Changing tax rules can increase revenue.

But exactly how much revenue a reform actually raises depends on the reform itself and behavioural responses.

Investors can sell assets.

Change investment structures.

Shift investment elsewhere.

Change borrowing.

Delay transactions.

And the PBO's actual Greens election-policy costing wasn't simply:

“Remove $33 billion of handouts → receive $33 billion cash.”

It modelled specific changes to negative gearing and CGT arrangements.

That's why we have costings rather than calculating public policy on the back of a fu***ng KeepCup.

🥷 THE SNEAKY BIT

Watch how beautifully the language escalates.

First they're:

tax concessions.

Then they're:

tax handouts.

Then they're:

government expenditure.

Then apparently abolishing them produces:

$2,200 FOR EVERY RENTER AND MORTGAGE HOLDER.

It's the progressive version of:

“STOP FOREIGN AID AND EVERY AUSTRALIAN GETS A FREE UTE.”

Take a complicated tax expenditure.

Convert it into an enormous headline number.

Divide that number by a politically sympathetic population.

And announce:

LOOK WHAT THEY COULD GIVE YOU INSTEAD.

Different ideology.

SAME F**KING CALCULATOR.
🏘️ AND HERE'S WHERE THE GREENS ACTUALLY HAVE A POINT

This is what makes the bulls**t so frustrating.

THEY DON'T NEED IT.

Labor's 2026 reforms limit negative gearing on residential property largely to new builds from July 2027, while properties held before the May 2026 announcement are grandfathered.

So the Greens have a perfectly legitimate argument:

Why protect so many existing investment properties?

Why shouldn't investors with five, seven or fifteen properties lose some of those advantages?

Would stronger reform improve first-home-buyer competitiveness?

Would it raise worthwhile revenue?

Would it instead reduce rental investment or produce other consequences?

THAT'S THE F**KING DEBATE.

And the Greens' own policy would go considerably further: broadly removing negative gearing beyond one grandfathered investment property and removing the 50% CGT discount on investment properties, subject to its specified exemptions and arrangements. The PBO has formally costed that proposal.

Great.

Put the policies next to each other.

Show us the modelling.

Show us who wins.

Show us who loses.

Show us the revenue.

MAKE THE F**KING CASE.

Instead we get:

PROPERTY BARONS RECEIVE $33 BILLION IN HANDOUTS.

Because apparently Greens HQ has discovered that “PROPERTY BARON” performs better than “TAXPAYER WITH MULTIPLE RESIDENTIAL INVESTMENTS.”

Who knew?

🎩 AND LET'S TALK ABOUT “PROPERTY BARONS”

Another magnificent piece of language.

The Greens aren't talking merely about:

property investors.

They're:

PROPERTY BARONS.

Wonderful.

Own two investment properties?

Congratulations.

Apparently you've been promoted from Gary who bought two units for retirement to:

LORD GARY OF NEGATIVE GEARING, FIRST BARON OF LOGANHOLME.

Now, there genuinely are enormous multi-property investors.

The Greens specifically highlight 11,000 landlords with seven or more properties.

Attack that concentration if you want.

But the headline deliberately paints the whole $33 billion with:

PROPERTY BARON

because “Australians with two or more investment properties receiving tax deductions” doesn't quite summon the same image of Mr Monopoly drinking renter blood from a champagne flute.

That's not accidental.

That's marketing.

📰 WAIT... HAVEN'T WE SEEN THIS BEFORE?

Remember The Noticer?

Take a legitimate statistic.

Wrap it in emotionally loaded language.

Strip away the boring technical distinctions.

Give the audience a villain.

Then let the headline do the political work.

We threw them in the Tank for it.

So guess what?

THE F**KING GREENS GET THE SAME TREATMENT.

Because bulls**t doesn't become factual when our side does it.

If:

“IMMIGRANTS ARRIVE, LOCALS FLEE”

deserves scrutiny...

then:

“$33 BILLION PROPERTY BARON HANDOUT”

does too.

Otherwise we're not fact-checking.

We're cheerleading.
🧯 THE DE-BU****ITTED VERSION

Here's the argument without the campaign copy:

THE GREENS WANT LABOR TO FURTHER RESTRICT NEGATIVE GEARING AND CGT CONCESSIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH MULTIPLE INVESTMENT PROPERTIES.

They argue Labor's grandfathering leaves substantial tax advantages with existing investors and reduces the revenue and housing-market effects of Labor's reforms.

There is legitimate evidence that property tax concessions disproportionately benefit higher-income investors.

The Greens believe substantially restricting those concessions could raise additional government revenue and reduce incentives for multiple-property ownership.

THAT'S A COMPLETELY LEGITIMATE POLITICAL POSITION.

Whether their proposed reforms would produce the housing effects they predict is something we can debate.

But you don't need to turn:

tax deductions and concessions

into:

Jim Chalmers handing property barons $33 billion in taxpayer cash

to make the argument.

🐟 DAILY BU****IT VERDICT

$33 BILLION FIGURE HAS A REAL DATA BASIS: ✅

PROPERTY INVESTORS RECEIVE SIGNIFICANT TAX ADVANTAGES: ✅

BENEFITS SKEW TOWARD HIGHER-INCOME INVESTORS: ✅

LEGITIMATE ARGUMENT FOR REFORM: Absolutely. ✅

GOVERNMENT LITERALLY HANDED LANDLORDS $33 BILLION: No. ❌

EVERY DOLLAR OF THAT $33B AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES SPENDABLE CASH IF THE RULES CHANGE: No. ❌

“PROPERTY BARONS”: Campaign copy wearing a top hat. 🎩

“HANDOUTS”: Doing enough rhetorical heavy lifting to require a SafeWork inspection.

And that's what makes this one particularly fu***ng stupid.

THE GREENS HAVE AN ARGUMENT.

They have PBO analysis.

They have ATO data.

They have legitimate questions about negative gearing, CGT, wealth distribution and housing affordability.

They could simply present the evidence and let Australians decide whether property investors deserve those tax advantages.

But apparently that wasn't exciting enough.

So:

tax concessions became “HANDOUTS.”

investors became “PROPERTY BARONS.”

foregone revenue became “GOVERNMENT SPENDING.”

And suddenly everybody gets a hypothetical $2,200 cheque.

Congratulations, Greens.

You didn't debunk economic populism.

You just bought the fu***ng green version.

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT⛳ ALBO'S $6 MILLION HOLE-IN-ONEWelcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where we don't care which political jers...
09/09/2026

🗞️ DAILY BU****IT
⛳ ALBO'S $6 MILLION HOLE-IN-ONE

Welcome back to Daily Bulls**t, where we don't care which political jersey you're wearing.

If it smells like bulls**t, it goes in the Tank.

And today we're heading to Marrickville, where Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has apparently discovered one of Australia's most exciting new sporting disciplines:

Competitive Public Money Golf.

Because Marrickville Golf Club — in Albanese's own electorate — was promised about $6 million of federal money for a clubhouse renovation and associated works.

Now, before everybody starts screaming CORRUPTION, there's an important distinction.

We don't currently have evidence Albanese personally sat behind his desk going:

“Six million to the boys at the golf club, thanks.”

And the project itself isn't necessarily bulls**t. The upgrade includes accessibility improvements, clubhouse renovation and work addressing wastewater/stormwater issues around the Cooks River.

It's how this particular ball landed on the fu***ng green that's interesting.
🚨 THE CLAIM

Labor says this is an appropriate community infrastructure project.

Albanese says he makes “no apology” for delivering infrastructure to his electorate and says the funding includes fixing sewage problems affecting the Cooks River.

Fantastic.

Then surely Marrickville Golf Club won the money through a transparent national process where golf clubs across Australia could submit their projects and the best proposal won?

BAHAHAHAHA.

No.

The Major and Local Community Infrastructure program was invite-only.

You couldn't simply apply.

You had to be invited to apply.

And according to the ABC's investigation:

Only ONE golf club was invited.

Guess which fu***ng one.

Marrickville Golf Club.

In Anthony Albanese's electorate.

Congratulations.

⛳ HOLE IN ONE.
🏌️ BUT WAIT, THERE'S A BONUS ROUND

It turns out Albanese wasn't merely the local MP.

The ABC reported that Albanese has held an honorary membership of Marrickville Golf Club, dating back roughly 15 years, which wasn't on his parliamentary register of interests. Albanese says he doesn't have a membership card, hasn't been inside the club for years and used to walk his dog along the path there.

Now again:

THAT DOES NOT PROVE CORRUPTION.

But Jesus fu***ng Christ, it certainly makes the optics spectacular.

Your electorate.

Your honorary golf club.

Invite-only grants program.

Only golf club invited.

$6 MILLION.

And nobody apparently thought:

“Should we maybe document the absolute living s**t out of how this particular decision happened?”

🧾 WHAT LABOR FORGOT TO MENTION

This isn't just about one golf club.

The Centre for Public Integrity analysed the wider $560 million Major and Local Community Infrastructure program and concluded funding was overwhelmingly directed towards safe Labor electorates and marginal seats Labor wanted to win at the 2025 election.

Even better:

The analysis reportedly tested whether that pattern could be explained by things such as household income or measures of community infrastructure need.

It couldn't.

In fact, the ABC reports that the poorest electorates received below-average funding.

Well.

That's fu***ng inconvenient.

Because suddenly:

“WE'RE FUNDING COMMUNITIES THAT NEED INFRASTRUCTURE”

starts looking remarkably similar to:

“WE'RE FUNDING COMMUNITIES THAT NEED LABOR MPs.”

The government rejects the pork-barrelling accusation and says the program complied with grants rules, including value-for-money requirements.

Which is important.

But there's still a very simple question:

HOW WERE THE PROJECTS CHOSEN FOR INVITATION IN THE FIRST PLACE?

And that's where this becomes Daily Bulls**t material.

The ABC reports the government has not explained the process used to identify projects for invitation.

That's not some irrelevant administrative detail.

THAT'S THE F**KING QUESTION.
⛳ MEANWHILE, AT ANOTHER GOLF CLUB...

This is where it becomes almost too perfectly Australian.

Rutherglen Golf Club in independent MP Helen Haines's electorate reportedly has:

Asbestos.

White ants.

A sloping floor requiring restumping.

Sounds like a pretty decent candidate for infrastructure funding.

Its members wanted to apply.

Unfortunately:

COMPUTER SAYS F**K OFF.

They weren't invited.

They didn't lose to Marrickville Golf Club after assessment.

They couldn't enter the competition.

Marrickville could.

And only one golf club in Australia got that invitation.

That's not necessarily evidence Marrickville shouldn't receive funding.

It's evidence that Australians deserve to know:

WHO DECIDED WHICH CLUBS GOT TO COMPETE?
🤡 AND THEN BRIDGET McKENZIE ENTERED THE CHAT

And because Australian politics is written by people on industrial quantities of hallucinogens...

Bridget fu***ng McKenzie is now criticising it.

Yes.

SPORTS RORTS BRIDGET.

McKenzie resigned from cabinet in 2020 after the sports grants affair and a finding concerning an undeclared membership of a shooting club that received funding.

She's now expressing amazement that Albanese had an honorary membership connected with this club.

This is roughly equivalent to Barnaby Joyce running a workplace sobriety seminar.

But here's the annoying part:

Her hypocrisy doesn't make the question disappear.

You don't get to answer:

“Was this grants process transparent?”

with:

“LOL BRIDGET.”

That's not accountability.

That's parliamentary Pokémon.

🥷 THE SNEAKY BIT

Labor's defence focuses heavily on whether the project itself is worthwhile.

That's not really the controversy.

Maybe Marrickville Golf Club desperately needs renovation.

Maybe fixing sewage entering the Cooks River is an excellent use of public money.

Maybe the community gets enormous benefit from the upgraded facility.

GREAT.

None of that explains:

Why was this project invited?

Who selected it?

What criteria determined invitations?

Why couldn't other clubs compete?

Why did funding disproportionately flow towards electorates politically useful to Labor?

And in this particular case:

What safeguards dealt with the PM's longstanding association with the beneficiary?

That's where the spotlight belongs.

🧯 THE DE-BU****ITTED VERSION

There is currently no basis to declare that Albanese corruptly handed $6 million to his mates at his golf club.

Don't turn legitimate scrutiny into Facebook fan-fiction.

But there is a completely legitimate transparency problem.

A government-controlled, invite-only infrastructure program distributed hundreds of millions of dollars.

An independent integrity group's analysis found the distribution heavily favoured Labor-held and electorally useful seats.

The government has not adequately explained how projects were originally selected for invitation.

And among those projects was approximately $6 million for the only golf club invited to participate — located in the Prime Minister's electorate, where he also held an honorary membership.

You don't need to scream “CORRUPTION.”

You need Labor to show its fu***ng working.

🐟 DAILY BU****IT VERDICT

MARRICKVILLE PROJECT MAY BE WORTHWHILE: ✅

EVIDENCE ALBANESE PERSONALLY POCKETED/CONTROLLED THE MONEY: ❌

INVITE-ONLY GRANTS PROCESS: ✅

ONLY GOLF CLUB INVITED: ✅

IN ALBO'S ELECTORATE: ✅

ALBO HONORARY MEMBER: Awkward. ⛳

CLEAR EXPLANATION FOR HOW PROJECTS WERE CHOSEN FOR INVITATION: ❌

OPTICS: Fu***ng catastrophic.

And this is precisely why Daily Bulls**t doesn't give Labor a free pass.

If Pauline Hanson ran a half-billion-dollar invite-only grants program...

stacked with electorates politically useful to One Nation...

and the only golf club invited happened to be in Pauline's electorate...

at a club where Pauline held an honorary membership...

Labor supporters would spontaneously combust.

So no.

We don't need conspiracy theories.

We don't need to pretend $6 million was deposited into Albo's Sportsbet account.

We don't even need to conclude the project itself was a waste.

We just apply the same standard to everybody:

PUBLIC MONEY. PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. SHOW US HOW THE F**KING DECISION WAS MADE.

Because apparently Labor looked at Sports Rorts and didn't think:

“We should never do anything that looks remotely like that.”

They thought:

“WHAT IF WE MADE IT INVITE-ONLY?”

Address

Brisbane, QLD

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when ROC Australia posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category