04 December 2015

Wyndham council 'out of control'

MP says Wyndham councillors are 'out of control'

MP says Wyndham councillors are 'out of control'.


A Liberal MP has called on the Local Government Minister to investigate bullying allegations among Wyndham councillors, claiming many are “out of control”.

Speaking in parliament last week, Western Metropolitan MP Bernie Finn asked the minister to appoint someone to “inquire into the good governance level” and have, as a possibility, the prospect of appointing commissioners, “if they do not come up to scratch”.

“We have had numerous instances of councillors bullying other councillors behind closed doors,” Mr Finn said. “Councillors [are] threatening other councillors behind closed doors.”

Acknowledging the work of administrators with Brimbank council, Mr Finn suggested it was time for administrators to do the same at Wyndham.

“Wyndham is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Australia. It needs a good council; it deserves a good council,” he said.

Star Weekly has been told of at least one official complaint lodged by a councillor, who claims to be fed up with the bullying culture around the council table.




Kelly Grigsby

Wyndham council’s chief executive Kelly Grigsby said she had no concerns regarding the governance of council, but confirmed the organisation was investigating “matters relating to behaviour that is not in keeping with the standards outlined in the councillor code of conduct”.

“Given that the matters are unresolved, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific details,” she said.

She said the council took its obligation to provide a healthy workplace and to protect councillors from bullying and harassment very seriously.

A spokesperson for Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins indicated Wyndham would not go into administration any time soon.

“Mr Finn’s allegations need to be referred to the appropriate investigative body,” the spokesperson said.

“The minister will then consider any recommendations from those investigations.”

starweekly.com.au 3 Dec 2015

What the corporate media WILL NOT TELL you is that the businesses commonly referred to as current 'city councils' are in office UNLAWFULLY, according to the Australian document called the 'Australian Constitution'.

Bernie Finn
Bernie Finn
A Liberal MP has called on the Local Government Minister to investigate bullying allegations among Wyndham councillors, claiming many are “out of control”.
Speaking in parliament last week, Western Metropolitan MP Bernie Finn asked the minister to appoint someone to “inquire into the good governance level” and have, as a possibility, the prospect of appointing commissioners, “if they do not come up to scratch”.
“We have had numerous instances of councillors bullying other councillors behind closed doors,” Mr Finn said. “Councillors [are] threatening other councillors behind closed doors.”
Acknowledging the work of administrators with Brimbank council, Mr Finn suggested it was time for administrators to do the same at Wyndham.
“Wyndham is one of the fastest growing municipalities in Australia. It needs a good council; it deserves a good council,” he said.
Star Weekly has been told of at least one official complaint lodged by a councillor, who claims to be fed up with the bullying culture around the council table.
Kelly Grigsby
Kelly Grigsby
Wyndham council’s chief executive Kelly Grigsby said she had no concerns regarding the governance of council, but confirmed the organisation was investigating “matters relating to behaviour that is not in keeping with the standards outlined in the councillor code of conduct”.
“Given that the matters are unresolved, it would be inappropriate to comment on specific details,” she said.
She said the council took its obligation to provide a healthy workplace and to protect councillors from bullying and harassment very seriously.
A spokesperson for Local Government Minister Natalie Hutchins indicated Wyndham would not go into administration any time soon.
“Mr Finn’s allegations need to be referred to the appropriate investigative body,” the spokesperson said.
“The minister will then consider any recommendations from those investigations.”
- See more at: http://www.starweekly.com.au/news/councillors-out-of-control-mp/#sthash.Qtgxe4em.dpuf

01 December 2015

Constitutional Lawyers the new ‘terrorists’ according to the Australian Government?


The Australian plebs have been warned that there will be NO INSUBORDINATION!!! !!! !!!


Apparently now if you are a ‘sovereign citizen’ (which according to Australian law – an impossibility!) you are automatically branded a terrorist.

Read article of the headline:
Sovereign citizens: Terrorism assessment warns of rising threat from anti-government extremists


But could there have been an age-old enemy of the government brewing right under their noses and setup and supported by the very people in government?

Who is this old foe?

Could it be the meek, mild and very learned ‘Constitutional Lawyer’?

Let’s start educating the Aussie pleb as to what a Constitutional Lawyer is.

If you are challenging your criminal (read administrative) ‘fine’ for example for parking, in the lowest ‘court’, the Magistrates’ then you could be challenging the validity of that law or Act that you are being allegedly charged under.

When  you go up the ‘court’ ladder it’s only a couple of steps until you reach the ‘High Court of Australia’.

What is the High Court of Australia, the ‘footy fanatic’ uneducated pleb may ask?

It’s a place set up by the Australian government where people can question the law with respect to the Australian Constitution.

So what does this person called a ‘Constitutional Lawyer’ do?

This ‘person’ focuses on the law, and the various relationships of it with respect to the Australian Constitution.

Download yourself a copy of it at:

It’s actually the Ninth part of a document called An Act to constitute the Commonwealth of Australia [9th July 1900]. It is an Act of the United Kingdom.

Some people (judicial registrars/magistrates/judges) may tell you that it is a ‘historical document’, ‘outdated’ or not relevant to today’s legislation.

BULLOCKS !!! !!! !!!

This document was pulled from the public curriculum in the 1970’s to keep people the plebs in the dark.

It’s one of the more powerful documents with relation to how the ‘authorities’ MUST behave.

The court’s are a sham, practicing in deceit, fraud and various other criminal activities.

The country’s lawyers are pulling the wool over your eyes with respect to the ‘law’, and not fully disclosing to you what’s really going on.

PLEASE NOTE:

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 109

Inconsistency of laws
                   When a law of a State is inconsistent with a law of the Commonwealth, the latter shall prevail, and the former shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be invalid.


Ref: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/coaca430/s109.html 

Just ask a ‘Constitutional Lawyer’....

30 November 2015

Australian 'sovereign citizens' now classified as terrorists

Are all these new 'terror' laws are really aimed at the general populous?

When the government and media have really got it all wrong when using the words sovereign citizen.

A citizen is a person who is a resident in a republic.

Like it or not, in Australia, the people have someone called the REIGNING MONARCH i.e. Queen Elizabeth the Second.

The people of Australia are therefore SUBJECTS OF THE QUEEN.

You CANNOT be a 'Subject of the Queen' and living in a republic at the same time.

Read the article from abc.net.au from 30 Nov 2015 of the title:

Note: Australia's government may be 'legal' but is sure is not 'lawful'.

More 'government' / corporate propaganda.

Sovereign citizens: Terrorism assessment warns of rising threat from anti-government extremists


Updated
Map: Sydney 2000
Anti-government extremists known as "sovereign citizens" have been identified as a potential terrorism threat in Australia by a confidential NSW Police report.

What are sovereign citizens?

  • Sovereign citizens don't accept Australia's legal framework or government
  • They consider themselves outside the law
  • Counter terror command warns they should be considered "a potential terrorist threat"
  • In NSW, police estimate there are about 300 sovereign citizens
  • The FBI considers them domestic terrorists

The NSW Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics command assessment — obtained by 7.30 — suggests there are as many as 300 sovereign citizens in the state, and that their numbers are growing.

It also suggests they have "the motivation and capability to act against government interests and should be considered a potential terrorist threat".

Police records show the number of Australian sovereign citizens in NSW doubled from 2009 to 2011 and nearly tripled from 2009 to 2012.

Interactions with police increased 50 per cent in 2011, with a "notable increase in threats of violence".
In the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) classifies sovereign citizen extremists as domestic terrorists.



The US Department of Homeland Security has listed them as the number one domestic terror threat in America.

Detective Superintendent John O'Reilly is the commander of the Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Operation Group for NSW Police.

He said NSW police had been examining overseas trends and threats.

"Sovereign citizens are people that don't buy into our legal framework, our system of government," he said.
"They consider themselves individuals and operate outside the law and outside our tax system."
We are always conscious of preventing terrorism and we are mindful of any movements that have the potential to go down that path
John O'Reilly, NSW Counter Terrorism and Special Tactics Operation

Police intelligence of incidents involving sovereign citizens in Australia ranges from displaying homemade registration plates and "plans to use paint bombs to disrupt court proceedings", to making plans to kidnap a judge, judicial officials and a police officer.

The report also states that in 2012, sovereign citizens threatened to burn down the home of a judge and "cause harm with firearms" and had "plans to murder Sheriff Officers if they attempt to seize property".

While Commander O'Reilly stressed Australia had not experienced any of the high impact violence resulting in death or casualties associated with the movement overseas, he said there were indications of radicalisation.

"A number of instances have ended up in people being placed under arrest and sometimes there has been a degree of resistance on the basis that they claim that the police officer has no authority over them," he said.

"We are always conscious of preventing terrorism and we are mindful of any movements that have the potential to go down that path."

Do you know more about this story? Email 7.30syd@your.abc.net.au

Australian sovereign citizen faced court more than 200 times

John Wilson has been identified by senior police sources as an extremist member of the sovereign citizen movement in Australia.

The 73-year-old retired dentist has been fighting the system for 20 years.
 

His path towards sovereign ideology started in the late 1990s, when he was evicted from his home because he refused to acknowledge the mortgage over his house.

"It means you are your own master, in other words you have the right to your own body, your own freedoms, and if anybody wants to impose something upon you, they have to do it lawfully.

"If you are a sovereign person, you make the laws for yourself. You decide in your own conscience what you want to do."

Mr Wilson only pays fines or taxes when he thinks they are fair. He has been to court more than 200 times and jailed.

In 1997 he threw a plastic bag containing yellow liquid at a Supreme Court judge, in 2006 he attempted a citizen's arrest of a Supreme Court judge and in 2009, Mr Wilson sent a letter to the police commissioner.
In it, he threatened to burn down the premises he was evicted from.

He said that he was the victim of a government conspiracy and that there were hundreds of other Australians who shared his beliefs.

"There would be many hundreds scattered across the continent. The Queenslanders are very conscientious, the Victorians are doing a good job and even now in Western Australia we are getting more and more farmers and ordinary people, saying no, this is not right," Mr Wilson said.

"At the moment I have membership of about 95 people, but I haven't really pushed it."

Deadly US attacks linked to movement

The sovereign citizen movement began in 1969 in the United States as an anti-tax, anti-government group called Posse Comitatus.

Members believed that the United States federal authority was unlawful, and only accepted small levels of government.
Timothy McVeigh, centre, is led from the Noble County Courthouse in Perry, Oklahoma, by FBI agents  
 

Up to 300,000 Americans identify as sovereign citizens, according to the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Of those, 100,000 are considered extreme.

Before the 2001 World Trade Centre terrorist attacks in New York, the most destructive loss of life uring peacetime in the United States was the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

168 people died, including 19 children under the age of six.

 The two key conspirators were domestic terrorists and Timothy McVeigh's partner in the attack was Terry Nichols, a person designated by the FBI as a sovereign citizen.

Since the Oklahoma bombing, 32 law enforcement officers have been murdered by domestic anti-government extremists in America.

Two of the officers killed were serving under former Chief of the West Memphis police, Bob Paudert in May 2010. One of them was his son, Brandon Paudert.

"It has been five-and-a-half years since he has been killed and it was the most devastating event that has occurred in my life," Bob Paudert told 7.30.

 
Sergeant Brandon Paudert and his partner, Officer Bill Evans, were shot and killed during a traffic stop by sovereign citizen Jerry Kane Jr and his 16-year-old son Joseph Kane.

"Brandon and Bill were killed because they had never heard of sovereign citizens. It was something new to them, they didn't know about them," Mr Paudert said.

"I am convinced of this — if they knew and they had the training that we are now giving officers around the country and around the world, they would be alive today. They would be with us."


Since their deaths, Bob Paudert has worked closely with the Southern Poverty Law Centre in Alabama and the FBI to train law enforcement officials in the United States and Canada about the dangers sovereign citizens potentially pose.

"No-one had heard of sovereign citizens in May 2010, now the FBI says that they are the number one threat in this country. Australia is facing a similar scenario that we went through and it's starting the same way," he warned.

"They didn't commit acts of terrorism over here at one time. Now they do. And you can't wait. You can't wait until you lose officers, or officers are killed, to decide to do anything."

Victoria Police - Manual Policy Rules and Trademark logo use



What many people may not be aware of is that as of 2013 Victoria Police is a corporation - via the Victoria Police Act (2013) - and therefore subject to 'corporate law'.


What people may not also realise is that the Victoria Police 'logo' is trademarked, and therefore illegal for others to use, under 'corporate law'.

It has been recently posted on various sites that Victoria Police are trialing in certain suburbs of Melbourne, a stop and give 'receipt' to the person.

Why?

Under corporate law you are then engaging in a commercial activity.

You know what 'we' say to this?

Give the police 'your terms and conditions' as per template in the blog post titled:

How to communicate with police

at the link:
http://corpau.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/how-to-communicate-with-police.html

Whilst you're at it grab yourself a copy of the Victoria Police Manual - Policy Rules (9p, 349KB) at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2TmF5UDNTNnNTZUE/view?usp=sharing

Source: https://www.policecareer.vic.gov.au/websites/victoriapolice/userdocuments/16714VPMP_ProfStand.pdf

and the Victoria Police Style Guide (15p, 815KB) on the use of the trademarked Victoria Police logo at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B21_coIgIYu2ajNpUFVMdGJhMHc/view?usp=sharing

Source: https://www.tsbi.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/VicPolStyleGuide.pdf


See how your experiences differ from the official rules.

26 November 2015

No Lawful warrant from Victoria’s sheriff – Brendan Facey?


After reading the posts from the Corporate Australia (corpau.blogspot.com) blog on Victoria’s sheriff, Brendan Facey and his (alleged) office of employment ‘Sheriff’s Office’ and now the ‘Sheriff’s Office Victoria’ (which are two different business entities, under two different jurisdictions - See Corporate Australia blog article: There’s a new sheriff in old Melbourne town) the readers should be aware that according  [to their many other invalid] Acts, the Sheriff Act 2009, where Victoria’s sheriff allegedly get his powers of incarceration, detainment and seizure of goods is invalid.



It is also important to point out that there is no lawful appointment for the current so called ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey (see above meme).

Having said the above, there can be no lawfully generated warrant for road offences as a result from a place of business/trading/commerce called the ‘Infringements Court’. 

If you have had dealings with the sheriff, Brendan Facey or any other person from the ‘Sheriff’s Office’, or anyone claiming to be a ‘deputy’ – 

ASK FOR THE WARRANT!

The short answer is that you will not be provided with one.

The longer answer is:-

  • If you write a letter to the ‘Sheriff’ Brendan Facey at the address of the ‘Sheriff’s Office Victoria’ to supply you with the warrant/s supporting their claims, wait for a response from him, as the person Brendan Facey, of the title ‘Sheriff of Victoria’, on the letter head ‘Sheriff’s Office’.

  • If you obtain a reply from another company, e.g. CCV from no person only a title ‘CORRESPONDENCE OFFICER’, you [in law] did NOT receive a reply from the ‘sheriff’ Brendan Facey, from his place of business the 'Sheriff's Office'.

If you actually do get provided with a warrant, it will NOT be a LAWFUL one.

24 November 2015

Drivers Test Positive for Drugs They’ve Never Used


Imagine this: You are stopped by police for a random roadside drug test. You lick the strip and are told to wait a few minutes for the results. Moments later, the officer returns and says you have tested positive for drugs.

The only problem is you’ve never taken illegal drugs in your life!

It might sound implausible – but as one Sydney man recently discovered, it can and does occur.

The Plight of an Innocent Man

Steve Hunt was driving home from work when pulled over for a roadside drug test.

As someone who does not take drugs, Steve happily submitted to the test.

But the law abiding citizen got a rude shock when the officer told him there was ‘a problem.’

The officer informed Steve that he had tested positive for methylamphetamine, then placed him under arrest and took him to a nearby drug van. Despite a secondary test returning a negative result, police decided to send Steve’s sample to NSW Health for further testing, where a positive result was returned two weeks later.

Adamant that there had been a mistake, Steve asked his lawyers to have the sample retested. Two further tests were conducted at the same NSW Health lab, each returning a negative result!

Despite this, police refused to drop the case and sent it to court. At court, the police prosecutor offered ‘no evidence’ – knowing that Steve would certainly win the case.

Accordingly, the case was dismissed in court.

It was fortunate that Steve decided to fight the case – as he faced a maximum penalty of $1,100 and six months off the road, as well as a criminal conviction for drug driving if he had simply pleaded guilty as many people do.

But his ordeal still cost him $5,000 in legal fees – money which he was forced to draw out of his mortgage to prove his innocence. Perhaps his lawyers should have applied for his legal costs to be paid by police, but for some unknown reason it does not appear that an application for costs was made.

Other Cases

Since Mr Hunt’s case made the headlines, a number of other drivers have come forward saying that they had also tested positive for drugs which they had never taken.

Some had similar experiences to Mr Hunt – where the initial test came back positive, and subsequent tests produced negative results.

In fact, the very first person in the world to return a positive reading for a drug test was nearly convicted of drug driving on the basis of a false reading.

39-year-old John De Jong returned a positive result for methylamphetamine when he submitted to a lick test in Yarraville, near Melbourne, way back in 2004.

Mr De Jong denied ever using the substance and was taken to a drug van for a subsequent test, which indicated a positive result for cannabis.

According to Mr De Jong, he had last used cannabis a month before – meaning that it should not have been detected in a roadside lick test, which can generally only detect cannabis that has been consumed 4-6 hours earlier.

Shocked by the reading, Mr De Jong consulted an independent pathologist, who released a report showing that there could not have been cannabis in his system at the time of driving. As a result, police did not proceed with the charges.

As it was the first time roadside lick tests had been used anywhere in the world, police had arranged for the media to be present at the scene. Mr De Jong therefore found his picture splashed across the news to his embarrassment, and the media presence backfired for police.

Mr De Jong later sued police for defamation, and the matter was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum. Police were also forced to issue a ‘statement of regret’ to Mr De Jong for the error.

Mr De Jong’s case may have been the first – but it’s certainly not the last case of a driver being charged with drug driving on the basis of a false positive.

In fact, a 2006 study found that ‘no device was found to be reliable enough for roadside screening of drivers,’ and that ‘lick’ test devices ‘fail[ed] to meet the 95 per cent accuracy level originally demanded.’

Subsequent investigations have revealed that up to one-third of all drivers who initially test positive during roadside lick tests return negative readings when re-tested in drug vans.

In 2010, Victoria Police admitted that 62 out of 1618 people who tested positive for drug driving had been incorrectly charged. And in NSW, 72 out of 174 drivers tested in a Northern Rivers operation returned ‘false positives.’

Despite these serious issues, NSW Police have vowed to expand their drug testing operations, with plans to conduct 100,000 lick tests each year by 2017.

sydneydruglawyers.com.au 22 Nov 2015

Another dodgy 'Australian Government' policy using dodgy technology.

In Australia, you're branded a 'criminal', first and foremost, then you have to PROVE your innocence.

Nothing to do with caring for the people, but rather enslaving the masses.

23 November 2015

Journalist Sharri Markson detained on Israeli visit

Sharri Markson, a senior writer at The Australian, was travelling with other Australian journalists on a week-long study tour in northern Israel. Sharri Markson, a senior writer at The Australian, was travelling with other Australian journalists on a week-long study tour in northern Israel.

A prominent Australian journalist was detained by Israeli security officials in tense scenes last week for breaching protocol during a visit to a hospital treating victims of the Syrian civil war.

Sharri Markson, a senior writer at The Australian, was detained for questioning by security officials at the Ziv Medical Centre in northern Israel on Thursday.

Markson was travelling with other Australian journalists on a week-long study tour organised by the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council.

Sources said Markson became "aggravated" during the "tense" incident in which security officials demanded she hand over her passport, mobile phone and notes.

"It was very intense and dramatic," a source said. "There was a major commotion and suddenly there was security everywhere."

Over 500 Syrians – including wounded fighters battling the Assad regime – have been treated at the Ziv Medical Centre in Safed, near the Syrian border.

In a briefing before the tour began, hospital staff told the journalists that the patients could be at risk upon their return to Syria if it became known they had sought treatment in Israel. The hospital uses elaborate methods to secretly transfer the patients in and out of Syria.

The eight journalists were instructed not to record the names of the patients or to take photos that could identify them.

Fairfax Media understands that during the visit, Markson broke away from the other journalists to speak to the patients without supervision and exchanged contact details with them.

This led to her being detained by security forces. Fairfax Media understands the incident was resolved following intervention by NSW Jewish Board of Deputies chief executive Vic Alhadeff​.

Mr Alhadeff, who has returned to Australia, said: "Our paramount concern was for the safety and security of the Syrian patients.

"In that regard, we are very mindful of not disclosing their identity.

"There was an unfortunate misunderstanding but the situation was quickly resolved."

Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council  executive director Colin Rubenstein​, who was not on the trip, confirmed a "kerfuffle" had occurred at the hospital.

He said the council  representative on the trip told him Markson "took down the email address of a Syrian patient, security officials got wind of it and asked her about it on the way out".

"Most times it's very clear to all the participants what the guidelines are. It's never been an issue before.

"The condition of visiting the hospital is to respect and maintain the confidentiality of the patients' identities.

"If anyone's identity was disclosed it would put them at great risk – it's a brutal part of the world."

Other reporters on the trip included Daily Telegraph deputy editor Ben English, Fairfax Media federal politics editor Bevan Shields and Channel Seven reporter Alex Hart.

Markson, who was until recently The Australian's media editor, declined to comment.

She later tweeted: "The Syrian fighters took my details to keep in touch with a journalist when they return to Syria, where they're at war with Assad and Daesh.

"The Syrian fighters gave me theirs too. Israeli security were a bit heavy-handed, demanding I delete the details from my phone and notebook."

This is not the first time Markson, the daughter of celebrity agent Max Markson, has been involved in a controversial hospital visit. In 2005 she reportedly secured an interview with a victim of the London bombings by entering the hospital ward looking upset and carrying a bunch of flowers. The incident was later covered by the ABC's Media Watch program.

Markson also reportedly rifled through the bins of rival publication Cosmo when she was editing Cleo magazine.

smh.com.au 23 Nov 2015

So,  Israel allows reporters to see people war torn victims, under controlled and scripted conditions, but when someone (a truth seeker?) goes further, then apparently it's a 'security' breach.

Bollocks?

Does Israel does not want people to know the truth?

Should take ALL the refugees from Syria?
 
Does it not make 'financial' sense to send them 'next door' and not ship thousands of kilometers to Australia?

Is Israel NOT a 'Human Rights' supporter?

Wage fraud: Pizza Hut franchisees using 'sham' contracts to underpay drivers


Evidence shows Pizza Hut's franchisees are paying delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover. Evidence shows Pizza Hut's franchisees are paying delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover. Photo: Neil Newitt
Australia's second-biggest pizza chain, Pizza Hut, is under fire as evidence emerges that its franchisees are using "sham" contracts to pay delivery drivers as little as $12 an hour without super or WorkCover.

It comes as the franchise giant is fighting its franchisees in the Federal Court after they launched a class action against head office alleging unconscionable conduct under the franchising code.
These are not legal rates. They've [drivers] got to be paid the award rate.
Gerard Dwyer, Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association
Pizza Hut has been locked in a deep discounting battle with rival chain Domino's.
Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who reviewed a copy of the contract said, in his view, the contract was a "sham". Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who reviewed a copy of the contract said, in his view, the contract was a "sham".

Over the past five years, Pizza Hut has faced fierce competition from rival chains, particularly from the fast-growing Domino's chain and premium pizza chains. The increased competition has led to Pizza Hut closing some of its restaurant stores to focus on home delivery and introducing steep discounts to win customers.


An estimated 90 per cent of franchisees claim losses and business collapses as a direct consequence of orders that they slash the cost of pizzas up to 50 per cent to take market share from rivals.
A contract obtained by Fairfax Media shows a driver can earn $6 a delivery, with no more than two deliveries per round trip. Under the terms of the contract drivers provide the car, pay for fuel, vehicle maintenance and insurance.

A delivery driver, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of losing his job, said the franchisee had offered him an $8 an hour arrangement plus $4 per delivery as a compromise to the $6 per delivery contract, which includes the logo of Pizza Hut on the corner.

"That's the best pay methods we can do so far. The business need to make some money to keep running. Please understand," emails show.

Maurice Blackburn principal Josh Bornstein, who reviewed a copy of the contract for Fairfax Media, said in his view the contract was a "sham".

"Is this driver an independent business person in the business of delivering pizzas? In my view, absolutely not," Mr Bornstein said.

"He is employed to deliver the company's product as and when directed. He is not genuinely running a pizza delivery business. In other words, in my view, the contract is a sham."

Other Pizza Hut franchisees are also believed to be using similar contracts.

Driver sources suggested the model means drivers can only earn as little as $12 per hour.

The revelation comes after a joint investigation by Four Corners and Fairfax Media revealed systemic worker exploitation at 7-Eleven. Workers at a range of fast food chains, nail salons, restaurants and retail stores have also been caught out underpaying and mistreating workers, many of whom are international students.

One worker in a northern suburb of Melbourne said the franchisee was paying cash. "There is no paperwork and neither there is proof. But the biggest proof is employees, who are working there, who are exploited and have no other option apart from working and supporting them selves."

Another said one franchisee was paying $10 an hour plus $1 or $2 for each delivery.

A spokeswoman for Pizza Hut said the company was not aware of the specific contract and said it was out of step with the chain's practices.

"This contract, if authentic, is inconsistent with Pizza Hut's enterprise agreement which is in place for Pizza Hut franchisees," the spokeswoman said.

"Pizza Hut with its franchisees have negotiated a national enterprise agreement with the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association (SDA) under which includes rates of pay for drivers and team members."
It is understood Pizza Hut has in the past pushed to have delivery drivers put on contracts.

SDA national secretary Gerard Dwyer said he was outraged to hear Pizza Hut franchisees were using independent contracts to pay delivery drivers as little as $6 per delivery.

"These are not legal rates. They've [drivers] have got to be paid the award rate," Mr Dwyer said.

"We have an agreement in place that does not allow for contractors. We're in the midst of negotiating a new agreement with Pizza Hut where we are looking for an increase in rates."

Mr Dwyer said under the current EBA delivery drivers at Pizza Hut are to be paid $20.35 per hour if employed as a full-time worker or $25.44 per hour if employed as a casual worker. Drivers also receive $2.13 per delivery on top of the hourly rate to cover vehicle costs. 
smh.com.au 23 Nov 2015
We do not support or even recommend Pizza Hut products for consumption.
Their product is garbage compared to others and their work ethic is appalling.
Lets see how the Australia's 'legal joke (nee system) handles this matter.

Just another multi-national company promoting slave labour.