Maurice Furlan's story

From a houseboat builder to a single father.


The riverboats shown above from left to right, began commercial operation on the Murray River at Barham NSW in consecutive years 1985, 1986 and 1987. The Shady Lady (left) and Barkoona (right both failed as business ventures shortly after commencing. All three ventures had Maritime approvals as commercial development. 

Below is a copy of one of the first etters which Waterhouse sent to the Maritime Services Board who controlled all vessels on NSW waters. 

Maritime approved the "commercial marine development". John Hensford, Regional Manager consented to the construction of the "normal vessels" which are shown above. He broke ranks with the many corrupt government officials who were unlawfully opposing Waterhouse in their endeavours. 

Below is a copy of a sworn NOTICE TO REMOVE VESSEL. John Hensford signed the approval for NORMAL VESSELS (NOT BOTEL) above and also the order to remove the same vessels (BOTEL UNITS). The Notice advised that the licence had been terminated but did not give a reason. The licence. could only have been cancelled by Minister Baird. Note that the Notice does not carry an official Maritime seal and is most likely a FAKE.

The local newspaper was quick to report that Maritime and council officers seized  "part of virtually a floating motel" in order to pay for the siezure. 


Time passed and then in 2012 a long held secret about a fraudulent development application appeared online. (more reading) It led to a revisiting of the entire HOUSEBOAT vs BOTEL matter commencing with Bruce Baird. Bye the way, he is the father of Mike Baird who suddenly resigned as NSW Premier on 19 Jan 2017.  If the NOTICE TO REMOVE VESSEL was genuine then it should carry an official seal. Only the Maritime Minister could have cancelled the mooring licence which was referred to in the order. 

Bruce Baird was the minister however in telephone and sms conversations he denied it.

In 2017, Deon Voyer the current Maritime Regional Manager unintentionally revealed that the NOTICE TO REMOVE VESSEL was perhaps an INVALID (FAKE) document.
The question was put to Maritime to provide " the entry of the Notice in a Government Register " in order to prove that they had not deceived WATERHOUSE into believing that the order was genuine.

Para 15 of the Commission's findings reveals that the record "was destroyed on 28 May 2013". That indicates that it had either been removed from the Maritime REGISTER of Notices or the Register itself was destroyed. A third possibility is that it never was entered in the Register. 

Strangely enough; the matter of council's unquestionable involvement in the seizure of the Waterhouse property was brought to the attention of the NSW Independent Commission against Corruption. On 6 May 2013 they wrote in reply that there was no evidence of council corruption and stopped further communication. So why did Maritime destroy their file 23 year old file on 28 May 2013? 
google-site-verification: googled43a203acad7aefa.html