Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou defrauded HSBC into loaning billions with ‘misrepresentations’ about Iran, Canada says, telling court to reject her bid for release

HSBC only continued to do business with Huawei because of Meng’s claims that the firm had cut ties with Skycom, a company operating in Iran, lawyers say

The government lawyers say the fraud charge satisfies a requirement of ‘double criminality’ for her to be extradited to the US

Ian Young in Vancouver Published: 11 Jan, 2020

Banking giant HSBC took part in billions of dollars of loans to Huawei because CFO Meng Wanzhou (pictured with an ankle bracelet at her home in Vancouver) allegedly had deceived the bank about its activities in Iran, says the Canadian government. Photo: Reuters

Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou’s request for the dismissal of the US extradition case against her must be rejected because her alleged offence was not breaking US sanctions on Iran, but defrauding HSBC, Canada’s attorney general said on Friday.

Meng’s lawyers had argued that she should be discharged because the US case was based on alleged breaches of American sanctions on Iran, which are not crimes in Canada. This failed the extradition requirement of “double criminality” under which an extraditable offence must represent a crime in Canada, as well as the requesting state, they claimed.

But in a submission released on Friday, the Canadian government lawyers representing US interests in the extradition case said “the essence of the Applicant’s offending conduct is fraud, not violating sanctions”.

The bank had taken part in billions of dollars of loans to Huawei because Meng allegedly had deceived the bank about its activities in Iran, they said.

Meng Wanzhou leaves her home in Vancouver for a court appearance in October, wearing an electronic ankle tag. Photo: Bloomberg

“[Meng’s] misrepresentations put HSBC’s economic interests at risk by preventing the bank from accurately assessing the risks of maintaining a business relationship with Huawei,” said the attorney general’s lawyers, referring to a 2013 meeting in Hong Kong at which Meng told HSBC that Huawei had cut ties with Skycom, a company operating in Iran.

This was intended to reassure the bank that it was not in breach of US sanctions on Iran by doing business with the Chinese telecoms giant, the lawyers said.

Relying on Meng’s assurance, the bank continued to do business with Huawei, the Canadian lawyers said. But “had HSBC known of Huawei’s activities that breached American sanctions against Iran, HSBC would have re-evaluated its relationship”, they said, and “as a result of [Meng’s] misrepresentations about the Huawei/Skycom relationship, HSBC risked fines and penalties”.

Meng Wanzhou wins Canada court fight to see documents related to arrest
11 Dec 2019

Nevertheless, “this case is not about sanctions against Iran”, and the fraud case could be established without reference to the US sanctions regime, they said.

Meng was arrested on December 1, 2018, on a flight stopover in Vancouver, where she remains ahead of her formal extradition hearings.

The submission by the attorney general’s lawyers said that based on Meng’s assurances, HSBC had negotiated a US$900 million credit facility for Huawei in 2014, and took part in a syndicate that loaned US$1.5 billion to Huawei in 2015.

Huawei launches new legal action against FCC’s rural carrier purchase ban

“The fact that HSBC may have suffered no financial loss is legally irrelevant,” the lawyers said, adding that her “alleged dishonest act induced HSBC to continue to provide financial services when otherwise it would not have done so”.

“At the very least HSBC was denied the opportunity to make a decision about its economic risk based on an appreciation of material facts,” they said.

The submission described how HSBC had already been hit with US$1.7 billion in forfeitures and penalties in 2012 as a result of its violation of US sanctions on Iran, Cuba, Libya, Sudan and Myanmar.

As part of a deferred prosecution agreement with the US, HSBC would have been subject to criminal charges if it was caught breaking US sanctions again.

Meng Wanzhou fears cameras in court would trigger Trump ‘threats’
30 Nov 2019


It was only because of Meng’s alleged misrepresentations at the 2013 Hong Kong meeting that HSBC retained Huawei as a client, the submission said.

After months of preliminary hearings, Meng’s formal extradition hearing is expected to begin in the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver on January 20, with appearances pencilled in to continue as late as November.

Her detention has been at the centre of escalating tensions between China and the West, amid a trade war with the US and intense debate about whether to allow Huawei to participate in high-speed 5G internet networks around the world.

Canada-China relations are at an all-time low, after China arrested Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor 13 months ago. They are accused by Beijing of espionage, but the arrests are widely seen in Canada as reprisals for Meng’s arrest.
.
This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: Meng extradition case ‘about fraud, not US sanctions’

Ian Young is the Post's Vancouver correspondent. A journalist for more than 20 years, he worked for Australian newspapers and the London Evening Standard before arriving in Hong Kong in 1997. There he won or shared awards for excellence in investigative reporting and human rights reporting, and the HK News Awards Scoop of the Year. He moved to Canada with his wife in 2010.

Huawei’s latest US headache: Senate bill would spend US$1 billion on developing a 5G competitor

STATE CAPITALISM BY ANY OTHER NAME

‘We cannot allow Chinese state-directed telecommunications companies to surpass American competitors,’ says sponsor Senator Marco Rubio 

The bill is introduced a day after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo tells Silicon Valley group China ‘presents unique challenges, especially to your industry’

Mark Magnier Published:15 Jan, 2020

Huawei smartphones last week at the 2020 Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. Photo: AFP

New legislation introduced in the US Senate on Tuesday aims to create a viable Western alternative to Huawei Technologies and undercut China’s dominance in global 5G networks.

One of the biggest problems in Washington’s bid to counter Chinese strength in 5G networks – the faster and higher capacity fifth generation of telecommunication systems – is the lack of global alternatives to Huawei.

The US does not now have a viable competitor, while Finland’s Nokia, Sweden’s Ericsson and even South Korea’s Samsung cannot match the complete technological package and attractive financing that Huawei offers.

The Senate bill tries to address that gap. If passed, it would spend more than US$1 billion to bolster Western competitiveness, allocate new spectrum and support research and development in the telecommunications industry.

“We are at a critical point in history for defining the future of the US-China relationship in the 21st century, and we cannot allow Chinese state-directed telecommunications companies to surpass American competitors,” said Senator Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, a sponsor of the bill.

Senator Marco Rubio, a sponsor of the Utilising Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act: “We are at a critical point in history for defining the future of the US-China relationship in the 21st century.” Photo: AP

Rubio added that Washington’s efforts at convincing foreign allies to ban the Shenzhen-based Huawei from their networks have been encumbered by a lack of viable, affordable alternatives. Those, he said, were needed to counter “malign state-directed telecommunications companies that pose a clear and growing threat to the economic and national security of the US and our allies”.

Speaking in Silicon Valley a day earlier, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo echoed the senators’ contention that excluding Chinese carriers from 5G systems in the West was essential.

“China – specifically the Chinese Communist Party – presents unique challenges, especially to your industry,” Pompeo told the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, a civic group.

“We’re putting our allies and partners on notice about the massive security and privacy risks connected to letting Huawei construct their 5G networks inside of their countries.”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in San Francisco on Monday. Photo: AFP

“This isn’t about selling American stuff. It’s not an American commercial effort. It’s a national security effort,” Pompeo added.

The bill is the latest pressure applied on Huawei by Washington. The Trump administration has blocked government agencies from using Huawei devices; added it to on an “entity list” of foreign companies banned from buying US technology; lobbied allies not to use Huawei equipment in their 5G networks; and pushed Canada to detain Meng Wanzhou, Huawei’s chief financial officer and the founder’s daughter, on charges she had violated sanctions against doing business with Iran.

And the administration is considering a rule change aimed at restricting sales to Huawei of non-sensitive items, such as standard mobile phone chips, made in third countries that rely on US technology, software, or components, Reuters reported.

US makes final plea for Britain to block Huawei from its 5G network
14 Jan 2020


The six Democratic and Republican senators who introduced the bill – the Utilising Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act – underscore that moves aimed at challenging China enjoy broad bipartisan support in Washington these days.

The US and China, the world’s two largest economies, have hit the pause button on their 18-month trade war with Wednesday’s scheduled signing of a phase-one trade agreement. But US tariffs remain on US$250 billion worth of Chinese goods. And Washington’s suspicions towards Beijing has spread to the education, justice, investment and espionage sectors, among others.

Even so, while it is relatively easy to introduce a bill, even one with bipartisan support, it remains far more difficult to get it passed – particularly in the current environment.

At the best of times, only about 5 per cent of bills that are introduced become law. And these are not the best of times.

In addition to turf battles between the executive and legislative branches, the Senate is poised, ready or not, to consider the impeachment trial of US President Donald Trump, which could start as early as Thursday. Moreover, the political lines are drawing taut in advance of the presidential election in November.

Huawei said the bill was misguided.

“Huawei has spent billions in 5G research, so it would be unfortunate to see such a waste of US taxpayer’s money to duplicate effrts when there are more cost effective ways to ensure the security of a network,” said Donald J. Morrissey, the company’s US director of government affairs.

A better approach, he added, “is to verify through testing, setting high global standards, and providing risk assurance and risk mitigation procedures and standards to ensure network security.”

The bill’s provisions include a requirement that the Federal Communications Commission spend at least US$750 million of the revenue it receives from auctioning new spectrum licenses to create a research and development fund. This would be used to spur innovation in open-architecture, software-based wireless technologies and the US mobile broadband market.

It also calls for creating a US$500 million fund in partnership with foreign allies to speed up adoption of “trusted and secure equipment globally” – backed up by required reports to Congress ensuring that progress is being made.

US lawmaker seeks ban on sharing intelligence with countries using Huawei’s 5G


The bill also calls for a blueprint on how small and rural telecoms companies – many of whom have purchased Huawei equipment in part because of its lower cost – can shift to open source, non-Chinese equipment. It would also push for stronger US leadership in international standards-setting bodies amid concern that Chinese companies will create and dominate the standards that govern the next generation of telecommunications technology.

Finally it would encourage suppliers to become larger and adopt common standards as a way to help drive down the cost of their products and offer a more attractive alternative to Huawei equipment.

Huawei launches new legal action against FCC’s rural carrier purchase ban

“Every month that the US does nothing, Huawei stands poised to become the cheapest, fastest, most ubiquitous global provider of 5G, while US and Western companies and workers lose out on market share and jobs,” said co-sponsor Senator Mark Warner, a Virgina Democrat. “It is imperative that Congress address the complex security and competitiveness challenges that Chinese-directed telecommunication companies pose.”

Telecoms industry and national security groups said the bill was a step in the right direction. “This bill goes right to the core of the concerns of the US intelligence community, which is securing communications networks with US-allied intelligence services,” said Kyle Sullivan, the China practice lead at Crumpton Group, an intelligence-based business consultancy. “Providing an American alternative to Huawei would go a long way.”



Huawei says relationship with government ‘no different’ from other private firms in China


One telecoms executive, who asked not to be identified given his work with the US government, called the bill’s objectives a bit muddled.

While the sponsors speak repeatedly about excluding Huawei and creating an alternative, he noted, much of the funding appears aimed at bolstering open technical systems that allow easy connections among all carriers, presumably including Huawei as well as ZTE Corp, the Chinese telecoms equipment maker. “It’s a little obscure as to what they’re actually talking about developing,” he said.

But the bill focus on encouraging US software companies and allowing others to make hardware isn’t a bad strategy, he added. “This actually looks like a fairly interesting and realistic response,” the executive said. “This would appear to focus resources to capitalise on US core competencies. Which makes sense, because $1 billion isn’t going to somehow … create a box maker powerhouse in the US.”


The US Commerce Department in May placed Huawei Technologies on a trade blacklist, citing national security concerns. Photo: AFP

The US government is nearing publication of a rule that would vastly expand its powers to block shipments of foreign-made goods to China’s Huawei, as it seeks to squeeze the blacklisted telecoms company, two sources said.

The US Commerce Department in May placed Huawei Technologies on a trade blacklist, citing national security concerns. That allowed the US government to restrict sales of US-made goods to the company and a small number of items made abroad that contain US technology.

Under current regulations, key foreign supply chains remain beyond the reach of US authorities, fuelling frustration among China hawks within the administration and a push to expand US authority to block more shipments to Huawei.

But US businesses say an effort to enable the government to regulate more sales to Huawei to include low-tech items made overseas with very little US technology could end up needlessly hurting US companies while encouraging Huawei to source more goods abroad.

Reuters reported in November that the Commerce Department was considering broadening the De minimis Rule, which dictates how much US content in a foreign-made product gives the US government authority to regulate an export.



Under current regulations, the United States can require a license or block the export of many hi-tech products shipped to China from other countries if US-made components make up more than 25 per cent of the value.

According to two people familiar with the matter, the department has drafted a rule that would lower the threshold only on exports to Huawei to 10 per cent and expand the purview to include non-technical goods like consumer electronics including non-sensitive chips.

According to one of the people, the Commerce Department sent the rule to the Office of Management and Budget, following an inter-agency meeting last week.

If other government agencies sign off on the measure, the rule could be issued in a matter of weeks as a so-called final rule, with no opportunity for public comment before it goes into effect, the people said.

The Commerce Department has also drafted a regulation that would expand the so-called Foreign Direct Product Rule, which subjects foreign-made goods that are based on US technology or software to US oversight. This would be broadened to include low-tech items made abroad that are based on US technology and shipped to Huawei, the people said.

In December, Huawei, the world’s largest smartphone maker, reported an 18 per cent jump in revenue for 2019 and a 20 per cent increase in shipments of smartphones.

Additional reporting by Reuters

Mark Magnier is a US correspondent based in Washington. Before joining the Post, he worked for the Wall Street Journal in China and for the Los Angeles Times in India, China and Japan. He’s covered the Chinese economy, China and India’s explosive rise and conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.


US venture capital in China tumbles as tech decoupling deepens 

Canada says Huawei’s Meng defrauded HSBC, tells court to reject release bid
11 Jan 2020

Judge rejects request to broadcast Huawei executive’s extradition hearing
15 Jan 2020

The US forgets: Soleimani was once on its side

In Afghanistan and Syria, against al-Qaeda and ISIS, Soleimani once helped the American cause

Now his death at US hands is uniting America’s enemies against it

Kuldip Singh

Published: 8 Jan, 2020

The aftermath of the US strike on Iranian general Qassem Soleimani. Photo: AFP

With Iran launching missile attacks on US-led forces in Iraq early on Wednesday, it is all too clear that its threats of retaliation against Donald Trump’s assassination of Major General Qassim Soleimani were not the empty bluster some in America had assumed.

The question the United States should now be asking is how this came to pass: it has seldom been mentioned since his assassination, but Soleimani once fought on the same side as American forces. In killing him, Trump appears to have perhaps shot himself in the foot.

Before we examine this earlier marriage of convenience, it is worth a quick recap of how we came to this juncture. On January 3, Soleimani, the chief of Iran’s al-Quds Force since 1998, was killed at Baghdad’s international airport in a US drone strike. Also killed was Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, deputy commander of Popular Mobilization Forces, an Iran-backed militia, and possibly, deputy Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem. That Soleimani was landing just a few kilometres from US military bases in Baghdad perhaps hints at an impression that he felt he would be able to keep his visit secret – or that the US would not target him. But given the escalation in recent months, it is obvious major operations were being planned against US assets in Iraq.

Soon after, the Pentagon stated that President Donald Trump had ordered the killing of Soleimani to “thwart further attacks on US military personnel”.

A Houthi rebel in Yemen with a poster attached to his waist of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani. Photo: Reuters

This itself was unusual: Soleimani was not the leader of any terrorist entity but the head of a state organisation. Still, the US is justifying the strike by pointing to the March 2007 United Nations Security Council sanctions on Soleimani for supporting terrorism and selling Iranian weapons overseas, the US 2011 designation of Soleimani (along with other officials) as terrorists, and the April 2019 designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a Foreign Terrorist Organisation – the first time the US had declared a branch of a foreign military thus.

JAMES BOND, LADY GAGA IN ONE

Soleimani was an iconic figure among Shias. A survey in 2018 by IranPoll and the University of Maryland found Soleimani had a popularity rating of 83 per cent, beating President Hassan Rowhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif.

Former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack, in a profile for Time’s 100 most influential people in 2017, wrote, “to Middle Eastern Shiites, he is James Bond, Erwin Rommel and Lady Gaga rolled into one”.

Iran’s Supreme Leader had once labelled him “a living martyr of the revolution”. A zealous supporter of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, his personal courage, simplicity, strategic acumen and quiet charisma had led to an image of a warrior-philosopher who stood as a wall between Iran and its enemies.

Tamir Pardo, the former head of Mossad, opined “the Arab spring in the Middle East, and later the fight against Islamic State, turned Soleimani from a shadow figure into a major player in the geopolitics of the region.”

The US however, saw him as leading a terrorist campaign internationally and has attributed around 20 per cent of US combat deaths in Iraq directly or indirectly to al-Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guards.

Iran-US tensions soar as thousands mourn slain general Qassem Soleimani

There is a view that Trump, facing impeachment, ordered this attack to improve his standing in the 2020 election and give the image of being a “decisive leader” (although he had, in his presidential campaign declared that the Iraq war was a ‘disaster’, and the US could have spent ‘those trillions’ in rebuilding US).

But it is also true that post-Cold War, there are few who have challenged the US as the al-Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guards did, or shaped the Middle East as Soleimani did.

He built the “Shiite Crescent” in the Middle East. In the 1990s, he guided Hezbollah against the Israeli occupation of south Lebanon, and in conjunction with Imad Mugniyah, Hezbollah’s military commander, conducted skilful guerilla warfare, leading to Israel’s withdrawal in May 2000.

The al-Quds Force also troubled Israel by supporting Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad. In 2003, the US attacked Iraq – which led to concerns that Iran may be targeted next for regime change. Soleimani then utilised the al-Quds Force and Shia militias to thwart US military operations in Iraq, and later, pushed the US-approved Iraqi regime to decline an agreement allowing US troops to stay beyond 2011. In Syria, he spearheaded a massive operation that ensured the regime of President Bashar al-Assad survived.

ONCE ON SAME SIDE

However, Soleimani and the al-Quds Force and the Revolutionary Guards had also cooperated with the US on several occasions.

Prior to 9/11, Iran had been backing the Northern Alliance fighters in
Afghanistan against the Sunni Taliban. Keen to defeat the Taliban post-9/11, the al-Quds Force with US approval continued its support of the Northern Alliance (Ahmad Shah Masood, leader of Northern Alliance, was killed two days prior to 9/11) and provided maps of Taliban bases in Afghanistan.

US Marines guard the US embassy compound in Baghdad, Iraq, following the killing of Iran's Quds Force leader Qassem Soleimani. Photo: EPA

In addition, it helped in the rounding-up and arrest of several al-Qaeda figures in Iran. The Bonn Agreement of December 2001, endorsed by UN Security Council Resolution 1383, was reportedly reached with considerable Iranian diplomatic assistance – it led to Hamid Karzai (a Pashtun; opposed by the Northern Alliance) being appointed as interim head. At that juncture, there were murmurs in Iran that perhaps, it should rethink its relationship with the US – that is until January 2002, when president George W. Bush branded Iran as part of an “Axis of Evil”.

In 2006, after the Iraqi prime minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari fell from favour, the US began vetting replacements to check if they had any relationship with Iran. They homed onto Nouri al-Maliki – after which Soleimani worked discretely to prop up al-Maliki. He also helped secure a ceasefire between radical Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr’s militia and the US-backed Iraqi government, and also asked Sadr to stop attacking US targets in Baghdad. 

This was followed by the conflict against Islamic State, or ISIS, in the Iraq-Syria theatre – in this, both the US and Soleimani fought on the same side. Soleimani was central in the retaking of Tikrit in early 2015 and defeat of ISIS.

Given Soleimani’s stature and the strategic expanse of his work, it should not be surprising that the killing has drawn retaliation from Iran. Retaliation by its proxies in the Middle East and Levant can also be expected – as can a deterioration in the security of the broader Middle East region. Iran’s missiles may be just the beginning.

Kuldip Singh is a retired Brigadier from the Indian Army. He was formerly head of the defence wing in the National Security Council Secretariat of India

REAL CHEMTRAIL

Plane dumps fuel over schools near Los Angeles airport

Media captionThe Delta Airlines flight reportedly had to return to the airport shortly after takeoff

A passenger plane has dumped fuel over several schools as it made an emergency landing at Los Angeles International Airport.

At least 60 people, many of them children, were treated for skin irritation and breathing problems.

Fuel may be dumped in emergency landings, but only over designated areas and at a high altitude, aviation rules stipulate.

The Delta Airlines flight returned to the airport due to an engine issue.

All the children and adults treated following the dumping incident were connected with at least six local schools. All the injuries are said to be minor.

At Park Elementary School in Cudahy, some 16 miles (26km) east of the airport, two classes were outside when the fuel was released.

• Flying student's 'perfect' emergency landing
• 'Power bank' fire causes emergency plane landing

Elizabeth Alcantar, mayor of Cudahy, told the newspaper: "I'm very upset. This is an elementary school, these are small children."

Delta Airlines confirmed in a statement that the passenger plane had released fuel to reduce its landing weight.

Allen Kenitzer, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration told Reuters news agency: "The FAA is thoroughly investigating the circumstances behind this incident. There are special fuel-dumping procedures for aircraft operating into and out of any major US airport.

"These procedures call for fuel to be dumped over designated unpopulated areas, typically at higher altitudes so the fuel atomises and disperses before it reaches the ground."

China-bound plane dumps fuel on children in LA emergency landing 

Australia fires: The farmers burying their own cattle

By Tim McDonaldBBC News, Corryong, Australia 14 January 2020Share this with FacebooShare this with Messenger

Travis and Belinda Attree came back to a scorched property after the fire     Image captio

Belinda Attree walks towards a ditch in a paddock that has been blackened by Australia's massive bushfires.

"We'll get as close as we can without probably getting a bit sick," she says.

In the ditch - now a grave - are 20 dead cattle and a kangaroo. All were badly burned when the fire swept through Corryong, about half-way between Melbourne and Sydney.

Warning: Some may find the following pictures of dead animals distressing

Belinda, her husband Travis, and their children made a terrifying last-minute escape as the fire swung around unexpectedly and roared through their property.

But when they returned after the fire-front had passed, they found 11 dead cows, and others that were too injured to keep.

"It destroys you, mate, to shoot your own cattle," Travis says. "I take pride in my cattle, to have them in good condition. And to do this, it's just not right."

Image captionAgriculture Minister Bridget McKenzie estimates 100,000 cattle and sheep will be lost in this season's fires

Travis Attree has put down cows before. It's an unpleasant reality of farming. But he has never faced anything like this.

He tears up a bit. They've lost lots of other things too: all their hay, the hay shed, another shed full of football memorabilia, two boats, and an all-terrain vehicle.

But losing animals hurts the most. When asked why he hasn't covered the animals' grave, the answer is simple.

"My neighbour hasn't found all of his," he says. "There could be more to go in there yet."

• Australia bushfires: A very simple guide
• Could 'controlled burning' stop Australian fires?
• The grief of losing a vineyard to bushfire

Belinda recorded a video as they returned to the property. In it, she tearfully follows their injured herd through the choking haze, knowing they won't have any choice but to euthanise many of the stock.

"They must have just been in so much pain," she says. "And that's what's hard. What's really really hard."

Much of their property is an ashen moonscape. There's nothing for their remaining livestock to eat.

They have rolls of hay on their front lawn, all of them donated. But they've already sent 30 of their animals to the abattoir, and more might go.

Image captionTravis assessing the damage on his farm

Marilyn and Neil Clydsdale are cattle breeders who have 400 breeding stock across their properties near Corryong. They've lost at least 30, including three out of four bulls they raised from birth.

"During the firestorm, one of them ended up on our back porch, absolutely frizzled," Marilyn says,

Neil has only just arrived back at his farm with a truck loaded with round bales. He picks one up with a tractor, and with his grandson and his cattle dog Ned, heads out past dead, bloated cattle laid out in a line.

The tractor ambles up the hill, and stops next to the livestock that survived. Neil walks around and unhooks the bale, which unravels down the hill, and the grateful cattle tuck in.

But he still has to figure out what to do with them.

"We either have to engage in a very heavy feeding regime, sell off the livestock, or locate the livestock somewhere else," he says.

• What's Australia doing to fight the bushfires?
• A visual guide to Australia's bushfire crisis

He's a collector of antique farm machinery, and it's this social network that has generated an unexpected lifeline.

A collector friend found them a property owner who wants an overgrown paddock eaten out. They'll pay to truck their remaining livestock down there, but otherwise it's free. It's a tremendous stroke of luck.

But the day isn't done with Neil yet. As he feeds his cows, he notices the large back tire on his tractor is hanging off the rim of the wheel.

It's flat and it's irretrievable. He had a spare in a shed in town. But that burned down and it wasn't insured. It's another A$1,500 (£800; $1,030) expense on a list that just keeps growing.

It's demoralising. An insult on top of injury. Neil looks a little glum, but there's no time to think about it. There's too much work to be done.

Image copyrightNEIL CLYDSDALE

Rob Miller is a dairy farmer on the south coast of New South Wales with about 1,200 acres. He's been hit twice by bushfire over the past few months, and they have burnt out about two-thirds of his land.

"I've never had two fires hit me ever in my life before," he says.

Dairy Farmers Australia, an industry body, says around 70 dairy farms have been hit in this year's fires, including 20-25 each in New South Wales and Victoria, and maybe 12 in South Australia.

Rob thinks he has lost up to 20% of his stock. He's still figuring it out. In some places the stock may have wandered onto a neighbour's property.

Some of his dairy cows were kept cool under sprinklers. But for many others, the heat and the stress have just been too much. Cows that are calving have been affected too.

"We've had four or five abort in the last 48 hours," he says.

Image captionThe bushfires have razed both inland and coastal regions across Australia this summer

He'll need to bring in 25 tons of feed a day to feed them all. At the moment, with all the road closures, that's impossible.

The cows have been on ration feeding. He'll have to get rid of many more. He'll export some of his lower quality stock to Japan when he's able.

There will be huge decisions over the coming week about what to do with his stock. He's filled with a sense of dread about the rest of the season.

"I'm on an edge. I know if I take my finger off the pulse, something terrible could happen," he says.

• How do we know how many animals died in bush fires?
• Which animals fare best and worst in fires?

If there's one thing everyone agrees on, it's that there's a desperate need for rain, both to put out the massive fires and to rehabilitate the farms.

Last year was Australia's hottest and driest on record. The tinder dry conditions fuelled the fires. And the recovery is also likely to stretch water resources, because re-growing forests will suck up huge amounts of water.

"Our catchment is diabolically impacted by this," says Helen Haines, the independent MP for Indi, which takes in Corryong, as well as the headwaters of the Murray, Australia's largest river system.

And while cattle farmers have been hit hard, they're certainly not the only agricultural or primary industry that's been affected.

Already, Ms Haines says, wine growers, pine plantations and hop growers have all been hit. She expects the impact will be huge, and it will be national.

After all, the fires stretch from Victoria all the way up to Queensland, and there's almost two months left in the fire season.

Media captionThe race to save animal casualties injured in Australia's bushfires

Neil Clydsdale is 70. He has worked at the same property since 1984. He thinks many other local farmers will simply give up and do something else. Personally, he's thinking of retiring.

"In terms of financial and emotional stress on people, I think this is going to take a number of years for the community to recover," he says. "It's horrendous."

But not everyone feels the same way. The Attrees are hopeful that with a little luck and a little rain, they'll be restocking by May. Besides, they don't know what they'd do otherwise.

"There's no other choice for us," says Belinda. "We would never choose to leave. This is us."