In the wake of Channel 7’s shocking Spotlight investigation on Sunday 3 September 2023 into the transgender epidemic, join me as I talk to a mother who has successfully fought the BigPharma gender cult to protect her two daughters.
Join me at the Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre on 26 September 2023, where I will be speaking in support of the “NO” campaign in the upcoming referendum.
Seats are limited so reserve yours now at: https://www.civictheatre.com.au/…/vote-no!-voice-to…, or by calling 02 6926 9688, or in person at the box office.
Tuesday, 26 September 2023
6 pm
Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre
Burns Way (off Tarcutta Street)
Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
I will be joining Dr William Bay, Dave Pellowe, Dylan Oakley and Graham Healy as a guest speaker at the Pullman Hotel, Brisbane on Sunday, 29 October 2023.
Early Bird Price: Book and pay before 5pm Friday, 7 October 2023 to receive $20.00 discount.
Book here for the “3-Course dinner” tickets: Option 1 – Includes 3 Course Dinner | Rise up Australia
Book here for “table only” tickets: Option 2 – Table Only Option | Rise up Australia
Pullman Hotel
Cnr Ann and Roma Streets
Brisbane QLD 4000
Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the constitutional legality of the wording on the ballot paper for The Voice, I explained the legal advice I had received on the matter and warned the government that they need to sort this out quickly.
Link to My Questions to Minister Farrell | Part 1
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/constitutional-questions-raised-over-referendum-ballot-paper/
Media Release
Transcript of Questions Asked of Minister Farrell
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Minister, do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023?
Senator Farrell (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question.
Honorable senators interjecting—
Senator Farrell: Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can’t help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It’s hard to believe, I know.
I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts.
Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I’m advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I’ve got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don’t believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you’re relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn’t mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct.
Senator Scarr: Did you pass?
Senator Farrell: You’ll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired)
My Response to the Minister’s Answers
International organisations can be granted immunity when operating in Australia against legal action resulting from good faith actions. This also includes protection of their records from inquiry. The Albanese Government has decided to extend this immunity to a wider range of international organisations, including those where Australia does not get a vote in how the organisation is run.
I asked the Minister what they were up to. The existing arrangements have worked fine for 30 years and I saw no reason to change them.
While the Minister’s reassurances were welcome, the point remains there is unlikely anything good going to come from this bill.
As a result, One Nation opposed the bill.
Transcript of Questions to the Minister
Senator Roberts: I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn’t get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public. Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what’s going on with this bill?
Senator McAllister: Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international
organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I’m advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included.
Senator Roberts: Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response?
Senator McAllister: This bill doesn’t change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization.
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records?
Senator McAllister: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it’s reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn’t change those at all. It doesn’t seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they’re liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply?
Senator McAllister: The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I’ve already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It’s not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate.
Senator Roberts: Following on from Senator Rennick ‘s questions, I’m specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation?
Senator McAllister: The World Health Organization is an entity that’s comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised.
Senator Roberts: [Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that’s happened with the United Nations World Health Organization?
Senator McAllister: I’m uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn’t affect the Australian government’s capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all.
Senator Roberts: It wouldn’t stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of ‘international organisation’, so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia’s operations?
Senator McAllister: As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions.
Senator Roberts: I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers.
I’ve been asking for a Royal Commission into COVID for more than 2 years. I am told it’s too early.
It’s now been 4 years since COVID was first found in Wuhan and in Italy and sent the world insane. Lock-downs, business closures and job losses, civil rights violations, coerced vaccination contrary to the Nuremberg Code. Simply inhuman!
Now we have a “scary” new variant, Pirola. Medical evidence provided to me by qualified medical practitioners state that it’s extremely mild and isn’t cause for keeping the COVID scare alive.
I also share the latest research which shows the reason why the “vaccinated” are getting more sick, more often than the unvaccinated, and that this may continue to be an issue for quite some time to come.
Join me for the 4th COVID science update this year.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight, on the fourth anniversary of COVID-19, I ask the Senate to consider the latest scientific discoveries. I’ll then make a request.
The latest variant of COVID-19, called pirola, is now dominating the news cycle and leading to calls for a return of masks, lockdowns and injections, despite there being only 12 cases in five countries. Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist who specialises in vaccines, has published work relevant to pirola, which I will now summarise here.
If pirola were a dangerous virus, it would be easily detected because the increase in suffering and death would prompt testing. With only 12 cases, pirola is not serious. Pirola contains more than 30 mutations on the spike protein, which is what helps the virus enter cells and cause an infection. An accumulation of mutations in the spike protein is exactly the expected result from the poor design of these COVID injections that we’ve been inflicted with; specifically, the targeting of a single spike protein. The approach of targeting a single spike protein encourages the virus to mutate until it finds a variant the shot does not protect against. In this case, vaccination causes mutation. Natural immunity, though, targets multiple components of COVID-19. A person with natural immunity will have both antibodies and T cells that can kill COVID-19 by virtue of recognising things other than the spike protein, so it will be more difficult for new variants to completely evade natural immunity. He continues that Australians with only vaccine induced immunity will be more susceptible to getting infected. That means no immunity. And he says—listen to this quote—they ‘will be prone to more severe illness than people with natural immunity’.
In our haste to force vaccination on every Australian we have weakened the immune systems of our nation and delivered weakened bodies into the hands of the medical establishment responsible for this crime in the first place. In the months ahead, as the medical establishment and their media mouthpieces scare the Australian public into more injections, masks and other manifestations of Soviet control, remember this: pirola is likely less dangerous than any other strain, especially for those with natural immunity. So far it looks like pirola might cause a typical wave of the common cold. It might spread to a lot of people, like most cold-causing viruses do, and for most it will cause mild, if any, disease. Of course, follow medical advice if you’re immunocompromised or unwell. Thank you, Dr Byram Bridle.
Next, David Dowdy, a professor of epidemiology at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, commented:
We don’t want to be sounding alarm bells over a variant that is just as likely to die out as it is to become the next big thing. If we did that for every single variant we’d be sounding alarm bells every single day.
The professor seems to be missing the point that fear is the point, and from fear comes control. If you want to slow the emergence of new variants, like pirola, stop the shots—stop the COVID-19 injections.
While we’re at it, stop manufacturing viruses like COVID-19 in laboratories. Seriously, what else in these labs may escape one day? Surely a royal commission would have to ask that question. It’s now been four years since COVID-19 was discovered in the wild, when three junior researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology presented to a hospital in Wuhan with flu-like symptoms. It’s been four years since 14 September 2019, the date Italian medical staff detected what became known as COVID-19. In the years since, the world has gone insane, with lockdowns; business closures and job losses; civil rights violations; coerced vaccination, contrary to the Geneva convention and inhuman; and military on the streets acting on instructions from the Medical Countermeasures Consortium, a military-health joint venture that oversaw the development of COVID-19 as a medical countermeasure, along with the antidote—sorry, the vaccine—produced in case the virus ever occurred in the wild. That’s what medical countermeasures are. Was this unholy military-health alliance responsible for suppressing inquiry into the source of COVID-19 lest it call into the question the wisdom of gain-of-function research? That’s an important question.
The same research was conducted with funding from the US government and supported across USA vassal states, including ours, Australia. I’ve previously spoken about our CSIRO’s involvement in gain-of-function research. Injectables were produced with the claim they could do something a real vaccine can’t do: stop the spread. In the decade before COVID, mRNA vaccines were tested and rejected, repeatedly, for product failure and adverse health outcomes. Then along came a lab engineered virus and those failures were swept aside in what almost felt like a Palm Sunday Hosanna reception. The injections were said to be our salvation, rescuing us from restrictions that governments imposed in order to sell the damn injections—a masterful media manipulation worthy of a royal commission inquiry into the approval and response process that has proven deadly.
Meanwhile, the medical establishment has ignored the obvious signs of injection-induced injury and death. Our medical establishment has responded to each alarming new study and damning data with a routine the internet has dubbed ‘Dr Baffled’. The World Health Organization is currently investigating an unusual rise in severe myocarditis cases amongst newborns and infants in the United Kingdom, one of which resulted in the death of the infant. ‘Dr Baffled’ doesn’t know what’s behind the rise in paediatric myocarditis. He’s baffled! Yet, somehow, he does know for sure that it isn’t the injections, despite myocarditis being a known COVID injection side effect.
In a peer reviewed study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science on 20 July, researchers found a correlation between neonatal vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in developed countries. According to data collected from 2019 to 2021, there’s a positive correlation between mortality rates and the number of vaccinations administered to neonates aged from birth to five years. In short: higher vaccine rates were linked with higher infant mortality rates. ‘Dr Baffled’ refuses to even look at this and so many other similar findings. As a result, ‘ Dr Baffled’ remains baffled as to why these children are not thriving on a diet of injected chemicals and genetic material.
In groundbreaking research presented last month, statistician and Luzern University professor Dr Konstantin Beck said:
… miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.
And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look.
If they looked, of course, they couldn’t continue to be baffled about the findings. That’s why they’re baffled: they won’t look.
A study of the 500 largest school districts in the USA found that children forced to wear masks in school are on average three times more likely to get sick than those in districts without a mask mandate. Masks amplify diseases found in the wild. A random sample of used children’s masks found pneumonia, meningitis, diphtheria, sepsis and staphylococcus in amplified levels. Schools without masks recorded higher COVID infection rates early in the year, then cases fell away quickly, proving that healthy children only need natural immunity. It’s the best immunity there is. ‘Dr Baffled’ has no comment on the data but assures everyone that masks are safe, contrary to the evidence.
A new paper from the University of Melbourne published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology made the stunning conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine, when given to children, reduces their immune system’s response to other viruses and bacteria, like the bacteria I just mentioned that were found on children’s masks. It reduces children’s health. New information last month shows that Novavax, touted as a protein-only vaccine, free of genetic material, did in fact contain genetic material and a transfectant, saponin, meaning Novavax is a gene-therapy product. Whoops! Another massive scandal the public have not yet been told about. If the media does not speak further on this, I will. The TGA never pulled apart the injectables in their own labs. The TGA relied on what the manufacturers told them was in it so they could maintain plausible deniability of what was in them. A royal commission should short out Professor Baffled and the TGA expert committees on what seems to be a textbook case of malfeasance in office.
Undeterred, the TGA is doubling down. They just announced the removal of pack inserts for all injected products. These inserts used to inform doctors of known side effects and adverse drug interactions. For that reason, printed inserts are a legal requirement, saving the doctor from a web search most would haven’t time to conduct. Typically, when the TGA sees a problem, it hides the problem. Without this information, Dr Baffled will be even more baffled as to why patients keep dying suddenly. On the issue of excess deaths, the latest Australia Bureau of Statistics data shows Australian excess mortality remains at 27 per cent—40,000 Australians are dead this year who should not be dead and nobody in this government gives a damn. No one gives a stuff. One Nation calls on the government to call a royal commission into COVID now and, until that inquiry happens, stop the COVID shots now.
If you rob a bank, you go to jail. If the bank robs you, no banker will go to jail and they won’t even pay a fine. Maybe it has something to do with the Big 4’s top shareholders – Vanguard, Blackrock, State Street, JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, HSBC and others.
After 6 years of inquiries and a Royal Commission, the final Financial Accountability Regime Bill contains no accountability for bad bankers. We supported Senator McKim in trying to make sure bankers could be liable for personal fines if they misbehaved but the Greens caved, joining Labor to pass through the bill without the penalties.
One Nation won’t stop our fight to make bank executives accountable and find justice for their victims.
Transcripts | Speech and Questions
Yesterday, as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I spoke on Senator McKenzie’s matter of public importance regarding the decision by Minister Catherine King to give Qantas a substantial commercial advantage in the Qatar Airlines application for more flights to Australia. I pointed out that the Qatari government owns Qatar Airlines, while Qantas’s most influential shareholders are the merchant banks that invest money on behalf of the world’s richest predatory billionaires. I raise the question: who does this government represent? Is it everyday Australians or foreign wealth?
Here we are again, the very next day, debating the Financial Accountability Regime Bill 2023—a bill devoid of financial accountability. A financial accountability regime bill with no accountability is a bill that could more rightly be called the ‘Letting bank executives do whatever they want bill 2023’. Banking executives in Australia are a protected species for the same reason Alan Joyce and Qantas are protected: crony capitalism.
The big four banks have almost identical major shareholders. They have the same owners as Qantas, including Vanguard with $15 billion in shares in the big four banks, BlackRock with $5 billion, and then the usual suspects with smaller holdings, such as State Street, JP Morgan, Charles Schwab, HSBC and others. With these common owners making up a controlling share, it means we do not have four big banks. We have one monstrous bank with four divisions working under four logos. Why would the banks compete with each other when that competition will lessen their profits and, in turn, reduce the flow of dividends to these investment funds?
Our banking legislation, our checks and balances, were not written for an eventuality where investment funds with A$40 trillion in funds available bought controlling shareholdings in all the big four banks and used those shareholdings for their own financial benefit in a way that reduces competition and has reduced competition. Investment funds get assistance from complicit executives. Those complicit executives know the deal when those same investment funds elect directors who then employ the executives. The same executives know that they have to follow orders to keep their jobs and their fat pay cheques. The same executives then pursue the now infamous ESG measures to ensure that a bank lends only for projects that meet so-called environmental, social and governance standards. ESG is shorthand for using banks to enforce political objectives, like enforcing net zero by defunding coal, gas and most mining while lending for speculative investments in hydrogen and similar unproven fantasy technology.
Why would banks take a course of action that puts shareholders’ funds at risk? It’s because these big investment funds own the companies that profit from those investments. ESG is nothing more than the billionaires who run the world using their ownership of our banks to lend to themselves for risky investments that, if they fail, will reduce their equity. It will reduce the equity of mum and dad investors more. They carry the risk. Everyday Australians are shouldering the risk of these misinvestments that benefit only the world’s most wealthy individuals. As George Carlin famously said, ‘It’s a club, and you’—everyday Australians—’ain’t in it.’
I wonder if whoever made the decision to take personal financial penalties out of the financial accountability regime is in the club. Are you? Those penalties were in this legislation when the Turnbull government introduced it—although, of course, it is not being used, because nobody in the Liberal Party or the Labor Party has the guts to take on these investment funds—least of all, it would appear, Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, who authored this bill.
Everyday Australians are feeling the pain from the failure of this government to govern without fear or favour. Bank branch closures and de-banking are hitting everyday Australians hard, and the banking cartel just sit back and count the profits—record profits. The most glaring exclusion from this bill is the absence of civil penalty provisions such as fines for bankers. To translate that into plain English, it means that senior bankers who behave badly will not, under this bill, face personal fines—no fines at all.
Making bad bankers pay big fines isn’t an idea One Nation and the Greens pulled out of thin air. The Treasury department was the one that initially proposed it. The proposal paper for the financial accountability regime that Treasury published in 2020 included civil penalties for bad bankers. The big bank lobby circled the wagons, mustering all of their high-powered lobbyists and industry groups to browbeat Treasury into removing the personal civil penalties. When the Morrison coalition government introduced the 2021 version of this bill, civil penalties had disappeared. Labor had a chance to fix that when they introduced their versions of the bill, first in 2022 and now with this one in 2023. Instead, the Assistant Treasurer and Minister for Financial Services, Stephen ‘I love the bankers’ Jones, has joined Labor at the hip with their crony-capitalist banking suck-up mates in the coalition.
This bill’s time line is a glaring example of what’s wrong with our country’s governance. In 2017 I chaired the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers, while at the same time we called for a royal commission into the banks. The horror stories we uncovered in that Senate inquiry were enough to make my skin crawl and my stomach churn: banks stealing land and even livestock straight out from under farmers’ feet, cattle rustling, foreclosing on properties where there hadn’t been breaches of loan repayments, preying on vulnerable people, stealing whole farms, and rewarding mates amongst insolvency practitioners and other farmers. Rabobank, after being fined hundreds of millions of dollars for serious breaches in America, was destroying families in our country. All under your watch.
The evidence of banking practices we uncovered during that inquiry forced the government’s hand. With the testimony of those victims, the government had no option but to call the Hayne Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. This bill now before us supposedly implements recommendations of that royal commission. What a joke! It’s been more than six years since the Senate select committee I chaired was established. At the end of that long road not a single banker has been thrown in jail for their criminal actions—not one. To my knowledge, not a single banker has paid any civil penalty for the outright fraud uncovered in the royal commission—not one. At the end of the long road to this bill we have something that still will not impose personal civil penalties on bankers who breach their accountability regimes. And you guys just let it continue. If you want to know who holds all the power in this country, look no further than the fact that civil penalties have been dropped.
One Nation will be supporting Senator McKim’s amendment to insert civil penalties back into the bill, but, alas, that failed. If that amendment had been successful, we would have supported the bill. Without that amendment this bill does not go far enough to place accountability on misbehaving bankers, and we cannot support its passage. Minister, why does this bill not contain civil penalty provisions for senior bankers who fail their accountability obligations?
Minister Gallagher: Thank you and I acknowledge Senator Roberts’ speech. I don’t agree with large parts of it but in this bill there are penalties within the legislation before us. They will, individuals can lose deferred remuneration – they can be disqualified from being able to work in the industry and there are individual civil penalties for assisting an entity’s contravention of obligations.
Senator Roberts: Minister, are you aware who owns our big four banks? Let me read the list of shareholders of those banks right now so that you may have some idea of where I’m going. Shareholders of National Australia Bank Limited are the Vanguard Group, with 3.3 per cent; BlackRock Fund Advisors; Vanguard Investments Australia Ltd; Norges Bank Investment Management; State Street Global Advisors; Colonial First State Investments; Goody Capital; BlackRock Advisers; Netwealth Investments; and Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec. Let me read them for the Commonwealth bank: Vanguard Group, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Vanguard Investments Australia, Norges Bank, Goody Capital, Australian Foundation Investment Company Limited, BlackRock Advisors, Netwealth Investments, FIL Investment Management and Vanguard Global Advisors. Westpac: the Vanguard Group, Vanguard Investments Australia, BlackRock Fund Advisors, Norges bank, State Street Global Advisors, Goody Capital, Advance Asset Management, BlackRock Advisors, Australian Foundation Investment Company, Netwealth Investments. ANZ group: the Vanguard Group—is there an echo in this room? BlackRock Fund Advisors—there’s that echo again! Vanguard Investments—it’s still here! State Street—another echo! Goody Capital—another echo! BlackRock Advisors—another echo! This place is an echo chamber, and that’s probably very appropriate. There’s Netwealth Investments—another echo! Dimensional Fund Advisors—they’re only in ANZ. There’s Vanguard—another echo! BlackRock investment—another echo! Minister, are you aware of this?
Minister Gallagher: I’m certainly aware there’s millions of shareholders in Australia’s big banks and across Australia’s financial system, yes.
Senator Roberts: So you allow it to continue with no accountability. It seems we don’t have 4 big banks. We have one monstrous bank working under 4 logos, 4 divisions. There’s no, there’s no difference between their primary products and services and their ways of operating. Their product, services and operations are similar. So similar that I recognised, as Chair of the Senate Select inquiry into lending the primary production customers back in 2017, that they operate as one. They are a cartel. Are you aware of the common ownership and common practice, product and services of these banks?
Minister Gallagher: Well, that information is available, as you know, to all of us. It’s transparent around shareholding in big companies in Australia. So I’m aware and you are aware, and you’re aware because that information is available.
Senator Roberts: The difference, Minister, between you and I is that I want to do something to fix it. Minister, what will your government do about protecting Australians from these parasitic predators?
Minister Gallagher: Well, I don’t agree with the language that you’ve used Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: The Minister says, in effect, that she agrees they are parasitic predators. So legislation needs to have teeth. Without teeth, massive regulation protects the Big Four from accountability because of the complexities needing deep pockets for deep pockets for lawyers. A farmer, small businessman, even a woman, cannot afford the lawyers that the big banks resort to at the drop of a hat because they’re protected by deep, complicated legislation. These barriers are barriers to accountability. Are you aware of that? And what do you plan to do about it?
Minister Gallagher: Well, no, I don’t agree with that. The bill we are debating or we completed debated of yesterday is the Financial Accountability Regime Bill. So no, I don’t agree with that. And I do believe since the Royal Commission there has been significant increase in and protections for us through legislative reform like this to make sure that we get a properly regulated and accountable financial system. This is one piece of that. So no, I don’t agree with you.
Senator Roberts: Minister, these regulations provide barriers to entry of new competition to the Big Four or the Big One. Are you aware of that and what do you plan to do about it?
Minister Gallagher: Sorry if your questions about do I think this is a barrier to competition? No.
Senator Roberts: That wasn’t my question. The massive amount of complex regulations, they’re protecting the big four banks, they’re a barrier to competition.
Minister Gallagher: I mean in a sense you’re arguing in a circle because we are putting in place legislative protections and regulations to make sure there is a stronger financial system in this country to deal with some of the problems that we saw come through in the lead up to and during the banking Royal Commission to protect consumers and to make sure that we have a strong, profitable, well led banking system financial system in this country. This legislative response is part of that. The regulations are there to offer that protection. They’re not there to limit competition.
Senator Roberts: They’re effectively working as such Minister. The government’s bank deposit guarantee scheme is worthless. Firstly, it’s not automatic, because the Treasurer has to invoke it and if he doesn’t, there’s no guarantee of bank deposits. Secondly, it covers only a maximum of $80 billion out of $1.3 trillion in bank deposits. For example, the Commonwealth Bank, I understand, has 30 million deposit accounts, meaning an average of $670 per deposit. Meanwhile, the previous government passed a bank bail-in provision that your party supported. These are other ways in which banks avoid accountability for their mistakes and greed. They take none of the risk and all of the profit. They have no penalty for excessive greed causing failure, because government bails them in. When will your government start protecting Australian citizens and revoke the bail-in, for example?
Minister Gallagher: Well, the work that has come out of the royal Commission, of which this is a part of, is precisely about that, Senator Roberts.
One Nation supports the general principle that students should be able to finish their studies without breaking the bank. The real conversation needed though is the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
At a time when Australia is desperate for trained health professionals, medical colleges punitively restrict the amount of places available for students, denying Australians a proper supply and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. A second look into this practice is needed.
While we’re at it, students that chose not to take the COVID injections need to be allowed to complete their studies or have their HECS debt refunded.
Transcript
One Nation supports the general principle that this MPI proposes, that students should not have to go broke to finish their studies. The medical colleges currently rely on huge numbers of students paying their own out-of-pocket costs and even making thousands of hours of unpaid placements in addition to their studies. The real conversation we need to have, though, is about the artificial monopoly the medical colleges hold over students in this country.
Australia is crying out for health professionals, and the fees to see them are too high for some people. While this is happening, the medical colleges putatively restrict the amount of places available to students, denying Australians a proper supply of trained professionals and ensuring students have nowhere else to turn. We need to have a second look at the medical colleges. And we need to have a look at the universities, who are punishing some people who have completed their academic studies and just need to do their practical courses. The universities are forcing them out because of mandates for COVID injections. That’s inhuman—three to four years work and a contract broken.
Installing wind turbines requires massive environmental damage, from grinding the tops of mountains for the 250 metre high wind turbines to gouging 50 metre wide roadways to access them. That’s in addition to the hundreds of kilometres of turbine and the electricity transmission lines that run through national park and private land.
Wind turbines create disturbance to the air that prevents soaring birds from flying in the “tail” of these turbines. Kaban wind turbines near Ravenshoe are so large the disturbance interferes with soaring birds like Black Swans and Brolgas for as much as 5 km.
This parasitic mis-investment has to stop now.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people that make up our Queensland community, three weeks ago I travelled the Atherton Tablelands, known locally as the Garden of Eden. The area is amongst the world’s most productive farmland. Original native forest and vegetation still cover much of the tablelands—until now. Now, foreign predatory, parasitic corporations are replacing our natural environment with an industrial landscape of wind turbines. Thousands of hectares are being cleared to make way for 86 wind turbines in the foreign-owned Chalumbin industrial wind development. At 250 metres tall, these towers will have the third-longest blades in the world. Installing these parasitic misinvestments involves literally grinding the tops off mountains to create the large, flat area needed for the base of these monsters, plus access roads and easements to get the power back to where it is needed. This is industrial-level environmental vandalism.
Already, the nearby foreign-owned Kaban development has created scars across the tops of mountains, destroying habitat for native flora and fauna. Kaban has disturbed arsenic naturally in local rock formations. We simply don’t know what effect this will have on native wildlife in the years ahead. The Woodleigh Swamp is an important wetland. Thousands of swans and brolgas normally rest here each year. Locals say that since Kaban opened, only a few kilometres away, the swamp has been almost deserted. Kaban and Chalumbin environmental impact statements make no mention of the catastrophic effects these installations have on uplift capacity for migratory and soaring birds, nor abandonment of natural upland habitat, despite a wealth of papers proving the link. The Australian Conservation Foundation are calling for an end to wind turbines being located in virgin bushland. That should be the consensus. The Atherton Tablelands community I listen to have asked me to relay a message to Minister Plibersek: end the environmental vandalism now!
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am