Government Running a Ponzi Scheme

Labor is running a Ponzi scheme covering up a per capita recession. It’s bringing in huge numbers of new arrivals to increase spending to hide the per capita recession. They are running Australia’s economy like a Ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers with their spending. That increased spending adds to inflation and that contradicts the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) strategy of raising interest rates to cut spending in an attempt to stop inflation.

The government’s high level of new arrivals into Australia goes against the RBA strategy and forces the RBA to further increase interest rates. Albanese’s government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and worst decline in per capita income of all the developed nations.

This is why life for everyday Australians is continuing to get worse. Excluding tourists and short stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country competing with Australians for a roof over their head.

One Nation proposes net zero immigration where Australia only replaces the numbers who leave the country until the housing supply, essential services and infrastructure can catch up with the demand.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration and the economy. 

Instead of cutting the record flood of overseas arrivals, the Albanese government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and the worst decline in per capita income in all developed nations. According to Reserve Bank and Bureau of Statistics June quarter data, Australian residents’ spending fell, with the overall total spending driven positive due only to increased demand from tourists and international students. The government is running Australia’s economy like a ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers. Meanwhile, for the typical Australian, life continues to get worse. 

Excluding tourists and short-stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need a home right now. In one year, the Albanese Labor government issued a record 687,000 student visas—687,000! We only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Yet Treasurer Jim Chalmers went on national TV and deceitfully told the Australian people the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’—blatant misinformation. It’s no wonder the government have exempted themselves from their proposed misinformation and disinformation bill. 

The government claim their housing bill will fix everything. What they don’t tell Australia is that we are short hundreds of thousands of homes yet their bill will only build a maximum of 6,000 homes a year. Any Australian who can’t afford a house or who can’t afford rent—if they can find a rental—knows Treasurer Chalmers lied when he said the government doesn’t control how many people come into Australia. The Labor government is letting overseas arrivals— 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart had a point of order. I think it was around the use of the word ‘lie’. Can we just— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw that word and substitute ‘misinformation’. The Labor government are letting overseas arrivals run out of control and don’t even know how many will arrive this year. The government are making a deliberate choice to let Australians suffer so that their big business mates and the banks can profit from a cheap workforce and high property prices. We need to stop this crushing flood of overseas arrivals that are here purely to hide a per capita recession. Our first duty is to take care of people who are here already. 

Question agreed to. 

/6 Comments/by

Only Zero Net-Immigration Will Solve the Housing Crisis

With 2.3 million new visa holders in Australia this year (excluding tourists) it’s no wonder we have a rental crisis. We need to stem the immigration tidal wave to a gentle ebb and flow of replacement. For everyone who leaves, someone new arrives. Net Zero migrants makes sense until we have sufficient housing, essential services and infrastructure to cope with more people.

Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut.

Instead of putting banks and big business first, let’s put people first.

Transcript

We agree with part of this Greens matter of urgency—that we are in a rental crisis, with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home due to Labor government policies and deceit. We disagree on how to fix it. There’s absolutely nothing that can be done to fix the housing and rental crisis until we cut the absolutely insane numbers of overseas arrivals this government is letting into our country. Excluding tourists and short-stay visa holders, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now. Every single one of them needs a roof over their head, and that’s leading to record house prices and the lowest rental vacancy rate in history. Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut. What the Greens propose is going to increase rental costs. Instead of putting banks and big business first, put people first. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McGrath): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Allman-Payne. 

/3 Comments/by

Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour

Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.

I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.

It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.

My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.

/2 Comments/by

Labor Cover Up Emu Swamp Dam Cancellation

Labor is hollowing out the bush and lying about it. I asked why the Emu Swamp Dam near Stanthorpe in Queensland was cancelled and Minister Watt responded that it was the road that was cancelled. What Minister Watt did not admit was that Labor had cancelled the dam last year and had recently cancelled the infrastructure around the dam, just to make sure it never gets built.

During the recent drought, Stanthorpe, famous for its apples and grapes, had to resort to water tankers to keep it’s residents supplied. Access to clean water is a basic human requirement. The Emu Swamp Dam was a modest solution to water shortage in the Southern Downs of Queensland. Labor are refusing to build dams for drinking water and instead plan to use treated recycled water for drinking water. I will speak more on that next year.

Labor destroy where One Nation would build.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, why is the Australian government no longer proceeding with construction of the Emu Swamp dam and pipeline located near Stanthorpe in our state of Queensland?

Senator Watt (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. I welcome a question about Queensland infrastructure from a Queensland senator on the other side of the chamber. It’s a shame people like Senator McGrath didn’t manage to get a question up about these important issues. Senator McGrath, of course, is just reduced to interjections, rather than asking serious questions about these matters.

The President: Senator Watt.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Watt: You don’t want to hear that? You don’t want to hear about your failures on infrastructure? If you’ve heard what I’ve had to say this week, Senator Roberts, you’ll know that the infrastructure budget that we inherited from the coalition was hopelessly overblown. There was a budget blowout of $33 billion.

Senator Birmingham: I rise on a point of order. This is actually a good example of the type of point of order that I made before. Senator Roberts asked a question about a particular infrastructure project, the Emu Swamp dam. That should not then be a licence for the minister to go off talking about infrastructure projects in general, or the former government in general. It was clearly a question specific to a particular project, and the minister should be drawn to answer on that project.

Senator Wong: On the point of order, I can recall many times when coalition ministers went much farther than 41 seconds in before they even got close to the question. I’d remind you of Senator Brandis. We all remember Senator Brandis when he was sitting in this chair.

Senator Birmingham: And I can remember you sitting in this chair and what you had to say.

Senator Wong: And I never got very far with that argument, but hope beats eternal.

Senator Rennick interjecting—

The President: Senator Rennick!

Senator Watt: Poor old Gerard. You’re not going to be here long, though, are you? Enjoy it while you’re here, Gerard.

Senator Henderson: That is really nasty, Senator Watt. You’re a nasty piece of work.

The President: Order across the chamber! Senator Henderson, I ask you to withdraw that remark.

Senator Henderson: Can I take a point of order?

The President: I’ve asked you to withdraw the remark, Senator Henderson.

Senator Henderson: I wish to make a point of order, President.

The President: Senator Henderson, I’ve asked you to withdraw your remark.

Senator Henderson: I withdraw, but can I take a point of order?

The President: If you sit down, I will entertain a point of order—as long it’s not on me asking you to withdraw. Thank you. Senator Henderson.

Senator Henderson: I rise on a point of order. Senator Watt just made a very uncalled for and offensive remark in relation to Senator Rennick, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

The President: Senator Henderson, I didn’t hear any remark. The chamber was incredibly disorderly at the time. All I can do is ask Senator Watt, if he made a personal reflection on Senator Rennick, to withdraw that.

Senator Watt: I’m happy to withdraw. Senator Rennick has a lot to say. I’m happy to withdraw.

The President: Senator Watt, before I call you again, I will draw your attention back to Senator Roberts’s question.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I was explaining the basis for the decisions. The particular project that you’re talking about that won’t be proceeding is a road to a dam that is not proceeding. This government thinks that it’s a good idea, if you’re spending infrastructure money on a road, that it should be a road that leads to something that is actually happening and exists. That dam was a promise that was made by the former coalition government that never had the funding, wasn’t properly planned and is not proceeding. Senator Roberts, I know you’re someone who cares very much about the appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds. You would agree, I’m sure, that it’s not a good use of taxpayers’ funds to build roads that lead to dams that don’t exist and won’t exist.

But, Senator Roberts, I’m sure you’d also be pleased to have heard me talk about some of the projects in Queensland that are getting funding and that are only possible because of those sorts of decisions about the responsible allocation of funding. Because of that we can now fund the cost increase in the Rockhampton Ring Road project with an extra $348 million in addition to the money that the federal government had allocated. I know Central Queensland is an area that you’re interested in, Senator Roberts. By cutting projects that won’t exist and that aren’t needed, we can fund other things like that. (Time expired)

/2 Comments/by

Minister Uses Question Time to Pass the Buck on New Arrivals and Housing

I asked questions about the staggering numbers of new visa holders flooding into Australia — 5.8 million tourists visas issued in the last 12 months and 1.1 million work, student and permanent visas.

The Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs used up his allotted response time in a performance that involved pretending he didn’t really understand my question. He worked hard to reassign blame for the current situation, ignoring that it’s happening under his government’s watch.

He promoted Labor’s Housing Fund, which One Nation opposed. The scheme is a con that will build a few thousand homes in total and allows the Government to pretend the housing needs of the millions of people they are letting in can be met.

Labor is flooding the country with millions of new arrivals, and pretends housing is taken care of. It is not. The only way to fix the housing crisis is to turn the visa tap off until the housing stock catches up.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia has 300,000 hotel rooms and 140,000 Airbnbs. These are, of course, turned over many times. There are 26 million Australians as well using these rooms for their own holidays. Into this small stock of rooms the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in financial year 2022-23 there were 5.86 million arrivals staying, on average, 14 days. Minister, has this almost 500 per cent increase in tourists under your government motivated landlords to move their property from long-term rental accommodation for everyday Australians to short-stay accommodation for hotel overflow? 

Senator Watt (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. There’s a lot in that. It seems to be as much about tourism and housing as it is about migration, but I will attempt to answer the question. The figures that you quoted there—I can’t verify whether they are accurate or not. I presume the five million number that you said would include a substantial number of tourists. But, if your question relates to migration figures, the government has obviously already announced a number of measures to fix what is a hopelessly broken migration system that we inherited not just from the opposition but from the minister responsible for it: one Mr Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs for the bulk of the former government and oversaw the migration system that we’ve inherited, which allowed for rampant exploitation and allowed for abuse of the migration system in some cases by education providers that we see now, and we are taking steps to try to address that.  

It’s a shame that the opposition, who have got a lot to say now, didn’t do a single thing about these issues when they were in government. We’ve ended the pandemic event visa, we’ve ended unlimited working hours for international students and work exemptions for working visa holders. We’re increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold, which is the first increase in a decade. These are some of the steps that our government has taken to fix the hopelessly broken migration system that was presided over by Mr Dutton as the home affairs minister. I don’t know, Senator Roberts, whether that directly addresses your question because, as I say, there was a lot in it. But we’re taking steps to try to fix the migration system once and for all.

First Supplementary Question

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: According to departmental data in the 2022-23 financial year the department issued a record 687,000 student visas. Not many have departed because, due to COVID, most have only been here less than a year. Minister, Australia has 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Where are the other 500,000 or so students staying?  

Senator Watt: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I don’t think you’d expect that I’d be able to give you a precise address for every single international student who is living in Australia at the moment. But, as I say, if those opposite had complaints about the number of international students who are in Australia at the moment, perhaps they could have done something about the system when they were in government for 10 years. Perhaps they could have done that.  

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator Watt: So now you’re not supporting him. Senator Canavan is supporting Senator Roberts, but the Liberals aren’t in agreement. Where are the coalition on these issues? Nationals are saying one thing, Liberals are saying another, and here is one of them. 

The President: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, on a point of order? 

Senator Hughes: Perhaps you could encourage Minister Watt to direct his answers through you rather than people who didn’t ask the question.  

The President: I will certainly do that, Senator Hughes, and I will also direct, particularly those on my left, to stop interjecting with their comments. It is disrespectful. Minister Watt, please make your remarks through the chair.  

Senator Watt: President, it is interesting to see that there seems to be a split between the Liberal and the National parties on this issue. Senator Canavan and the other Nationals are backing in One Nation, and the Liberals are wanting to run a mile. But, of course, apart from fixing the migration system, this government is doing more than the former government ever did when it came to the provision of housing, and, just to remind you of one measure, Housing Australia— (Time expired) 

Second Supplementary Question

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: In the last financial year the department issued a record 441,000 business visas plus a record 195,000 permanent migrant visas plus another 10,000 humanitarian visas plus another 47,000 temporary work visas. After departures, the net increase here was another 500,000. Minister, where are these 500,000 people going to stay, and is this insane level of intake the reason that Australians can no longer find an affordable home?  

Senator Watt: In your previous question, Senator Roberts, you did acknowledge that one of the reasons that we have seen a spike in migration is that there has been a return to Australia of international students and workers—and tourists for that matter—since COVID, so it’s no surprise that we have seen an increase in migration numbers, given there were at least a couple of years when people basically couldn’t come to Australia, and there was always going to be a degree of catch-up in there. You ask what we are doing about housing, and again what I say is that this government has done more certainly than the last coalition government and probably more than any other Australian government to fix the issues that we do have around housing—and they are very real. We didn’t see investment from the former coalition government in public housing for nearly 10 years, and we are fixing that. We’re delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, Senator Roberts, I remember you voted against last time. You cared so much about housing that you voted against a fund that was going to build more homes! We’re also providing more money for social housing and rental assistance. (Time expired) 

 

/5 Comments/by

Double Jeopardy in Tax Unfair

One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system.

A fair tax system is one where tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged.

They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.  

In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.  

Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy.

A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation. 

They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk. 

I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none. 

Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story. 

As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solar net zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices. 

Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.  

So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas. 

Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before. 

A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future. 

To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’. 

/6 Comments/by

What is Coal LSL Hiding?

Simon Turner, a coal miner from the Hunter Valley, suffered a workplace injury and has missed out on his entitlements, including long service leave, for 9 years. I have consistently questioned Coal Long Service Leave (LSL) at previous Senate Estimates and did so again in October.

The CEO of Coal LSL, Ms Darlene Perks’ responses to my questions were clearly not co-operative and were defensive.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. You have the last gig, as usual!

Senator Watt: We’re saving the best for last!

Senator ROBERTS: At estimates on 30 May this year, right here, I asked Ms Perks for the contracts between Coal LSL and AUSCOAL for the years 1993 through to 2017. I was eventually provided with only three
unredacted contracts for the years commencing 1 July 2006, 1 July 2008 and 1 July 2012. That’s only three out of the 25 documents. Why were the rest not provided?

Ms Perks: The three contracts that have been provided were the documents that we have been able to access from the archives. The contracts were for more than a one-year term, so I don’t think it’s fair to say that 25 were missing. But it is fair to say that the three we have provided are the three that we have been able to access from the archives.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all?

Ms Perks: They are the three that we have been able to access.

Senator ROBERTS: You could only access those three?

Ms Perks: That’s correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Wow! Is there any other place that you can look—any other source?

Ms Perks: We’ve exhausted our resources.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I place on record your noncompliance with the original request and your reason is now on record as well. Why did Coal LSL pass on the administrative responsibilities of Coal LSL to AUSCOAL?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on a decision of the board back in that period of time.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you meet with the board? Or did you meet with the board at that time? When the board met, were you in attendance?

Ms Perks: Senator, you’re talking about a period which was before my employment. I think this was part of the discussion—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s true. Did the responsibilities that the board of Coal LSL passed on to AUSCOAL include collecting long service leave levies from employers?

Ms Perks: The contracts that have been shared with you certainly included the collection of levies as one of the responsibilities included in the outsourced administration contract.

Senator ROBERTS: When did that first happen, and over which years? Right from the start of the contract, was it?

Ms Perks: My recollection is that AUSCOAL, as a service company, were contracted by the entity from 1993.

Senator ROBERTS: Right from the start. It was reported in annual reports that over those years Coal LSL had no employees—is that true?

Ms Perks: That was my answer at the previous estimates.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. So you were employed by AUSCOAL during those years?

Ms Perks: I answered that question at previous hearings, and the answer doesn’t change.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you cease working for Coal LSL—I don’t think we’ve asked this question before—when employed by AUSCOAL? I’m guessing that would be yes.

Ms Perks: Coal LSL only started employing employees from 2017. Again, that was the information I provided in the previous hearing.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know why AUSCOAL ceased providing services to Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Sorry, AUSCOAL providing services to Coal LSL? Is that your question?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why did they go to Coal LSL doing its own work?

Ms Perks: That was a decision by the board of Coal LSL at the time, to insource the operations.

Senator ROBERTS: You weren’t necessarily on the board, but you were present as general manager then?

Ms Perks: I was not part of the board discussions.

Senator ROBERTS: So you weren’t sitting in on the board meetings?

Ms Perks: Not when the decision was made.

Senator ROBERTS: So you were then re-employed by Coal LSL?

Ms Perks: Coal LSL ran a national search for the role of CEO. I applied, I was successful through that process and I was appointed into the role of CEO.

Senator ROBERTS: AUSCOAL was part-owned—50 per cent—by the CFMMEU. When was that changed from the original statutory—

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on the shareholding structure.

Senator ROBERTS: It was before your time?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment.

Senator ROBERTS: Just thinking about it now, my recollection is it was quite a while ago. Do you know if AUSCOAL collected the levy and made a profit from holding the accumulated funds under a government
scheme?

Ms Perks: I can’t comment on AUSCOAL’s profit and loss. I didn’t have visibility of it. It wasn’t part of my role.

Senator ROBERTS: The CFMMEU is one of the owners of AUSCOAL. It has a 50 per cent share?

Ms Perks: It’s not part of my role to be concerned with the shareholding of AUSCOAL.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know, though?

Ms Perks: I am not going to comment on that.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I think the question—

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have seen Ms Perk’s reluctance to answer.

Senator Watt: That’s not fair. She is here, as all other witnesses are, to answer questions about the activities of the organisation she is representing, not provide information about shareholdings in companies external to the organisation.

Senator ROBERTS: I was going to ask which entities made a profit from this arrangement based on moneys paid by the coal companies, but it’s outside your purview. Minister Watt, I don’t know if you would know the
answer to this, but it is not a question for Ms Perks. Is it true that 2011 legislation under the auspices of Bill shorten enabled casuals to be covered by Coal LSL arrangements? They actually changed the Coal LSL
legislation, I understand, even though casuals are not covered under the black coal award.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that. That is talking about events from four or five Prime Ministers ago.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct, but it’s affecting miners right now. Prior to that, there was no way that someone who was a casual could be on Coal LSL.

Senator Watt: I don’t know the answer to that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Bill Shorten’s legislation, I understand—I was hoping for confirmation—opened the door for that.

Ms Perks: The change of legislation in 2011 did change the eligibility rules under the scheme, and the eligibility rules that are still current under section 4 of the admin act talk about the duties of the employee. That is
the explanation I’ve provided in several hearings—that the eligibility rules do not refer to the employment relationships and industrial relations of the employee. So, yes, they were the changes in 2011 that were
implemented as part of the administration act amendment.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s Migration Counteracts Reserve Bank Attempts to Cut Inflation

I asked Minister Gallagher questions about the government’s immigration policy which is bringing large numbers of new arrivals into Australia. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has released figures that show that spending from new arrivals is running interference on the Reserve Bank’s attempts to cut inflation rates.

The Minister’s defence was to, once again, blame the previous government, then COVID and then she made the claim that many of the new arrivals were just returning Australians.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Australian Bureau of Statistics data and the Reserve Bank for the June quarter reveals that Australian’s spending fell while new-arrival’s spending increased, because the number of new arrivals increased. Minister, the government’s policy of bringing so many new arrivals to shore up domestic demand is acting against the Reserve Bank’s low-inflation strategy. Why do you have your foot on the accelerator while the Reserve Bank has its foot on the brake?

Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. I disagree with it, and I don’t accept that we are not working alongside the Reserve Bank. They have their job to do, which is to bring inflation back within the target band without crunching the economy. We have our job to do, which is to implement our economic plan and roll out, as I said before, the cost-of-living relief to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to make much overdue investments into energy, skills and housing across the country, which are causing pressure in other areas of the economy.

In terms of the population growth, or what we’ve been seeing from the net overseas migration numbers in particular—we’ve spoken about this in this place on a number of times—we are seeing some of the results of having our borders closed, essentially, for a couple of years. So we’re seeing people returning to this country, particularly international students to study, at a time when we’re not seeing as many leaving the country. We are seeing that, and that’s reflected in the budget numbers.

But I can absolutely guarantee, Senator Roberts, that we are working with the Reserve Bank. The decisions that we take are about not making their job harder. It’s an already difficult job that they are doing, and our job is to support that in the areas that we have responsibility for, which is to deal with that cost-of-living relief, to get the budget in much better shape, which we have done, and to invest in the productive side of our economy into things like the energy transition, skills and housing, which are areas that were left neglected after a decade—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Australian Bureau of Statistics data shows that in the June quarter new private house commencements fell 6.6 per cent and new private apartment commencements fell 19.6 per cent. Minister, in line with the Reserve Bank’s 13 interest rate rises, housing construction is falling when you need to build more homes for all the Albanese government arrivals. What are you going to do—pump up the economy with more arrivals, causing more inflation and more interest rate rises, or accept that you made a mistake and put the brakes on new arrivals?

Senator Gallagher: I would just say that we have not changed the policy settings that were in place around net overseas migration, so your characterisation is incorrect. In response to some of the economic data you cite, yes, we are seeing moderation in a couple of areas, and that is because many Australians are doing it tough right now, and the Reserve Bank is trying to lower demand with some of the decisions that they’ve been taking. So, yes, we are seeing that translate into other areas of economic data, but I would also say to the senator, who voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund, that our housing policies are about dealing with this long-term underinvestment and failure to acknowledge that the Commonwealth government has a role to support the construction and delivery of social and affordable housing. That is the area the Commonwealth neglected in the previous decade. We have a range of policies targeted to housing to address—

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Minister. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Talking misinformation about your housing bill won’t save this government. Everyday Australians know they can’t afford their rent or mortgage, and they know your government is swamping the country with even more arrivals. Minister, why are you papering over your economic mismanagement and running an immigration Ponzi scheme?

Senator Gallagher: That question is simply incorrect. I would say that there is a huge amount of work that’s being done by the Home Affairs minister and the immigration minister to fix the broken system that we inherited, and we’ll have more to say on that shortly as the work that they are doing is finalised. But it’s simply not true to allege what you are alleging. We have inherited a migration system that the minister herself has said is broken, so we are dealing with issues to fix that.

But, in relation to some of the numbers that we’ve been seeing, particularly in relation to international students and working holiday-makers who have returned to the country with valid visas after the borders had been closed, just because you say ‘misinformation’ doesn’t mean it is misinformation. These are the facts; let’s deal with the facts. We accept that there is pressure in the housing market, which is why we’re responding to deal with it.

/2 Comments/by

The Cost of Living Under Labor

The Albanese government’s decision to cut back on real infrastructure spending to make way for Net Zero spending demonstrates that Labor is out of control.

I spoke in agreement with Senator Babet on a Matter of Urgency that this government’s spending is wrongheaded and is doing far more harm than good. Everyday Australians are working harder yet still going backwards on a treadmill that’s worsened under Labor.

As taxpayers we have already paid to build effective base load, coal-fired power stations and all the associated structures to carry and deliver this reliable source of electricity. You’d think the government could spend the annual budget on any number of desperately needed infrastructures projects that Australians have been waiting for. But no, Albanese’s government is tearing down what works and has already been built, to replace it with short-lived wind and solar set ups that are not fit for purpose.

The Net Zero fairy-tale is a nightmare that is driving up power bills all over the country and is a major contributor to the cost of living pain.

The polls are demonstrating just how much people are over this Prime Minister, who has wrung every last cent out of everyday Australians while cosying up to foreign globalist interests.

One Nation is now the party for the workers and economic recovery. One Nation’s grounded, commonsense approach will benefit all Australians.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I agree with Senator Babet that the government’s spending is wrongheaded and is causing more harm than good. The Albanese government’s announcement this week to cut back on real infrastructure spending to make way for nonsensical net zero spending is counterintuitive, a wrecking ball for future generations. Taxpayers have already paid for the national electricity grid through their tax payments and through their electricity bills. Taxpayers have already built beautiful, cost-effective baseload coalfired power stations and the associated poles and wires.

Instead of using the annual share of the budget that goes to infrastructure to build something new and useful, the Albanese government is tearing down what has already been built and building it again—and, much like this Prime Minister, building it with something that is not fit for purpose. Wind and solar are the most unreliable and expensive forms of power, once everything is factored in, including transmission lines. Wind turbines last for 15 years and solar installations about the same. All the nature-dependent power installed under this and previous governments has to be replaced before we get to 2050 and then replaced again and again every 15 years after that—again and again and again: insanity, a permanent black hole that benefits nobody except the predatory, parasitic billionaires who pull this government’s strings.

Speaking of fit for purpose, Snowy Hydro 2.0 has proved that city bankers like Malcolm Turnbull are crap at picking infrastructure projects. To continue throwing good money after bad with this failure will come at the opportunity cost of funding sensible infrastructure projects like Big Buffalo dam and hydro, Hells Gates Dam, Koombooloomba hydro, Urannah Water Precinct, Emu Swamp and South East Flows Restoration. These are all worthwhile infrastructure projects that One Nation will build. And inland rail to the Port of Gladstone, the east-west rail line and a steel park at Abbot Point are projects One Nation will continue to push and support and build.

Then there are the road projects, schools, rural hospitals and so much more that this government is shelving so it can waste money on the UN’s net zero fairytales—nightmares. Weather-dependent generation needs batteries to back it up—more expense. The environmental destruction is finally getting attention, after scars have already been cut across national parks all over this beautiful country. Each gigawatt of coalfired power has to be replaced with five gigawatts of wind or solar. No amount of solar will provide power at night without expensive batteries that are dirty to manufacture and last an even shorter time than the solar panels they so positively affirm.

The net zero alliance puts the cost of 100 renewables with no blackouts by 2050 at $1.5 trillion—260 gigawatts of installed capacity to replace 60 gigawatts of coal. No wonder the infrastructure minister, Minister King, announced that the Albanese government would require state governments to pay for at least half of any infrastructure project in their state. And new infrastructure projects must be over $500 million before the federal government will fund their half. That will leave the states to pay for most infrastructure projects entirely. That’s Victoria done for, with all the debt Labor Premier Andrews left behind.

What next, a state levy to pay for infrastructure that the federal government should rightly be paying for now? This is socialists taxing the life out of the public. Australia already ranks 57th out of 62 of the largest economies for income tax levels, with first being the lowest tax rate, and 56th for company tax. We’re nearly the highest. Foreign corporations, of course, are not included. They’re token. Tax payments are only for public relations. Successive governments have been unable to deal with multinational tax avoidance—because they’re not really trying. Electoral donations keep getting in the way—funny how that works!

According to the OECD, Australians’ average annual wage growth from 2019 to 2022 was the seventh lowest among the 38 OECD nations, at less than three per cent. Inflation is now six per cent, after being at eight per cent. If everyday Australians feel like they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because they are. As Senator Babet quite rightly pointed out on this motion, if it feels like your mortgage and rent are a struggle to pay, it’s because they are—thanks to Labor. Tax cuts for upper-income earners are coming next year. Here’s a better idea: index the tax thresholds so that Australians don’t pay tax when their wages rise to compensate for inflation and push them into a higher-rate tax bracket. We should be indexing taxes to the inflation rate to prevent bracket creep.

The Prime Minister has wrung every cent out of everyday Australians, and the political polls are saying quite clearly that people are jack of it. One Nation are now the party of workers. One Nation are the party of sensible economic management for the benefit of all Australians. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one economy. We are one nation.

/4 Comments/by

Wind Scam Unravels as Projects Fail

The economic and environmental cost of wind generated power is becoming clearer to investors as they back away from more projects, both overseas, on Australian soil and off-shore.

Following on from my speech last week drawing attention to financial losses in the wind energy scam, I speak about what’s behind these unravelling, expensive Net Zero operations.

It’s time to look again at clean coal.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it has been only a few weeks since my last speech drawing attention to financial losses and failures in the wind energy scam. Today, we have more. Europe’s largest onshore wind turbine installation, Markbygden, has filed for bankruptcy protection. If completed, it would have consisted of 1,101 wind turbines and 750 kilometres of access roads. Escalating construction costs meant the project can no longer bid electricity into the grid at a price the grid operator can afford.

As I explained last week, there are not enough mines to mine the materials, not enough steel mills to make the steel nor enough special-purpose ships to bring them across the world. This is just economic cost. The environmental cost no longer factors into the equation. As an example, the Clarke Creek Wind Farm west of Rockhampton hit the news in the last two weeks, when their environmental impact study caused real environmentalists, like One Nation, outrage. The environmental impact statement admitted that the most severe impact of the proposal will be on the skulls of any koalas beaten to death for trespassing on the project’s land.

Offshore wind in Australia has had a bad week, too, with BlueFloat withdrawing their plans for offshore wind in the Shoalhaven area of New South Wales. BlueFloat’s proposal was for a 359 square kilometre area with 105 turbines located 14 to 30 kilometres of the Illawarra coastline. Each turbine would have a diameter of 275 metres and feed into three offshore substations. What an insane idea. One strong storm, and the whole lot winds up on the beach. Saltwater corrosion repair now accounts for 30 per cent of the levelised cost of electricity from offshore wind turbines. Offshore wind is unprofitable from the perspective of construction and maintenance costs.

It’s time to have another look at clean coal before the green movement has us all sitting in the dark with a fridge full of inedible, spoiled food.

/12 Comments/by