Industrial Relations Omnibus Explainer

,

The Government’s IR omnibus was gutted last week before it passed the Senate. I was disappointed to see that the wage theft and enforcement measures were not passed. The insertion of a detailed definition of casual worker is good for certainty.

The inclusion of a right to get conversion from a casual position to a permanent position was also a welcome addition. Industrial Relations must return to the fundamental relationship between the employer and employee. The complexity of the Fair Work Act is the cause of many of our problems in IR. It must be simplified if we are going to have a productive country.

Transcript

Last Thursday’s industrial relations changes are a win for employees and for employers. I was disappointed though to not see more, especially the wage theft and enforcement measures in Schedule 5. I’ve been very vocal and active working for casual miners and workers, and want to share what last Thursday’s changes mean.

Firstly though, the government agreed to my demand for a comprehensive review into the employment of casuals in the Hunter Valley. The government committed to the Fair Work Ombudsman doing a thorough review. Secondly, after almost two years supporting injured casual coal miners, it’s time to look for a broad and complete solution.

I invite the key stakeholders to join me at a round-table to discuss solutions for the problems that I have identified facing many workers in the Hunter and throughout Australia. I will be inviting key stakeholders including unions, employer groups, and government to come together to work cooperatively and then report back on the results.

It’s time the facts came out and are addressed. Thirdly, the IR Club, class-action lawyers, and political parties with vested interests have driven a dishonest misinformation campaign protecting their easy profits and their power over workers.

So now, here are the industrial relations changes and what they mean:

Casual workers now have a pathway for conversion to secure permanent work. There are 2.5 million casuals in Australia. In some industries casuals want to stay as casuals for the loading or for the lifestyle. 830,000 casuals are employed in small business, our country’s largest employer and largest provider of jobs.

Most awards already include casuals. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award though, did not have provision for casuals on production, and only in staff jobs and the unions refused to fix that. Despite that prohibition on casuals, the Hunter Valley CFMEU negotiated and signed enterprise agreements that allowed abuse of casuals.

It did that without casual conversion and that had locked many miners into being casuals forever. Some enterprise agreements that the CFMEU had agreed to were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements. I tried many ways to overcome this, yet once I realised that union bosses had signed these enterprise agreements with lower pay, I knew that the workers were then legally bound by that deal.

It’s important to know that some workers value casual employment as a way of getting into the coal industry or as a way of getting more money quickly and then leaving the industry. Workers and employers have a definition of casual employment now that provides clarity to protect all businesses, small and large, and gives workers a fair go.

The definition is complex yet detailed and comprehensive. We negotiated a 12-month review of the new law to identify and rectify any unintended consequences, it’s one of our amendments to protect workers. Employers will be protected from paying twice for casual workers’ entitlements as that could have driven businesses, especially small businesses, insolvent.

And workers can still get their entitlements, and will get their entitlements. Permanent workers will get their entitlements while casuals will continue to be paid a casual loading in lieu of the entitlement, it just means people won’t be paid twice.

This protects small business from double-dipping where workers are paid a casual loading in lieu of entitlements, and then paid for those same entitlements in addition. Now following my commitments and my comments opposing double-dipping, I should have been no surprise that I voted for this Offset clause.

The class-action lawyers and some union bosses who profit from signing the abusive enterprise agreements and then taking employers to court are worried about the changes. Employees in small businesses will have the option to ask for conversion to permanent instead of adding to busy small business employers’ paperwork having to track people.

This will ease small business red tape, and that’s an amendment we added. Preserving all workers’ entitlements and rights means that workers will still be able to file claims for wage theft or to vary enterprise agreements made incorrectly, we made sure of that. Now some enterprise agreements were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements on the same site.

Again, it’s the union bosses that signed those agreements and made them law, we can’t do anything about them. Workers have greater flexibility now in seeking to convert to permanent work when it suits them, while the many who want to stay casual can now have that option too.

Having worked at the underground coalface for three years, I proudly admit to having a soft spot for miners. Yet while taking care of miners, I have a responsibility as a national Senator to our whole country, including small business, Australia’s largest employer. Out of the hundreds of awards in place across Australia, only 12 don’t have clauses for casuals.

This law now covers all awards, including coal mining and small business, and miners now have a casual conversion option at last. Though we are also asking the Fair Work Commission to ensure that the awards align with the legislation. When this legislation was first introduced into parliament last year, we immediately wrote to more than 80 stakeholder groups, and invited feedback.

The CFMEU construction division said it was the only invitation they received from a politician. In total, we listened to around 100 groups, some more than once, including the ACTU who had three meetings with me. The big problem for casual coal miners were the cracks they fell through because union bosses were happy to sign agreements knowing there was no definition for a casual coal production worker, and this disadvantaged casual coal miners.

The union didn’t care about that for years. The lack of a definition of casual coal mine worker that the union bosses, the Fair Work Commission, and the Fair Work Ombudsman, and the Government ignored for years until now has caused huge problems for workers. Now we have a definition, and this should only be better for workers.

Groups representing small business as well as individual business owners have been very positive about the changes that One Nation advocated for economic recovery.

These include: the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA,

the Small Business Association of Australia,

the Australian Retailers Association,

the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman,

the Australian Hotels Association, taking care of pubs,

the Australian Industry Group,

the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,

and the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

Opponents of these reforms have been treated harshly by employers and employees alike. For example, the ACTU reportedly copped it from small business employees. Simply saying it’s bad for workers, it’s not enough to describe this legislation, that’s nonsense.

Some workers are taking time to understand the changes, yet small business employees and employers have been quick to see the benefits. The main negatives we faced have been from class-action lawyers and the Industrial Relations Club, so we must be doing something right for workers.

The negotiation process has confirmed some core truths: Firstly, the Fair Work Act is the real culprit. It’s six bloody inches thick. How can any worker or small business know their entitlements, rights, and protections? They can’t. And that’s why workers have lost entitlements and unions have lost members.

The Fair Work Act is the root cause of the complexity and problems, and we must do something about that. And we had success during negotiations with unions and employer groups agreeing to my invitation to them to discuss what employers and employees need in order to restore Australia’s productive capacity, and to give workers a fair go.

The Rudd-Gillard-Shorten Fair Work Act has led to a drop in union membership and a deterioration of management and executives right across our country. People are going around the laws. Workers and employers are both losing and hurting. Employers could not afford the complex system or the cost, and nor can the workers.

We need to restore the primary workplace relationship between employees and employers to make work safer and more satisfying for our workers and employers, and make it more productive for our country’s future.

/by

Does Australia Post care about Mum and Dad LPOs?

, ,

Licensed Post Offices (LPOs) provide important services especially in regional towns. Unfortunately, they’ve been overlooked in a number of the changes to the way Australia Post operates.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending today. Is Australia Post considering selling off its profitable parcel post business? And please advise what discussions, reviews and planning has and will occur in relation to the parcel post business?

Senator, that would be a matter for government. So we’ll have to defer to…

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

If I could just respond from the chair’s and board’s perspective. There has been no discussion, no plans, no undertakings to prioritise any aspects of Australia Post business. Certainly in the time that I’ve been there. And while we’re on that time, Can I correct the figure that I gave earlier? I was appointed on the 22nd of November not the 14th of November.

[Woman]

Thank you.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

The 14th was the date that the press release was put out. I apologise for that.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you can rule out that there’ll be a sale of the parcel post?

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Correct. Correct.

I mean, I…

[Woman]

So can I.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you.

Does Australia Post consider it has a responsibility to provide a possible, a profitable business model for licensees of community post offices?

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

We certainly believe we have a responsibility to maintain viable partners in all the business that we undertake. Both at the contractor level and at the LPO level, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So you will look at their services through their eyes.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The chair of Australia Post commissioned a review by the Boston Consulting Group to inform the board and the CEO. Why were the most heavily invested stakeholder group, the licensees, not engaged and or included in the sharing of the outcomes, recommendations for that review.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Senator, if I could just correct one point. The Australia Post board did not engage BCG. This was an independent investigation by our shareholders, shareholder ministers and we supported the investigation. But we did not engage nor ultimately conclude any position on that review.

[Malcolm Roberts]

From whom do I request to get a copy? Because it’s been out since I guess… Sorry.

[Woman]

We’ve already taken public interest immunity on that report, Senator Roberts. The cabinet’s explicitly considered the executive summary of their BCG report. The full report though, as a usual practise, was also available to cabinet and I consider by a number of ministers. But the report’s expected to be given further cabinet consideration in the context of ensuring that Australia Post has a sustainable future.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Could you please advise the status and next steps being taken by Australia Post with licenced post offices, LPOs, to progress payment reforms.

[Lucio Di Bartolomeo]

Senator, thank you very much for the question. I may just defer to Ms. Sheffield, who heads up our community and consumer area and ask her to come to the desk. And outline we are about to kick off on the payment review process . So, Ms. Sheffield.

[Nicole Sheffield]

Thank you Mr. Boys. Thank you, Senator. Nicole Sheffield executive general manager, community and consumer. Thank you Senator for that question. We work very closely with our licensees, our licensee partners and associations. The payment reform itself, we have had one consultation with LPOG. And we have a first consultation with POAAL, the other group later this week. Once we understand the principles and agree what are the areas that we will be looking at, then we we’ll make for some recommendations. And start working that including, as per the first lot of payment reform, looking at those payments per outlet. Because when you have so many outlets, 2,580, there are a lot of impacts. So when you make any changes to payments there’s going to be some impacts that we want to make sure that we understand across the entire network. So that requires a lot of modelling, a lot of consultation. As you know, the first payment reform was very successful and introduced $50 million worth of extra payments in the last two years to licensees. And that was all about ensuring that they were paid for parcels and for scanning. The second lot of payment reform is going to focus on community representation, and the very important role that they play in that. But also looking at our identity services and financial services. I feel very confident that before the end of this financial year we should have some really good parameters to move forward.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So it has a budget. Thank you for that. And it’ll save me, giving my preamble for the next question. Has a budget allocation been made for phase two reform implementation, which we understand is expected to begin shortly. And what is the budget allocation for phase two? When do you anticipate it will be commenced and then implemented?

[Nicole Sheffield]

So budgets at the moment have not been concluded for next financial year. So we’re in the process of discussing within the organisation, all of that. But I can tell you confidently Senator, there will be budget allocation. We’ve been discussing this and just like anything we will put aside the required amounts. And that’s part of the reason we’ve started the discussion so early this year to make sure that we allocate the appropriate amount.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And that would come with extensive consultation with the LPOs?

[Nicole Sheffield]

Absolutely.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. In order to achieve sustainability for LPOs, does the significant change in volume between letters and parcel post require a review of the financial relationship between licence, with licenced post offices. Especially if, yeah, that’s all I need to say.

[Nicole Sheffield]

Yeah. Look, we’re always ensuring the viability of our licenced post office partners. We know how important they are for us to deliver our community service obligation. But actually they’re, you know, the face to our community to regional and rural Australia. Their viability is critical. And just as we’ve seen, COVID has created an e-commerce boom that none of us expected. We hoped, but none of us expected that it’s changed the financial model completely for our post offices. Because all of a sudden their revenue drivers are significantly more coming from parcels than we’ve ever seen. And so it really is constantly working with them looking at what products, services they are offering to their communities. What arrangements that we have, what opportunities we can have to introduce new products and services that will drive transactions and foot traffic for them. And I think it’s something that we’ll just constantly need to be looking at and working with them to look at what we can do to grow.

/by

Fixing IR reform to protect employees and help small business

The monstrosity of the Fair Work Act is the first problem with our industrial relations. We have gone through the proposed legislation in detail and put together many amendments for the government to consider. While some of the amendments are more critical than others, we will be working with the government to get them over the line.

Casuals should be able to request conversion to full time, but making it compulsory for small business to offer the conversion is just more red tape they don’t need.

/by

Protecting scientists like Peter Ridd: Academic Freedom is essential to University

, ,

Too often, we are seeing ideas silenced and censored at our universities. University is a place where the exchange of conflicting and opposing ideas should thrive and be encouraged. Thanks to One Nation lobbying, this bill ensures that the definition of academic freedom to do that is put into law.

We only need to look at examples such as Peter Ridd to see why we need to protect academic freedom. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’.

Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said:

In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential.

One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia.

Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’. Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.

Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don’t feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged.

I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying:

They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised …

They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence.

Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That’s an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it’s based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence.

Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I’ll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people’s livelihoods.

Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can’t. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can’t risk their careers crashing and burning before they’ve started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow’s problems.

In recent decades we’ve seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It’s costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd’s research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn’t like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University’s funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd’s work and the work of others confirms and suggests.

I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about.

We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I’ll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology:

It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.

/by

One Nation Senators preparing amendments to rectify flaws in the IR Bill

,

The government is on notice that One Nation is expecting due consideration of its amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill next week in Parliament.

Senator Malcolm Roberts said, “I have doubts about the government’s commitment to comprehensive debate on the Industrial Relations legislation with the committee report due Friday and a vote expected next week.

“This is critical legislation and Senator Hanson and I will not be rushed into a vote before we have had time to consider the report’s recommendations.”

One Nation is proposing a range of amendments including casuals, greenfields, protections for workers in enterprise agreements, awards and compliance.

Senator Roberts stated, “I will not support the Bill in its current form and the government needs to be prepared to embrace One Nation’s amendments to rectify and remove the legislation’s flaws.

“Good industrial relations is about restoring the primary workplace relationship between the employee and employer, and stop the money flowing to the IR club that profits from complexities.

“If the Industrial Relations legislation isn’t doing that, and this current Bill doesn’t, then it isn’t good IR and I am committed to amending the Bill for the betterment of employers and employees.”

One Nation will be seeking a review of this legislation in twelve months to address any unintended consequences and a commitment from the government to undertake comprehensive industrial relations reform within two years.

One Nation’s commitment is to protect honest workers, protect small business and restore Australia’s productive capacity.

“I have written to more than 80 stakeholders including union bosses, peak union groups, employer and industry groups and welfare agencies and listened to their feedback on the legislation. “It’s time to sort this out and Senator Hanson and I are ready to work with the government and all parties,” added Senator Roberts.

/by

In support of Peter Ridd and Science

I had the honour of speaking in support of Peter Ridd and his High Court challenge. James Cook University sacked Dr Ridd in circumstances that should send a shiver up everyone’s spine.

The free discussion of ideas, even those we disagree with and especially at University, is fundamental to the scientific method. The scientific method has led to untold wealth and prosperity for human civilisation.

We will bring on our own downfall if we discard it.

Transcript

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Well, good evening everyone. It’s lovely to be here and thank you very much to Jewel for organising this event. And let’s put our hands together for Jewel because of that. Now, I also want to thank everyone for being here because this is important for Peter Ridd support. Peter is what Peter is doing is much more than just scientific integrity, much, much more. It’s costing us all trillions of dollars.

It’s costing each of us in this room, thousands of dollars. And I’ll explain why in a minute but it’s costing us enormously in terms of the values it’s undermining and destroying in this country and freedom. So I want to also mention and acknowledge our party’s leader Senator Pauline Hanson. I do this not because she’s our party leader but because she’s so damn good at what she does.

When we were looking at the government’s previous bill that went through the Senate late last year Dan Tehan was the education minister. And Dan put forward the bill and Pauline said we will support this providing you do something about Peter Ridd and about the destruction of our universities and freedom of speech.

What would you like us to do? And Pauline rattled off a list. And she got a lot of it from Peter. So I want to acknowledge that there are people in federal parliament, Dan Tehan is one of them and his success minister Tudge is another. They are going to come forward with a bill to restore some of those freedoms in the near future.

But let’s get back to science. It’s ironic, isn’t it? That Pauline Hanson didn’t go to a university but she knows what’s happening in the universities better than vice-chancellors do. That’s appalling that the vice-chancellors are that way. So let’s think about science. What has science brought us? Come on,

[ – ] Electricity.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Electricity, yes.

[ – ] Progress.

[ Malcolm Roberts ]Progress, in what way?

[ – ] Better living standards.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Better living standards, what else?

[ – ] Nice things.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Nice things, comfort, ease, security, lighting, safety, and also long longer living and safer living. It’s brought us material wealth. Look how far we’ve come in the last 170 years despite the last 20 years of reversal. Look how far we’ve come in the previous hundreds of thousands of years and in the last 170 we’ve come so far materially. Enormous it’s staggering. Everything in this room has come as a result of science making a discovery, either in the manufacturing of something or the actual harvesting of something, everything.

And we’re living longer, safer, happier lives but science is much more than just the pure dry knowledge or even the practical knowledge. It’s much more than that. That’s what I’d like to discuss. A scientist is defined as someone who follows the scientific method. Now I won’t go into that in detail now, but the root, but the end result of the scientific method is objectivity. And that’s extremely important because objectivity frees us from the bullies’ control.

Many people think it’s just about coming up with new inventions. It’s not, it’s about freedom in our society. Freedom in all forms, economic freedom. You know, when my grandfather was born he was pretty much tied to a job in the, in the Valleys of Wales, in his Valley, he didn’t go very far, but now someone in Australia can go almost anywhere in the world and work. So if you’ve got a bully in charge of the mine or your factory in your Valley you’re stuck there 150 years ago.

Not anymore, you can go anywhere. Science did that for us. It ended physical intimidation because no longer did the strongest person, the financially wealthiest person, the politically connected person, the economically powerful person no longer did they have sway over our lives because we had objectivity. This is only been with humans for about three or 400 years.

The Greeks had some touches of it but three or 400 years since the enlightenment. So it’s the freedom now to control our resources. We have control over our land our property because of science, but much of our journey is about control versus freedom. When I say a journey, our journey here in our lives, on earth as humans much of it is about control versus freedom.

And that’s a theme that I quite often go to. Who’s read Von Mises work, Ludwig Von Mises work. Well, you probably will hope you read the book where he talked about the way that the word liberal was captured. Liberal is someone, a tag given to someone who believes in liberty and espouses liberty and fights for liberty. What does liberal mean these days? Not the party. What does liberal mean?

[ – ] Lefties.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Lefties, that was deliberately hijacked to destroy that libertarian argument. It was deliberately hijacked. Ludwig Von Mises was one of the best economists ever couldn’t get any tenure in American universities because they didn’t like his argument because they were fighting freedom. The human condition is the development of our ego. And as a result of that our fear and it leads to human behaviour which is quite often driven to control people. Whether we control our kids, control our parents, control our neighbor, control the local sporting club we’re in.

But it leads to suppressing of human progress. So the human condition the ego drives sometimes counterproductive behaviours even though at our core, humans are caring people are we? We at our core are caring and that that holds back human progress. And at times it seems especially in federal parliament as though everything is about control versus freedom, control versus freedom. Look at our energy sector. That is what determines our productivity. We have destroyed our energy sector. And I’ll talk about the cost of that in a minute.

Due to so-called science? We have destroyed our Murray-Darling basin due to so-called science and it’s rubbish as Jennifer will know. We’re destroying agriculture in this state as a result of reef science, which is rubbish. And Peter has led the charge on that. Now and this is what’s so significant that I want to bring to your attention. Now, those who seek to control and there are people who want to control. They want to capture science to control us and I’ll show you how. They want to actually capture control the very concept of science. And these are the substitutes for science.

Some of the substitutes of science. No longer does data and objectivity rule at universities, claims of consensus. The 97% consensus. When you look at the figures from John Cook’s rubbish paper it’s actually 0.3% of scientists, academics are in agreement 0.3. But even if it was a hundred it doesn’t matter because consensus is anti-science. It’s not about objectivity. Or they appeal to the name.

The CSRO is the top 100 top 1% of scientific organisations in the world, but they can’t give me data. They’re hopeless, they are rubbish, or they smear us, ridicule us, derogatory hurtful labels. Or implied smear like, Oh, Jewel you would believe in, you wouldn’t believe in the moon landing. Would you, I know your a lot. So that’s what they do. And that’s how they live. Or they come up with catastrophic consequences.

Great barrier reef’s gonna be dead in 12 years. Sea levels are going to claim us all, rising sea levels, ocean alkalinity, storms, insects, ticks malaria, droughts, floods, species extinction. My God, we’re getting overwhelmed. You haven’t got more than five years to live. I’ll tell you a joke later on about Al Gore. Computer models, their output is falsely called data. They actually say that the output of a computer model is data.

That’s how desperate they are due to using these unvalidated computer models, unvalidated and erroneous, Or they say if statements. Jennifer, if antarctica melts it’ll arise 20 metres. What’s the chance of Antarctic melding. And all people remember is the sea levels are going to rise 20 metres. It was a rubbish statement in the first place. Peer review, another logical fallacy. Somebody who we don’t know who hasn’t really looked at the paper their opinion is worth something when there’s no data, this is insane. Celebrities including a socially awkward 16 year old take their word for it.

UN has got so desperate that they’re now using an awkward well, she’s now 18 years old. Greta Thumberg hopeless. Where’s the science. Great, I can’t tell you that. Emotion, fear, guilt, pity, lies, and distortions. And these are the things that are now anti-science but they’re passed off by our opponents as science. And so what we have now is that distortion of freedom, academic freedom and claim of ownership of what is a scientist.

Scientist is an advocate who espouses the control side of politics. That’s what a scientist is these days and it’s rubbish, complete rubbish. They consign real scientists like Peter Ridd, Professor Peter Ridd to the dustbin. That is what’s really going on here. And the whole pseudo-science is to control our policy. And this is where it leads us to governance that is not based on data. I’ve been in federal politics now about three years in total in the Senate and instead of data.

Well, let me put it this way, in my experience every single major problem in our country has its roots in Canberra. I’ll challenge anyone to name a problem that hasn’t got its roots in Canberra. Covid came from overseas. But the roots of our problem on how it’s managed came from Canberra. Their restrictions basically were paid for by Canberra allowing the States to go against competitive federalism. Every major problem comes from Canberra.

Why? Because government is not based on data. It’s based on ideology, emotion, vested interest, fear, uninformed opinion and quite often policies in Canberra contradict the science. They contradict the empirical evidence and the costs. Listen to some of these costs. I commissioned Dr Alan Moran to come up with the first analysis of the extra costs of climate policies and renewable energy policies on our electricity costs.

The figure I’m about to give you is the additional cost on electricity, on electricity prices due to renewables and climate policies, $13 billion a year. That’s the additional cost. That works out at an average of $1,300 per household per year. That’s adding all the costs through the supply chain. Does anyone know what the median income is in Australia? 49,000, what is it after tax? I haven’t done the calculation, 34?

How can we afford people on $34,000 take home paying an extra $1,300 on top of their electricity bill. That’s the first time anyone’s done that study And I commissioned Dr Moran to do that. Previously, the figures were in consolidated form. Now they’re scattered across various budgets and agency reports.

Because the government is telling us six and a half percent of your electricity bill is due to solar and wind, rubbish. It’s 39% and all the other inefficiencies that get stacked on top of that. For every so-called green job due to solar and wind It’s costing us 2.2 jobs in the real economy. We’re going backwards and it’s costing our nation trillions of dollars. Literally I’m not exaggerating if you look at not just the cost but the opportunity costs trillions of dollars and poor governance is destroying our country. Is anyone surprised?

[ – ] No.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] You can see it can’t you, you can feel it. So what we’ve come up with as one answer and it’s just one answer. There are many things to do, is an office of scientific integrity and quality assurance. And we’ve worked with Peter Ridd on this. Wasn’t our idea. We got it first from the American Environmental Protection Agency. We’ll have questions later, Jeff but Peter has jumped right on board with this.

He pushed it himself independently and we joined forces on that. So that leads me in a few minutes to talking about Peter. You can see why his quest is so damn important, can’t you? It’s about freedom, it’s about governance, it’s about the very security and future of our country. So what do we see in Peter? We see someone who is absolutely objective. We see some on who is honest. We see someone who can’t be bought.

We see someone who is faithful to the science. He honours the science. He protects the science because it’s giving us so much. He is a good person to be with. He is courageous. He is determined and he gets belted time and time again but he gets up every time and away he goes again and look where he’s gone. He’s got to the high court and his dishonest University has cost him a lot of money and a lot of time, but he’s still going.

He is still going. So he’s determined, he is courageous and he has enormous integrity. What more do we need? Wanna come to Canberra, Peter? We need that down there. Look, I’m going to end by saying that first of all, Peter is much more than a great scientist. He is a great scientist. His inventions have gone around the world and used in his field in other reefs in Australia as well. So he is much, much more than a great theoretical scientist.

He is a practical scientist. He’s solved problems. He’s given good advice. Maybe in the questions I can answer more comments about what he’s done. But his cause is much more than about science. Peter’s cause applies to every single one of us in this room. And to everyone who’s watching this video, everyone. Peter’s cause applies to everyone in Australia. Peter’s cause applies and I mean this sincerely starting to get little bit teary.

It applies to everyone on this planet, everyone on earth, it applies to our whole planet. People who value freedom will support Peter. It’s not sufficient for me that Galileo was vindicated after he died. I want this professor, Peter Ridd to be vindicated now. That’s what we need. I’m going to leave you with two quotes.

One from the Dalai Lama ”In order to exercise creativity freedom of thought is essential” It’s not only thinking freely and independently but then exchanging ideas, ideas exchanged are enormously powerful. The second one is Steve Jobs and I hope that James Cook university who employed Peter is listening. Steve Jobs who built, he’s dead now. He built a remarkable company said ”It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do.

We hire, He said we in Apple, we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do” This man is very smart, but he’s more so, more important, He’s practical and he’s a real human and he’s got an enormous ticker. So please support Peter Ridd.

/by

Legalise Vaping in Australia

,

It is currently illegal to purchase any e-liquids or e-cigarettes containing nicotine in Australia. It shouldn’t be. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. I support e-cigarettes being available given the evidence that is available.

Transcript

One Nation opposes this motion. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll explain why. Vapes and e-cigarettes are as safe as the vaping solution’s contents. E-cigs should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for schedule 3 pharmacy-only medications. This would allow local producers to submit their products to the TGA for testing and approval. Those approved devices and solutions would then be made using good manufacturing process right here in Australia. This would offer complete assurance to Australian consumers that the product they’re using is safe. The approval process is quick and cheap, as compared to potential sales revenue. Distribution should be limited to pharmacists.

Our policy follows a review of both academic research and empirical data from around the world. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. A peer-reviewed article published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Drug Policy found there was no support for the argument that vaping is a gateway to smoking, no support. The article produced empirical evidence that clearly shows e-cigarettes have accompanied a reduction in smoking rates in countries where quit rates had previously stagnated.

What is wrong with paying attention to the science and the reality? It’s debates like this debate around e-cigarettes and vaping that leads One Nation to call for an office of scientific integrity. These matters are far too important to be decided by a selective quoting of reports so as to support any pre-conceived position. Good government requires the truth—not duelling reports, not fear, not ideology, not vested interests, not uninformed opinion, not emotions—facts and data. An office of scientific integrity and quality assurance would allow independent scientists and advocates to test these important issues and from that process the truth would have the best chance of emerging.

/by

Rule of Law must prevail

https://youtu.be/gF9ofK-WnqA

We have to leave the investigation of criminal offences to the police. If the presumption of innocence is abandoned in this country, many things will fall in this country. Also in this interview: Labor proposes giving preference to gay, lesbian and trans refugees, Woolworths backs down on proposed cash ban in stores and Nationals join One Nation in support of vaping.

Transcript

[Marcus] G’day mate! How are you, Malcolm?

[Malcolm] I’m well, thanks, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus] Good, thank you. It’s been a very busy morning. Ministers are like all people, entitled to presumption of innocence. Parliament is not a court. It should not get into police work other than holding police accountable when police have failed the people. I mean, in your opinion, is there a problem with the culture under, you know, one of our most sacred roofs, Parliament House in Canberra?

[Malcolm] Marcus, I think there’s always a problem with where there’s an imbalance of power. Senior levels of corporations, we’ve seen some union bosses in strife over these kinds of things, and it really comes down to the human condition, and people having that ego, and let’s face it: there’s a lot of power in Parliament and a lot of people there for the wrong reasons that have come to exercise their power.

I’m not just talking about politicians, I’m talking about staffers, and so wherever you’ve got something like that, there’s potential for the people who want to exercise their power to have power over other people. So that’s the real issue, and that does come down to culture, but it’s not going to be fixed by a law.

Culture is up to people like myself, for example. We had a cultural statement that guided all of our recruiting, and we made that very clear to everyone who was interviewed for a job in my office that they had to abide by that culture, and we wanted their commitment before they even started. And so that’s how we sorted things out, and we have systems in place to make sure that people abide to that way, but what we really need is to understand that culture is so important.

It’s the most important driver of productivity in any company, Marcus, and so we know it’s that important. So it’s a huge driver of behaviour, so it’s up to individual politicians, and I think the media should be chasing people, but ultimately, it’s the law that convicts someone, no one else. The police officers, the courts, that’s the process we need to follow.

[Marcus] All right. What about the government or Parliament as a whole? I mean, if the prime minister himself, and Anthony Albanese a short while ago, again, repeated calls for the prime minister to launch an inquiry into this culture, into the whole Christian Porter affair, et cetera, I mean, if the prime minister feels there is a culture that needs addressing, then of course he should address it, but I don’t think he has.

I’ve got to be honest, I do not believe Scott Morrison has done the right thing, this is just my opinion, by the women of Australia. I think he’s a victim blamer, I think he’s almost misogynistic, and I think that he’s lacking in empathy.

[Malcolm] I don’t agree with those verdicts that you have, but I do agree that he’s a facade builder and he’s a marketing person. He likes to look good, not do good. And he had a– Remember when Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop retired as ministers, and they went straight into cushy jobs, each of them, that looked to have conflicts of interest with their past work as ministers.

Now he appointed, after a lot of pressure Scott Morrison appointed an internal investigation, and it was headed by Martin Parkinson, who was, at the time, the top bureaucrat in the country. He was the Secretary or Head of Prime Ministers and Cabinet office.

Now, the Labor Party and I, and a couple of liberals, pursued him in an inquiry into the investigation, and I got pretty relentless and held him accountable Martin Parkinson, the top bureaucrat in the country, and eventually after a lot of questioning from me he said, “Hey, I don’t have any power to investigate,” and I went, “What?! You’re investigating this, “but now you tell us after relentless questioning from me “that you don’t have any power?”

So what Scott Morrison has done has appointed, I believe Gaetjens, I’ve forgotten his first name, to investigate this, and that’s not adequate, but we need to leave it in the hands of the police. Now, if it comes to investigating culture, then we need to have a proper committee, an external committee. But you know what, the best thing of all? If we had an independent corruption inquiry committee that looked into corruption in Parliament.

That’s what we need. And so Scott Morrison has run away from that, the Liberal Party has run away from that, the Labor Party is not that powerful about it either, but ourselves, the Greens, and the independents are pushing for that a, fair dinkum one.

[Marcus] All right. What about Grace Tame? I mean, you’ve mentioned her this morning. Well, on the notes that I’ve got here, callers have mentioned her as well. What did you make of her commentary yesterday? Am I reading right here, saying that you think she’s hijacking this issue?

[Malcolm] No, no. I think she’s criticising. She’s really done a great job, full credit to her. No, as I understand it, Marcus, I haven’t seen the actual note, but Grace Tame has criticised the media for using victims and hijacking issues.

[Marcus] Sure, okay.

[Malcolm] And I watched that young lady’s speech when she accepted the award for Australian of the Year for 2021, what a remarkable woman.

Did you hear her criticism yesterday of the prime minister?

[Malcolm] No I didn’t. What did she say?

[Marcus] Well, she basically turned around. There was a really good question that was asked of her. I’ll play it for you, I’ve got a bit of time here. I’ll just make sure I get it up on my screen. She basically turned around and said that the prime minister, well, she called him out on a little bit of the language that he’s used in this whole debate, I’m just trying to find it here. Sorry, mate. I’m just trying to– anyway, what we might do, we might– have you got time to hold on till after eight?

[Malcolm] Yeah, sure.

[Marcus] Yeah, I might do that, ’cause I think I want to talk further with you on this issue and the news is, we’re about to bump into it. So Malcolm, just hold on there please, mate, and my apologies for today, holding you up, because I want to get onto your thoughts on Labor’s immigration policy as well, the Woolie’s cash ban that’s been defeated, and also we’ve had some conversations recently with Matt Canavan, good conversations on this programme about vaping and e-cigarettes.

I want to get your thoughts on that as well. So I’ll just get you to hold on there, mate. Thank you for being so patient and understanding.

[Malcolm] You’re all right, Marcus.

[Marcus] Just hang on there. Malcolm Roberts, he’ll be back after the eight o’clock news, some other issues I want to get into. All right, Malcolm Roberts, welcome back, mate, thank you.

[Malcolm] You’re welcome, Marcus. All right, now I’m going to play you the audio that Grace Tame was involved in yesterday. Australian of the Year Grace Tame was asked what she thought of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s use of the phrase “as a father”, referring to a chat that he had with his wife Jenny when he responded to the allegations by Brittany Higgins, this was her response to it yesterday. I’ll play it now.

[Grace Tame] It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience. And actually, on top of that, having children doesn’t guarantee a conscience.

[Marcus] And it’s been reported widely this morning that she didn’t miss. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] I’ve got goosebumps listening to it. What a wonderful lady, what a very bright young woman, admired. I agree with her totally. You know, conscience is a matter of what our inner guidance says, and that is what should be driving this, and that should be about values that are tied to Australian values.

And you know, Marcus, in many ways, rape is the most horrendous crime there is because it invades someone. I mean, it’s just sickening because that person has to live with that for the rest of their life. Now, murder is terrible too, obviously, you can’t take away someone else’s life, but a murdered person, that’s the end of it for them, but a raped person has to live with it for the rest of their life, and it’s just, it’s never– it’s always been something that has just repulsed me. It’s just beyond it.

[Marcus] Let’s move on to another issue here. Labor’s immigration policy of–

[Malcolm] Before we do Marcus, I think that, you know, there is a need to understand something else that drives Parliament.

[Marcus] Right.

[Malcolm] Parliament is no longer driven by data and facts. We don’t have policies and decisions coming out of the Liberal and Labor Parties based on data and facts, and when that happens, fantasy takes over. It’s okay to fudge things. It’s okay to tell lies. It’s okay to wield power over people.

But the people who pay the price are the everyday Australians. That’s who pays the price, and what we need to do is call out the voters, because voters are putting up with this nonsense. We have family law that’s been an issue for 50 years.

[Marcus] Mm, very true.

[Malcolm] It took Pauline Hanson to get stuck into that, ’cause that drives a lot of the abuse. We have energy prices that are being driven on an insane whim, that carbon dioxide affects the– that human carbon dioxide affects the climate of the whole world, it’s absolute nonsense.

There’s never been data presented to Parliament for that. Then we have question time. I mean, you look at the behaviour of Parliamentarians in question time by Senate and House of Reps, absolute disgrace. There is no respect for the institution of Parliament amongst those MPs, there’s no respect to the voters who put them there, and the voters need to say, “I’ve had enough “of the Labor Party and Liberal Party playing games.”

These are too important. We need to see people being held accountable for data and facts and decisions based on data and facts. While ever the voters keep putting these two parties in, they will keep getting the crap being dished out to them.

[Marcus] All right. Immigration has been a volatile topic for the Labor Party in the past two decades. In the 2021 draft platform, the party proposes giving more government support to asylum seekers, especially gay, lesbian and trans refugees, while maintaining support for offshore detention.

Obviously like, look, I don’t need to really go too far. I mean, I’ll probably speak tomorrow to your colleague, Mark Latham, about this. He’s been very critical of this, but what do you say?

[Malcolm] Well, you know, the ultimate– the first thing we need to take care of is our own Australians, put them first. We’ve got veterans currently homeless in our country. Then we need to accept sensible, genuine, sorry– genuine refugees in sensible numbers, and not accept them based purely on what gender or sexual orientation they currently claim to be or identify as.

Australia has a very generous refugee intake and welfare. We have very strong welfare systems that look after people. They can come here and they get a lot for nothing. Now, Labor’s policy, as the Australian reported, is based on giving preference to gays and transsexuals. Well, it’s entitled to have that policy, but I don’t think that reflects the everyday Australian.

Entry to Australia should be on the basis of merit, and how people fit into Australian culture, values, laws. When someone, you know, a gay man in an Islamic country where they throw gays off roofs and kill them, or a white South African farmer, if they’re the two options they should be treated objectively. They shouldn’t be treated on the basis of race or religion or colour or anything else.

They should be treated on how they will contribute to our country and the values they uphold. But why are we discussing this when we can’t even allow people into the country right now? It’s just beyond me.

[Marcus] That is true. All right, but again, that’s– I dunno, look, maybe, the cynic in me says, because, well, you know what’s happening this weekend. It is Mardi Gras time, and it’s a time when this community does get a lot of the spotlight.

I’ll agree to slightly disagree with you there, Malcolm, I think we should be welcoming people who are sadly objectified and vilified and even worse in other countries around the world. But one thing we do have common ground–

[Malcolm] Well, we should be welcoming them but we shouldn’t be discriminating against them, we shouldn’t be discriminating in favour of them.

[Marcus] Fair enough.

[Malcolm] We should be treating everyone on the merits of the case.

[Marcus] The Woolie’s cash ban. It’s a bit of a win. We know that in a number of cities, they’ve been trialling you know, card only terminals and all the rest of it. I think it’s bad enough that these big corporations are sacking checkout operators and replacing them with machines.

I don’t go to do my shopping to replace workers. I shouldn’t have to scan my own groceries. They say, it’s all, you know, to save you time and so we can keep our prices low. Well, that’s bullshit. What they’re doing basically is trying to save or cut back on their costs. Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Yes, that’s an interesting perspective. We just looked at the cash ban as something that was brought in for the wrong reasons. They told us it was about anti-money laundering, which is complete nonsense, and we’ve got the facts to show that. Initially, when the government brought this into the lower house, the cash ban bill, Labor supported it in the lower house.

It got through to a Senate committee. We went to work very strongly. We convinced the Greens to join us, We convinced in opposing the cash ban. We convinced the crossbench senators, who weren’t aware of it at the time, to jump in.

Then we actually embarrassed Labor into it, and then the government realised it was dead, so we moved a motion to get that bill, cash ban bill, off the books in Parliament, and that’s what happened, so we won. Then we put pressure on Woolie’s with our recent petition. But the real thing here is that there’s people power, and we listen and work actively with people, and what the people have done is told Woolie’s, “Stick your cash ban.”

And so while it is an interesting argument you make about preserving jobs, people will go to whoever gives them the best service, you know, and so it’s important to let people have the freedom to decide whether they will use cash or not. It’s not up to some government implementing an IMF policy from overseas globalists to tell us we can’t use our cash because they want to control us. That’s where it’s headed.

[Marcus] Well, it’s current tender, and to be perfectly honest, if you turn up somewhere and you’ve only got cash, you know, you should be able to use it regardless.

[Malcolm] Exactly.

[Marcus] All right, finally, e-cigs and vaping, we spoke to– who did we speak to on this last week, Scruff? There’s so much going on at the moment. Oh, Matt Canavan, we spoke to Matt about it. He’s been doing a little bit of work on this issue. Senator Stirling Griff’s motion in the Senate against vapes and e-cigs has been defeated.

Your position is that vaping and e-cigarettes are as safe as the solution that they’re in. They should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for Schedule 3 pharmacy-only medication.

[Malcolm] Yes, we’ve been pushing this issue for a number of years now, and it’s very good to see Senator Matt Canavan at last join us. I pushed a bill with David Leyonhjelm when he was in the Senate back in 2016-17, but, you know, e-cigs have been shown to be a way of getting people to cut smoking altogether.

They have reduced smoking rates. They do not introduce people to smoking. That is nonsense. They have been very effective in cutting down the use of cigarettes, which are harmful. E-cigs look as though they’re not at all harmful, at all, and a good way of getting people away from harmful activities like smoking.

So that’s why we’ve been in favour of it, and it’s pleasing to see that Matt’s joining us on this as well as some other policies that they have long opposed, they’re changing as a result of the pressure we’re putting on them.

[Marcus] All right. Thank you, mate, great to have you on the programme as always. We’ll talk again next week.

[Malcolm] Look forward to it, Thanks, Marcus.

/by

Woolworths backtracks on cash ban

Supermarket giant Woolworths has abandoned a controversial trial of cashless stores following complaints from shoppers who still want to use notes and coins to buy their groceries.

6,000 people signed a One Nation petition calling on Woolworths to ditch their cash ban. It followed on from One Nation successfully defeating a proposal in parliament late last year to completely ban cash transactions over $10,000.

International banks might try to push everyone further to a cashless society, but Australians know better.

Cash is legal tender and I will continue to fight against any attempt to make it illegal.

/by

One Nation doing more for workers than Labor

,

Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that Labor is fixated on the problems not the solution. The facts are that the government listened to One Nation’s legitimate concerns for employers and employees and it booted out the BOOT. One Nation achieved that. One Nation is doing more for Western Australian workers and employers than Labor. That is, in part, thanks to our Western Australian team, Robin Scott, an ex-Freo sparky who works hard for the people of the mining and pastoral region in WA, and Colin Tincknell, the One Nation WA state leader who proudly represents the South West region. Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.

I have stood up to put a stop to these abuses for casual workers that the unions, the Labor Party and politicians like Joel Fitzgibbon knowingly ignored for years. Recently, the CFMEU mining division agreed with me that their union has ignored casuals for many years. I applaud that person in the CFMEU for having the courage to do that, and lawyers for the ETU and CFMEU confirmed that, in their opinion—and I agree with them—the IR system needs to be free from lawyers. For Labor to say that it’s going to be easier for employers to cut wages and conditions is not enough. Labor need to step up and show everyday Australians what Australia’s IR problems are and what they would do better. Labor, like Joel Fitzgibbon, are all talk and no action.

One Nation wants genuine industrial relations reform for the benefit of employees and employers, especially for small business and their employees, and the best way to do that is to listen and contribute to a better system. We have been listening widely and hearing the concerns from industry, union bosses, employer and employee groups, welfare groups, casual and injured workers, and small business. I care and I will fight to protect workers’ legal and moral entitlements, just as I am doing in Queensland and I am doing in the Hunter Valley, even though it is not in my state. One Nation stands for the workers that Labor and Joel Fitzgibbon continue to ignore.

/by