Casual Wage Theft Under Fair Work Commission’s Watch

,

Thousands of “casual” miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are each owed an average of $33,000 per year in back pay for every year of service for wage theft.

When inquiring with the Fair Work Commission about applying the Better Off Overall Test (BOOT), I asked if they would expect the pay under an Enterprise Agreement (EA) to at least match that under the relevant Award. Mr. Furlong confirmed that the EA would indeed be compared with the Award. I highlighted that there are workers under EAs who are earning significantly less than the Award, with these EAs being sanctioned by the Fair Work Commission and devised in collaboration between employers and the CFMEU.

I reiterated to Senator Watt that I could not support legislation that goes against the interests of workers and conceals the wrongdoing of unscrupulous unions. Minister Burke is shirking his responsibilities by refusing to deliver justice for thousands of workers ensnared in the casual rort stemming from enterprise agreements crafted in collusion with the CFMEU and labor hire firms, resulting in the largest wage theft in Australian history.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here. Good to see you again, Mr Furlong. When the Fair Work Commission assesses the application of the better off overall test, the BOOT, to a proposed enterprise agreement, would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above that of the relevant award? 

Mr Furlong: As you are aware, and as we have discussed in previous estimates, the agreement making process involves a statutory decision-holder, a member of the commission, looking at the facts of the matter and then applying a legal test, the better off overall test. There are some other elements that they are required to satisfy. On the basis of that, they make a determination about whether or not the agreement is to be approved or not. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be a normal expectation that the pay rate under the enterprise agreement should be clearly equal to or above? That is a normal expectation? 

Mr Furlong: Yes. The better off overall test— 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are there circumstances in which, when considering the better off overall test, the BOOT, for an enterprise agreement, the Fair Work Commission would not do a comparison against the relevant award? 

Mr Furlong: The answer to that question is that there would be an award that they will refer to in terms of the application of the better off overall test. Through that process, they will determine whether or not that agreement as made is better off overall than the underpinning agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: So they would do a comparison against the award? 

Mr Furlong: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the enterprise agreement pay rate were not equal to or above the relevant award, and instead paid substantially less than the award, what would be the criteria used to justify that the enterprise agreement still passed the better off overall test, the BOOT? 

Mr Furlong: It’s not a line-by-line comparison. 

Senator ROBERTS: No. What would be the criteria? Broad criteria? Line by line? Whatever you want? 

Mr Furlong: It is the better off overall test. The Fair Work Act prescribes what the member must take into consideration in determining whether or not that agreement meets the requirements that have been approved. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are pay rates prescribed in there? 

Mr Furlong: They will be. The decisions of the members—the independent tribunal members—will outline the reasons for the approval of those agreements, including whether or not they satisfy the better off overall test. 

Senator ROBERTS: That is a wonderful point. Thank you so much. Even if the award excluded certain classes of employees from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were not award excluded? Just to be clear, I’m not posing a theoretical question here. I refer to the black coal mining industry award exclusion of casuals as an example. Casuals are not specifically referred to in the black coal mining industry award. 

Mr Furlong: I understand that. As we have discussed in previous estimates, the fact that there are no casual coalminers under the black coal mining award doesn’t preclude an enterprise agreement being made. 

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. I am talking about the pay. If an award excluded certain classes of employees in the coal industry—casuals—from its provisions, would that exclusion create the legal circumstances to pay such excluded classes of employee less under an enterprise agreement than what they would or could earn under the award if the class of employees were included in the award? 

Mr Furlong: Senator, I have tried as hard as I can to be helpful in terms of the second part— 

Senator ROBERTS: You are being helpful. 

Mr Furlong: that we have provided. My role as the general manager is to provide administrative support to the president on the efficient running of the tribunal, in essence. The matters that you are going to now traverse instances or occurrences that may end up before tribunal members for their determination. I can’t answer that question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. Minister, what would be the attitude of the government where workers working under enterprise agreements were paid less than the award even though the workers were doing exactly the same job they would under the award? 

Senator Watt: Well, I would want to know more about the circumstances there. In general, the idea behind enterprise bargaining is for people to obtain pay and conditions above the award level. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why is Minister Burke shirking his responsibilities and refusing to provide justice for thousands of workers caught in the permanent casual rort that is the result of enterprise agreements agreed between the CFMEU, now known as the Mining and Energy Union, with some labour hire firms, all with the Fair Work Commission’s approval? When will Minister Burke address this, the largest wage theft in Australian history? 

Senator Watt: Well, as we’ve discussed many times, Senator Roberts, Minister Burke is not avoiding that. In fact, Minister Burke has led the government’s efforts to address and fix the permanent casual rort, including through the legislation that we passed only last week. I actually don’t remember how you voted in that legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS: I voted against it because it would not address the issue that I am talking about right here. It buries the issue and buries the culpability of the unions. 

Senator Watt: I thought you probably voted against that legislation last week, because One Nation has pretty consistently voted against the legislation that has been designed for workers. 

Senator ROBERTS: We vote against it, as I explained, because it doesn’t address the issue. It buries the issue. 

Senator Watt: Just as you voted against the closing loopholes bill last year, which is all about trying to put labour hire workers on an even footing with other workers. 

Senator ROBERTS: Not true, Minister. 

Senator Watt: Well, One Nation has consistently voted against these things. 

Senator ROBERTS: You are consistently avoiding the issue of thousands of casual coalminers in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, our own state. I want that addressed. 

Senator Watt: I’m not. We’re not. We’ve gone over this ad nauseam. 

Senator ROBERTS: To make a point here concerning the validity of an enterprise agreement that removes the minimum statutory protections of any award, I quote the following paragraph from the full bench Federal Court decision in One Key Workforce Pty Limited v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union, decided in 2018. I go to paragraph 227. This is from the court decision: 

It is uncontentious that, where a statute requires an administrative decision-maker to reach a state of satisfaction about a matter, the opinion as to the state of satisfaction must be reached by a rational, reasonable and logical process. 

I will go to paragraph 204. I quote: 

It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. 

I’m going to read— 

CHAIR: If we keep to the time line, I am giving you a heads-up. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly done. I have two questions and I will read some material. We had a team of workplace lawyers—I emphasise the plural—consultants and coalminers review and analyse five significant labour hire coal mining enterprise agreements and their work roster, which is complicated. The CFMEU, now the Mining and Energy Union, was involved in, was a party to or signed off on all five agreements. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award dramatically. Specifically, in the core staff enterprise agreement 2018, the yearly underpayment for casuals working under that award is estimated at $22,623. It is wage theft. The FES agreement in 2018 has yearly underpayment estimated at $27,563 of wage theft for casual workers. The WorkPac agreement in 2019 showed yearly underpayment for casuals estimated at $33,555. Wage theft. The Chandler Macleod agreement 2020 has yearly underpayment estimated at $39,341. Wage theft. The Tesla group agreement 2022 yearly underpayment is estimated at $40,645. Wage theft. The Fair Work Commission has ruled that at least five black coal mining industry enterprise agreements exceeded their authority. Minister, what avenues will Minister Burke and your government take to restore basic entitlements lost under agreements that the CFMEU, the Mining and Energy Union, signed with various employers and that the Fair Work Commission approved? 

Senator Watt: Well, Senator Roberts, I have personally sat through probably at least half a dozen estimates committee hearings where you have raised these issues repeatedly. Various officials have answered these questions repeatedly. The matters have been investigated, as I understand it, and dealt with. I understand that you are not satisfied with those answers, but I can’t add to what we’ve said about these things before. 

Senator ROBERTS: Does it bother you that I have explained that the Fair Work Ombudsman has used a fraudulent document that has been deemed fraudulent by the Australian Taxation Office as evidenced against five others? It is solid evidence, including a court hearing. 

Senator Watt: If that were true, of course I would be bothered by it. 

Senator ROBERTS: You would be. Okay. 

Senator Watt: But I’m not sure that is true. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is my last question. Why has the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic? 

Senator Watt: What was the beginning of that question? 

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the process that the Fair Work Commission has adopted since 2010 in approving coal industry enterprise agreements that remove the minimum statutory protections of the black coal mining industry award—its entitlements, pay rates, the wage theft that I’ve just illustrated—clearly devoid of any form of rationality, reasonableness or logic, as the Federal Court requires? 

Senator Watt: That is obviously your opinion, Senator Roberts. I know that it is a strongly held opinion. I don’t think that opinion is shared more broadly. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. 

/by

Professional Services Review Scheme Under Question

,

The Professional Services Review was created to review misconduct of health professionals in a Medicare context, commonly invoked where there are allegations of over-servicing or Medicare fraud.

This Committee seems to be a law unto itself.

Dr Di Dio confirmed that there is no appeal process from conclusions of the Committee based on Merit. The only appeals available are based on errors of law that would include taking into account evidence that was not relevant or excluding evidence that was relevant. Lawyer Mr Topperwein confirmed that the weight to be placed on evidence was that which the Committee chose to give. He said that the Committee was both the investigator and the judge of the facts with no appeal on merit.

Mr Topperwein could provide no explanation as to why there were no lawyers on the Committee, to ensure the processes were fair and just, stating that the committee comprises practitioner peers.

The concerns about the Review Scheme being a law unto itself seem to be valid, it looks like we need some serious reform in this area.

Transcript

Chair: I welcome the acting director of the Professional Services Review, Dr Antonio Di Dio. Senator Roberts, is it one block of questions here?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, hopefully we should get through it in one block.

Chair: Dr Di Dio, do you have an opening statement?

Dr Di Dio: No, thank you.

Chair: Alright. Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Dr Di Dio, for being here again. During the last estimates hearings I asked some questions, and your answers left me confused. Regarding what you gave me, I was feeling somewhat
misled, potentially, because I reviewed it afterwards. I was concerned by a number of submissions made to me about the lack of fairness of the structure by which this review scheme investigates allegations of misconduct by health professionals in a Medicare context. I’ve since done further research into this area and looked over the transcript closely. Just to start with the transcript, the Professional Services Review scheme was set up to review misconduct of health professionals in a Medicare context, commonly invoked where there are allegations of overservicing or Medicare fraud. Isn’t it true that the committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit as to the accuracy or completeness of the basis for the evidence?

Dr Di Dio: The committee’s conclusions are made after an exhaustive and highly respectful process in which the practitioner under review gives evidence and responses in relation to potential concerns about potential
inappropriate practice, whether it is in the billing of Medicare item numbers or whether it is in conduct in association with the billing. The committee process occurs after an earlier process in which the director, firstly,
decides whether a matter will be reviewed; secondly, undertakes a non-compulsory interview with the practitioner involved; and thirdly, decides whether to take no further action under section 91, or a negotiated agreement or a referral to a committee. At each of those steps the practitioner under review is invited to make their submissions, give their evidence and respond to any preliminary concerns, to potentially make those concerns go away with the additional information that comes from the practitioner’s individual responses to each of those preliminary concerns.

So, even before the committee occurs, the practitioner has ample opportunity to respond. But at the committee stage itself, when the practitioner is reviewed by their peers, the practitioner has a great deal of opportunity to respond in as much detail as they wish about those particular concerns.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that long answer. There were a lot of words there—exhaustive evidence and so on. But the fact is that you did not answer my question. My question said: isn’t it true that the committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit—meaning as to the accuracy or completeness of the basis of the conclusions.

Dr Di Dio: Well, the committee is bound by its own obligations to the act—

Senator ROBERTS: Can the doctor challenge the accuracy or completeness of the evidence presented?

Dr Di Dio: Well, the evidence is presented by the doctor in response to those questions. I think perhaps your question is, can the practitioner challenge the evidence that the committee has before it? Is that what you mean?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Dr Di Dio: The committee issues what’s called a notice to produce to the practitioner to ask the practitioner to produce documents, most typically the medical records of the patients who are being reviewed, for whom the particular services may be of concern. So, that evidence comes from the practitioner.

Senator ROBERTS: And I’ll say it again. The committee’s conclusions cannot be challenged on merit.

Dr Di Dio: I’ll refer you to my legal counsel, Mr Topperwien.

Mr Topperwien: It’s quite right that once a committee has gone through the whole process of providing a draft report and then a final report then any challenge to the findings in that final report must be limited to a
question of law, which includes whether they have taken into account irrelevant considerations or have not taken into account relevant considerations and have held a fair hearing. Those are all questions of law. And a challenge can be made to a committee’s findings on the question of law only. There isn’t an appeal to a merits review body.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. So, they cannot be challenged on merit, just on the points of law. What weight is placed on the evidence of witnesses called by the doctor under investigation to challenge the case being
made by the committee?

Mr Topperwien: The weight that a committee will give to any evidence depends on the nature of that evidence and how credible it is, and they are matters for the committee to determine.

Dr Di Dio: I would add to that that the practitioner under review is encouraged very much to bring legal representation, and support persons and witnesses are welcome.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that the committee takes the role of both prosecutor and decider of facts that make the conclusions and recommendations of the committee?

Mr Topperwien: That is not true. The committee is not a prosecutor. It is an investigatory body. It investigates.

Senator ROBERTS: And once it’s finished its investigation, who does the prosecution of the case?

Mr Topperwien: There is no prosecution of the case.

Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the decision?

Mr Topperwien: There are findings of fact made—whether or not a practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. And that is the sole duty of the PSR committee—to make a finding as to whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. The consequence of that finding is not a matter for the committee. It is a matter for a separate body called the determining authority.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m of the understanding that the investigation is done by the committee—

Mr Topperwien: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: and then it decides.

Mr Topperwien: Yes. It decides whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice.

Senator ROBERTS: Right. So, it decides. It does the investigation, and then it makes the verdict on its investigation.

Mr Topperwien: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, it’s investigator, policeman—

Mr Topperwien: No—

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also judge.

Mr Topperwien: No. It’s an investigator in that it is charged with looking at whether or not the practitioner engaged in inappropriate practice. Clearly, if that’s its task then it has to investigate and obtain all the evidence
necessary to determine that question which it’s charged with answering.

Senator ROBERTS: So it does an investigation, then it makes the judgement and there can be no appeal or challenge on the merits of the case.

Mr Topperwien: That’s right, because it is an expert body that parliament has given the role of making those sorts of findings.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that matter of whether it’s expert or not. Isn’t it true that committee members undergo a training course in prosecution and investigation?

Mr Topperwien: They are not given any training in prosecution. They are given some training in relation to how to fulfil their task of investigating in the context of holding hearings when they question the person under review and take evidence.

Dr Di Dio: They are given further training in asking questions respectfully and appropriately.

Senator ROBERTS: Sounds good. Are they provided training in decision-making and natural justice principles.

Mr Topperwien: Yes, they are.

Senator ROBERTS: They are?

Mr Topperwien: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any section of the Health Insurance Act 1973 where cross-examination of the committee’s case is prescribed?

Mr Topperwien: The Health Insurance Act does not mention at any point cross-examination.

Senator ROBERTS: How can the strength of the committee’s case be tested without substantial questioning given that the committee determines its own outcomes based on its own prepared case?

Mr Topperwien: At the hearings that the committees hold, the person under review is entitled to question any witnesses. They are able to present whatever evidence they wish to present to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that any appeals from the committee’s decision are limited to procedural issues and merit review is not allowed? I think you’ve already answered that question.

Mr Topperwien: I’ve answered that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no senior lawyer or judge as part of the committee to ensure fairness of process?

Mr Topperwien: The reality is the committee is made up of the practitioner’s peers. They are all practitioners but at the committee hearing there are always two lawyers from PSR who are very experienced in administrative law, the rules of natural justice, to ensure that the committee hearing is conducted fairly, and the PUR—the person under review—is encouraged to engaged their own lawyer to be with them throughout the whole process.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just come to GPs, for example. There is such a wide range of GP services and, if you like, specialties. They’re not specialists—

Mr Topperwien: They are specialists in being general practitioners, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, but they focus on a particular area, niche, within—

Mr Topperwien: Some do; that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: And some GPs cannot understand another GP’s work because they haven’t had the experience or the qualifications, particularly the experience.

Mr Topperwien: We try very hard to ensure that the members who are put onto committees have the relevant experience. As closely as we are able to do from the general practitioners who we have on the PSR panel from whom we can choose members to put on committees, we try very hard to ensure that their experience is such that they can well understand the circumstances and context and the type of services that the person under review provides.

Dr Di Dio: To clarify, you’re quite correct: there are general practitioners who have subspecialties, but we try very clearly to match the subspecialties as much as within reason, through the membership of our panel, to those particular practitioners. Most notably a lot of general practitioners do skin work, and we try to match our panel

Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no independent review process, apart from a limited formal appeal process?

Mr Topperwien: The make-up of the PSR COO committees is such that we have the best practitioners in their specialty appointed to the committees and to the PSR panel in order that we have the practitioners most
appropriate and who we have consulted with the relative colleges in their appointment to ensure that the colleges are confident that these practitioners are ones appropriate to assess the conduct of other practitioners.

Senator ROBERTS: So a GP who could be one of the leaders in the country in his or her field could be swamped with work because hardly anyone else is doing it. There wouldn’t be someone who was capable of
understanding that complete picture?

Dr Di Dio: GPs are generally not stupid. GPs are capable of understanding the work of other GPs. Should a GP be practising in a highly specialised area, we do the best that we can to match our panel of expertise with the relevant practitioner. Further, sometimes GPs may be involved in subspecialist activity where, at a stage even earlier than the committee stage, we might get a specialist in that field to review a case in addition to having a GP review the case. We try as hard as we can to match those skills.

Senator ROBERTS: If the committee refuses to give sufficient weight to exculpatory evidence clear on fault or guilt, where does that leave the doctor if they cannot appeal on merit?

Mr Topperwien: The committee hearings are intended to give the practitioner every opportunity to put whatever evidence they want to give to the committee and the COO. The committee then looks at that in detail
and asks probing questions in relation to that evidence. One can’t satisfy everybody that everybody will agree on an outcome. There will always be people who are not happy with whatever outcome there is. But the process is a very fair process. It gets scrutinised by the courts regularly. The courts time and again have upheld how fair the process has been for the person under review.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to learn more about that.

Dr Di Dio: Could I add a supplementary answer to that?

CHAIR: You can in a moment. I remind you that there are a lot of senators waiting to move to the next outcome, so if you could be courteous in the promptness of your questions.

Dr Di Dio: I will be brief. After a committee, the practitioner under review has the right to tender further information and evidence should they wish.

Senator ROBERTS: But not appeal the decision.

Dr Di Dio: No, but tender as much further evidence as they wish. Furthermore, there is a draft report issued, to which the practitioner, with their legal representative, of course, can make any response they wish. After that, a final report is issued, to which the practitioner can again make as many submissions as they wish. Over and over the practitioner can provide further evidence and submissions to further parts of the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Wouldn’t it be a better process for a judge to be advised by doctors, as is the case before QCAT, VCAT and a similar structure used in the Medicare Participation Review Committee? Contrary to
previous suggestions, I’d submit that having a judge to chair review proceedings would enhance rather than detract from the fairness of the process.

Mr Topperwien: All I can say is that’s not what the law currently provides. But, from my experience, both as a legal adviser who has assisted with committees and having observed many committee hearings, the process is remarkably fair. The usually three lawyers in the hearing room ensure that it is a fair process.

Senator ROBERTS: My last question. In 2011 there was an inquiry held by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee into the Professional Services Review scheme. Supplementary comments by
senators Eric Abetz and Bridget McKenzie included that the processes of the Professional Services Review scheme were deficient and led to unjust outcomes. Senator Abetz’s view was that merit review would be a
mandatory requirement for the system to be considered fair and just. This flies in the face of your own view, that merit review is unnecessary. Minister, when will the structure of the Professional Services Review scheme be reconsidered?

Senator McCarthy: I will take that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/by

Immigration Levels Still Too High

,

Cheaper rents, cheaper houses and a lower cost of living are all possible, but not with the current immigration levels.

There were 518,000 net overseas immigrants last financial year. 2.76 million visa holders are in the country and more are coming with immigration rates accelerating in the second half of last year.

Our country simply cannot handle this amount of immigration in the middle of a housing crisis.

Transcript

The Albanese government is consciously making houses and rents more expensive. An immigration flood is worsening the housing crisis. New figures show that, instead of slowing down immigration as promised, the government has stepped on the accelerator. In the 2022-23 financial year, 737,000 people arrived in Australia, leading to a record net overseas immigration of 518,000. That’s a shocking 64 per cent higher than Australia’s previous record and more than double the average of the years immediately before COVID. The government promised we had hit peak immigration and announced a crackdown on criminal migration abusers. Despite the promises, AMP economist Shane Oliver has shown that net arrivals into Australia through to December 2023 remained very high. This suggests population growth may have accelerated even further in the six months after the record-breaking year of 518,000 net overseas arrivals. 

If this immigration acceleration is true, it’s an unbelievable attack on every Australian who’s struggling to buy a house or find an affordable rental. The housing and rental crisis in Australia is a dumpster fire. The Albanese government is pouring petrol on that fire and making it far worse while deceitfully claiming to help. There are 2.8 million temporary visa holders putting huge demand pressure on houses, rentals and holiday accommodation. Very simply, Australia does not have the resources to support this many arrivals. We do not have enough rental properties. We do not have enough roads and public transport. We do not have enough hospitals and doctors to take care of the people already here. In these circumstances, letting in record levels of arrivals is an act of harm against the people of Australia, including against immigrants already here. 

Only One Nation will cut immigration to zero net. Zero net means that each year the number of people allowed in matches the number of people who leave so that we can fix the housing crisis and let our essential services catch up. Only One Nation applies common sense to work in the interests of the people. 

/8 Comments/by

One Nation Opposes Labor’s New Car Tax

,

This Labor Government is promising cost of living relief and tax cuts while it’s actually increasing taxes. Already, this government wants to tax farmers off the land to make way for “FrankenFoods” — fake lab meat and bug protein. Recently Labor announced plans to tax clothing in the name of saving the environment. Labor now wants to tax cars based on weight and engine efficiency. Cars needed by tradies will go up by $4000, family people movers by $6000 and 4WD cruisers that are owned by every second farmer, will go up $13,000.

Taxing tradies will further force up the costs of building and maintaining the family home. Meanwhile, plans are underway to build and populate dystopian Smart Cities — Sydney’s first has been announced already. These make no provision for cars, so you can expect the Labor car tax to increase until car ownership is only afforded by the very rich.

I’ve been warning about the predatory billionaires and the World Economic Forum agenda, summed up by their slogan “you’ll own nothing and be happy”. It’s started and it’s being implemented by the Albanese Labor Government.

One Nation opposes all those promoting the Orwellian future that this government is fast tracking with its ‘taxing and spending’ and the legislation Labor is ramming through parliament.

The choice for voters is clear. One Nation or tyranny.

Transcript

This Labor government is maintaining the tradition of Labor governments: taxing and spending, taxing and spending. In the last few weeks, the government has revealed plans to tax clothing in the name of saving the environment and to tax food in the name of funding Australia’s world-leading biosecurity. I would have thought protecting Australia’s biosecurity, which underpins $100 billion in export earnings, was the responsibility of the whole country, considering the wealth it bestows on all Australians. I would consider funding biosecurity to be important to protecting the supply of food we all eat, but, no, this government wants to tax farmers off the land to make way for its billionaire mates’ Frankenstein foods. It doesn’t matter that Australians don’t want to eat bugs or fake meat cultured and then grown in bioreactors. This attack on Australia’s health and nutrition is happening because this government’s owners demand for themselves the wealth currently in the hands of our farming communities. They want to transfer the land and the wealth from our farmers to their billionaire parasitic friends. 

When the billionaires that try to run the world say, ‘You’ll own nothing and be happy,’ amongst the things the public will no longer own is a car. Chris Bowen MP and his ministry of misery have announced fuel emission standards are being applied to new cars from 2030. ‘Increased fuel emission standards’, ‘tougher fuel emission standards’—it sounds innocuous until you read the fine print, and I thank the opposition for crunching the numbers. Utes will go up between $2,000 and $6,000 each. At a time when the government need as many tradies as they can find to build as many homes as they can, the government think it’s a smart move to add a new tax on tradies, raising the cost of houses and decreasing the supply of houses. What a bloody stupid idea! 

More troubling is the increasing cost of passenger cars to Australian families. The Outlander from Mitsubishi—that’s a family SUV—will go up $4,000. LandCruisers, owned by every second family in the bush, will go up $13,000 each. That’s yet another attack on the bush from a government happy to harm the bush in order to win votes back from the teals in the city. This will not be the only price increase in cars. The materials needed for our suicidal net zero measures have much in common with materials used in making cars. The increase in demand from net zero means that these materials are getting scarcer and scarcer and much more expensive. A family car is likely to rise in price by $10,000 within five years in today’s dollars because of this materials inflation. Then add Minister Bowen’s car tax, and you can see where this is all going. 

For those who still haven’t worked it out, the New South Wales government has just announced Australia’s first 30-minute city, surrounding the new Badgerys Creek airport. It’s called Bradfield City. It will be ‘cybersmart and digitally led’. That means digital surveillance on everyone. It’s happening in London already, and in other countries, with commercial and community facilities including retail, cultural facilities and work all in the one suburb. So, you don’t have choice of where you work; you work nearby. Plans for Bradfield City include car-free streets. No matter the weather, you will walk everywhere. 

On the way to net zero the cost of driving will be artificially increased to raise costs, thanks to this government. That would dramatically increase the cost of living for everyone in this country, increase food prices for everyone in this country and ultimately lead to, in 2030, the very act of driving being an act of civil disobedience. It’s all about wealth transfer to their parasitic billionaire friends and about control. 

/7 Comments/by

ACCC Needs More Power Against Foreign Predatory Billionaires

,

I’m concerned about the increasing influence of large, predatory merchant banks on the Australian economy. You’ve heard the names mentioned — Blackrock, First State, State Street, Vanguard and Norges. While their shareholdings may be small, typically 5 – 8% each, when they act together these shareholdings amount to a controlling interest over targeted industries.

These include our retailing duopoly, Coles and Woolworths and our Big-4 banks: Commonwealth, ANZ, NAB and Westpac/St George.

I asked the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) about the way that our banking sector behave like a monopoly — one set of owners with multiple logos. The answers were encouraging but the ACCC needs more power to control these predatory merchant banks.

I also asked about de-banking, which is the process that the Big-4 use their market power to harm or close businesses that compete with them, including cryto exchanges and bullion dealers. The biggest competitor of all though, is actually cash. Physical money competes with more traceable and profitable electronic banking. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and generally trying to engineer a cash-free society for their profit and control.

These questions were my first to ACCC in quite some time. The answers were sharp and well informed and I look forward to developing these lines of inquiry next estimates.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: We don’t call the ACCC very often because it seems you do a very good job. To improve banking competition—and that’s needed—do we need more regulation or more independent banks providing competition? Which is it? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We want both. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay! The ACCC refused permission for ANZ to acquire Suncorp bank on competition grounds? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We did. 

Senator ROBERTS: That was a very good decision. Would it improve competition in Australian banking if Suncorp was now purchased by a third party not currently involved in banking? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Firstly, I should note that ANZ and Suncorp have taken an action for review in the tribunal and that decision will come down next week, and so we await that decision. It may or may not be the same decision as the ACCC’s. However, our decision reflected that we were not satisfied that there would not be a substantial lessening of competition and either Suncorp continuing independent, as it is now, or being acquired by another party—one of the possible alternative transactions that was identified was, for instance, merger with an alternative regional bank or smaller bank—or by a party that is not currently a participant in the banking sector, would each retain the independent, competitive constraint. 

Senator ROBERTS: In your progress report on the digital platform services inquiry, you made the point that the ACCC continues to recommend the introduction of new and expanded industry-wide consumer measures, including prohibition on unfair trading practices. What industries or perhaps what context informed that request for more power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC is looking for that reform across the economy. We do see that, in terms of digital platforms—for instance, in online trading, subscription traps are a good example—there is a significant capacity to have unfair practices and processes that deprive consumers of the ability to make informed choices. But we do see these problems across the economy. The government is proceeding through a consultation process, which will conclude in November of this year, and we hope this will result in the introduction of an unfair trading practices prohibition across the economy. 

Senator ROBERTS: As to PEXA—I think they’re the conveyancing people? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would PEXA’s near-monopoly in electronic conveyancing be an area where you would like more power to keep an eye on their use of market power? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are hopeful that ARNECC, which is the current regulator, will be in a position to require compliance with the steps towards interoperability, which had been hoped for and planned, so that there will be a capacity to result in meaningful competition. 

Senator ROBERTS: You approved the merger of the Armaguard and Prosegur cash handling businesses—against opposition from the free market, which fears losing the ability to negotiate on price—with the justification of keeping these businesses going. Are you confident the merged entity is viable and capable of holding 90 per cent of the Australian market long-term—let’s say, up to 2030? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct that we did approve that merger on condition of an undertaking. We were particularly conscious of the matters that were put before us relating to the loss of viability for two competing providers of cash-in-transit services, as there was such a significant decrease in the use of cash, particularly brought on during the period of COVID. Under that undertaking, which is effective for three years, the merged entity is required to continue to offer the services to all locations that are currently serviced. It also limits the ability to reduce service levels and raise prices. We do monitor compliance with all undertakings we accept. We do know that the merged entity states that there have been further changes that call into question its continued viability. We have granted an interim authorisation that was sought by 20 members of the Australian Banking Association, the Reserve Bank of Australia, Treasury, Australia Post and suppliers of cash-in-transit services—a whole set—that were seeking to be able to negotiate to try to reach a resolution for continued cash-in-transit services on acceptable terms. As a condition of that interim authorisation, we required that there be public reports monthly in relation to the discussions, because it was quite a significant authorisation that we enabled for those negotiations. We have just this week received the first report, and it’s available on our register. 

Senator ROBERTS: Banks are refusing to accept or issue cash to profitable small players like Commander Security. This company has been de-banked by the big four and now even a customer owned bank. Banks are closing branches, pulling out ATMs and refusing to give cash to their own customers in a situation where identity and use of cash has been established. Cash is, in effect, a competitor to the bank’s dream and the customer’s nightmare of making a fee on every transaction and service every person makes. Are banks misusing their market power to eliminate cash as a competitor to their own electronic payment systems and drive customers to fee-paying services? That’s what it appears to be. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We do currently have a misuse of market power action relating to financial services in the court against MasterCard. We certainly look closely at misuse of market power questions in relation to financial services. There are a series of complex questions in there, including on the closure of branches, which APRA does monitor and report on. We have also reported on our concerns in relation to the manner in which there is muted competition between the banks—for instance, in relation to retail deposit products—and sought recommended regulation that will better inform customers so they can better exercise choice in the products that they acquire. It is difficult to separate what changes are occurring commercially because of the changes in the economy— 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is difficult to know who’s the horse and who’s the cart. 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Exactly—what the boundaries are. But we do look at all these questions very carefully, both in terms of enforcement and in terms of monitoring, and we are hoping to continue financial services monitoring because we think they are essential services for Australian families. 

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the Senate inquiry into the closure of rural bank branches? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes, we are. 

Senator ROBERTS: It seems quite clear from the one that I’ve taken part in that it’s the banks driving the reduction in cash. It seems very clear to us, but, anyway, that’s a matter for you. Banks are refusing to provide banking services to their customers. It’s not just private cash handling companies; it’s bullion dealers and legitimate cryptocurrencies being de-banked. Last week, Bankwest limited how much their customers could spend on buying crypto. Is this another case of the banks misusing their market power to harm the operation of a competitor, and is it worthy of your scrutiny? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: The ACCC participated in a working group and taskforce, together with APRA, the Reserve Bank, AUSTRAC and Treasury, with a concern about de-banking. One of the recommendations from that was that there needs to be better data collection, to be able to better measure and monitor the pattern of and conduct in de-banking, and also that there needs to be more clarity in terms of the anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism financing requirements, which are bases upon which banks say that they need to make risk assessments and, at times, de-bank. So there was a desire to try to reduce that conduct. 

CHAIR: This is your last question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Something that few people seem to be aware of—I’m guessing you are aware of that—is that the major banks, the big four banks, would seem to be one bank with four logos. I say that because their services are similar, their strategies are similar and their modes of operating are similar. They’re largely owned, as I said, by super funds who don’t take an active interest and by mums and dads who don’t take an active interest. That leaves a controlling interest in the hands of four or five major, predatory global companies: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State and one other. They control, it seems, the big four banks. The banks have enormous power here. They have enormous legal power. They’ve got deep pockets to hire the best lawyers. They’ve got complex regulations that they can hide behind and with which they can really beat up on an individual. They’ve got enormous market power. I think they have 90 per cent of the cash deposits. They have enormous financial power, and, as I said, they hide behind regulations. 

CHAIR: This is a very long last question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any thought of giving scrutiny or understanding to the companies that I mentioned—BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State—and their influence over each of the big four banks that they control? 

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We’ve certainly been contemplating the benefits of continued monitoring, particularly in relation to key services that the banks provide. Also, a part of the Suncorp-ANZ decision looked at concerns in terms of the capacity of the major banks with very similar business models to engage in a problem of what is called ‘concerted effects’. In effect, their responses to competitive signals are similar because of their similar structures. So we are conscious of those risks, and we do seek, both through monitoring and through powers that we have in relation to concerted practices, to watch carefully for these sorts of concerns. 

Senator ROBERTS: We do know that BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street control a lot of major companies around the world and control a lot of companies and a lot of industries. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Encouraging Competition Among Unions Will Protect Workers

,

I spoke in support of Senator Lambie’s Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024. For context, I provided the senate chamber with the facts on Australia’s largest wage theft. This casual labour rort stole on average around $33,000 per casual coal miner per year in central Queensland and the Hunter Valley through Chandler Macleod Group, a subsidiary of a foreign multinational, Recruit Holdings — one of the world’s largest labour hire companies.

How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU bosses have betrayed the coal miners they are supposed to protect. The Fair Work Commission has unfairly betrayed workers by approving dodgy Enterprise Agreements. Meanwhile, the Fair Work Ombudsman, the last line of defence for the workers, has sat on its hands and refused to act. Consultants and industry lawyers, some with over 40 years of experience in industrial relations prepared a report looking into this casual wage theft. They were stunned by what they’ve now confirmed is happening across our coal industry.

The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union that is now making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions like the QNU and QPU that have failed to adequately represent their members in disputes with employers. Membership has passed 18,000 and is rapidly growing. What’s at stake here is the issue of freedom of choice. There are thousands of women working within the Textile Clothing Footware sector which is currently part of the CFMEU. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to be represented by and they should be able to make those choices by secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation by certain union leader thugs is kept to a minimum.

I support this Bill as it is good legislation, supports vulnerable women and is a further step in recognising the rights to freedom of choice in determining an important issue of autonomy for women. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed.

Transcript

Thousands of casual miners working in central Queensland or the Hunter Valley are each owed, on average, for wage theft, backpay of around $33,000 per year for every year of service. That’s $33,000 per year. If you’re a casual, you’re likely to be owed an estimated $33,000 per year as a victim of Australia’s largest wage theft. How? It’s due to the CFMEU union bosses betraying and controlling workers, because the CFMEU was the sole union in coal mining production. When entities lack competition, they tend to behave with impunity due to a lack of accountability. They can do whatever they bloody well want. 

We support Senator Lambie’s Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Protecting Vulnerable Workers) Bill 2024 because it encourages competition for the unions and gives freedom of choice to workers, and it portrays fairness. I’ll move to Senator Lambie’s excellent bill after closing on the largest wage theft scam, because that illustrates, yet again, the importance of Senator Lambie’s bill to protect workers from unaccountable union bosses. 

A team of experienced workplace lawyers, consultants and coalminers reviewed and analysed five significant labour hire coalmining enterprise agreements. The CFMEU were involved in, were a party to, or signed all five agreements. This is the report of these experts. The Fair Work Commission approved all five agreements. The enterprise agreements all underpay the award. For example, for the CoreStaff 2018 enterprise agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $22,623. It gets worse. For the FES 2018 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $27,563. For the WorkPac 2019 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $33,555. For the Chandler MacLeod 2020 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated $39,341. For the Tesa Group 2022 agreement, the yearly underpayment was estimated at $40,645. 

It’s all due to collusion between the CFMEU, labour hire companies and the Fair Work Commission. The CFMEU signed and approved all. The CFMEU agreed in writing—we’ve seen the letter—to not pursue complaints that workers raised. The Chandler MacLeod group, one of the parties to the enterprise agreement, is a subsidiary of the world’s largest labour hire company, Recruit Holdings—a foreign, multinational. How did this happen? For a decade, CFMEU union bosses have betrayed coalminers. The Fair Work Commission has betrayed workers in approving enterprise agreements paying far less than the award, and the Fair Work Ombudsman turned a blind eye to it all and refused to get involved. The CFMEU’s mining division, the Fair Work Commission and some large labour hire companies have colluded to screw workers using enterprise agreements that are unlawful. 

As I said, we commissioned an experienced team to investigate Australia’s largest wage theft case involving thousands of miners across the industry for up to a decade. They were stunned at the brazen collusion between the CFMEU union bosses, employers, Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman. Some of these consultants and lawyers have over 40 years of experience in industrial relations and were stunned with what they confirmed was happening across our coal industry. The workers’ supposed protectors, the CFMEU union bosses and the government’s Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Ombudsman, have cruelly betrayed workers en masse. I’ve written to the current and former members for the Hunter in federal parliament, to CFMEU union bosses and to Minister Burke. All have done nothing. They buried the issue to protect union bosses. Let’s move to Senator Lambie’s bill. I support Senator Lambie’s bill. The issue she raises is symptomatic of many large unions and the decline of the union movement under unaccountable union bosses, who are tarnishing the movement. Labor’s recent legislation giving enormous power to union bosses will eventually hurt the union movement and unions overall because it entrenches the huge monopoly power of union bosses and removes accountability. The union movement will crumble because of that lack of accountability. Workers will abandon it, as they already are. 

An essential freedom of the Australian workplace scene should be the freedom for workers to choose who they want to represent their interests through a choice as to the union they want to join. There are thousands of women in the textile, clothing and footwear union, currently part of the CFMEU. Many of those women have expressed dissatisfaction with the representation the CFMEU provides them through their membership. Unfortunately, many of these members, who often have limited English language proficiency, are handicapped by having experienced exploitation, underpayment, intimidation and poor working conditions. The Labor government, with the Greens, have to date voted to prevent these women from exercising their right to choose to leave the CFMEU. These women are afraid of intimidation after losing their right to an anonymous vote—women afraid, in Australia, of union thugs. This is as a result of the passing of the draconian Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill 2023. 

As a coalminer working at coalfaces, mostly underground, around Australia, I was a proud union member—back when the coalminers union was the Miners Federation, a strong, honest union. As a mine manager and, later, as an executive general manager, I dealt with many honourable union delegates who strongly spoke for, and served, their members’ interests. The union movement has a proud history, and in Australia that includes a proud history of women playing a lead role in the movement. It’s a fact, though, that as a result of some powerful union bosses who could only be described as cowardly, dishonest thugs or possibly criminals there’s been a decline in union membership and subsequent loss of union power in the Australian industrial landscape. This means a loss of membership funds and other moneys that have historically flowed to the Labor Party. Labor hates to lose campaign money. 

The TCF women do not wish to be members of the CFMEU and to be associated with an organisation that has such a poor reputation and is not providing service in exchange for union fees. In recent years, the CFMEU have been caught selling out their members to benefit large, multinational labour hire firms and enrich the CFMEU, at the members’ expense, by unprecedented wage theft. 

The current Queensland government is trying to prevent the development of the new Red Union, which is making inroads into the previous membership of failed mainstream unions, like the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the Queensland Teachers Union, which have failed to adequately protect and represent their members in disputes with employers. Red Union membership is now almost 19,000 and has rapidly grown in the Nurses Professional Association of Queensland and the Teachers Professional Association, and now it’s growing in every state around our country. Teachers and nurses, not union bosses, lead the new and rapidly growing union. Fees are around half those of the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union, which provide inferior service and donate membership funds to the Queensland Labor machine. That’s why the Queensland Labor government has stepped in with an attempt to ban the Red Union—to protect the Queensland Teachers Union and the Queensland Nurses and Midwives Union and the millions of dollars flowing to the Labor machine’s election campaign. So we have the Queensland Labor government trying to ban the formation of a new union because it nobbles them. Queensland union bosses publicly and openly showed their power in appointing the new Premier of Queensland. We saw it in Queensland: union bosses saying who would be the next Premier. It’s Steven Miles. 

What’s at issue here is freedom of choice. These women need to be able to choose who they wish to represent them and should be able to make those choices in a secret ballot. This is necessary to ensure that intimidation from thugs is kept to a minimum. I support this bill and I commend Senator Lambie for it. It’s solid, effective legislation. It supports vulnerable women and is a further step both in recognising the right to freedom of choice and in determining an important issue of autonomy for women and for all workers. The ability of these women to choose to demerge from the CFMEU must be confirmed. Union membership must be voluntary and there must be freedom of choice as to who someone’s representative should be. That is for the benefit of the union movement because, with choice comes competition and then accountability. 

We support this bill that gives women and workers rights that union bosses have stolen. We call for a public and parliamentary discussion on restoring industrial justice and basic human rights and freedom of choice to workers. We applaud Senator Lambie for her bill as another step towards freeing workers from powerful union bosses. 

/3 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

In yet more wasteful virtue signalling, Labor is laying on an extra fleet of luxury EVs for the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit from 4th-6th March 2024 to shuttle the hundreds of delegates around Melbourne at the taxpayers expense.

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting, like Davos, will get through copious amounts of meat and dairy. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media.

The insanity of the Net Zero dog and pony show gets worse. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, high end luxury European EVs from COMCAR services are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. COMCAR staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne.

Why is the PM again wasting tax dollars on tokenism? One Nation is keen to uncover just how much this stunt is costing Australian taxpayers.

Transcript

Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers’ expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what’s necessary to achieve a good outcome.  

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today’s Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all?  

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They’re lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for ‘environmental vandalism’.  

One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. 

/3 Comments/by

Traitor Former Politician MAY Still Have Access to Parliament House

,

The Government has refused to confirm whether the former politician who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime still has access to Parliament House. Former parliamentarians are automatically entitled to passes which grant them access to the private areas of Parliament House in Canberra.

In the words of ASIO spy chief, Mike Burgess, the former politician that “sold out their country to advance the interests of a foreign regime” could be sitting in an office in Parliament House right now and no one would know.

Instead of treating this concern seriously, the Government’s response to my question on this was laughter.

The Government, or the ASIO Chief, must name this traitor as soon as possible. This cloud over Parliament’s security must be fixed immediately.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Gallagher. When will the government name the former Australian politician that ASIO Chief Mike Burgess yesterday referenced as someone who sold out Australia to advance the interests of a foreign regime? 

Senator Gallagher: I thank Senator Roberts for the question, and I note the annual threat assessment that was delivered last night by the director-general of ASIO. We have utmost confidence in our security and intelligence services. The director-general made a comment about this. He was specifically asked about this last night. He said he’d made a deliberate decision not to name the individual, and he provided reasons for this. The government respects his judgement. He has our 100 per cent support. He has the full picture, and he made an informed decision. 

The threat assessment made clear that we need to continue to be vigilant and sober in how we respond to threats, and this is what we are doing. The annual threat assessment is an assessment made by ASIO. It is delivered by the director-general of that organisation. It’s not something that the government authors. It’s a document that is very much the director-general and ASIO’s to do so, and he has all the information available to him. He made a decision about that. If that decision changes, that’s his decision as well. It is not a decision for the government to make. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, former parliamentarians, as I understand it, have an automatic pass to enter Parliament House. The former politician who sold out this country could be in this building right now, in a parliamentarian’s office, and the office holder, MP or senator, would have no idea they’re talking to a spy. Why won’t you name the traitor now? 

Senator Gallagher: I think passes to this building are a matter for the Presiding Officers—the rules around that. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: I think it is, isn’t it? 

An honourable senator: Yes. 

Senator Gallagher: Yes, it is. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

Senator Gallagher: Well, it is. Sorry, but it’s not a matter that the government is responsible for. In relation to the question you asked, which was about naming an individual, it’s a matter for the director-general of ASIO. If he were to choose to name an individual, that would be a matter for him. As part of his annual threat assessment, he made a decision to raise the issue, I think, and to rightly point to the fact that foreign interference is an issue. It’s an issue that all of us, as members of parliament, need to be aware of— (Time expired) 

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you have just put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position. Why is this government afraid to say the c-word and acknowledge the country that is the greatest risk to Australia’s interests and largest perpetrator of foreign interference—China, the Chinese Communist Party? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the question really. We talk about China all the time as a government. We’ve been seeking to stabilise the relationship. We’ve been seeking to remove some of the trade bans. But we’ve also been very clear that we must disagree where we do, and, where we can agree, we should reach agreement. But there are things that are in our national interests that we may disagree on, and then we will be upfront about that. We will always act in our country’s national interest. That’s what we’ve done from the first day we were appointed and it’s what we will continue to do. That’s what guides us in relation to our interactions and our work across the world. There are a number of countries that we engage with regularly, but it’s always in our national interest that we do that. 

Media Release

Media-Release-1Download
/37 Comments/by

Truth Wins: Vaccine Mandates Were Unlawful

,

I was disappointed in the Minister’s response to my questions about the implications of the QLD Supreme Court judgement on the COVID ‘vaccine’ mandates. I expected more clarity and less deflection from the Minister. These decisions were made by the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties, there can be no avoiding the fallout form their actions across the COVID period.

While the ruling was made on the basis of the human rights act in QLD, identical provisions are in place in Victoria and the ACT, suggesting the decision is not just a QLD issue. The government is arrogantly ignoring the reality of the situation and failing to read the room when it comes to this topic.

People have had enough of high-handed, out of touch government. One Nation is calling for the Royal Commission into our COVID response to be announced right now!

Transcript

I take note of Senator Gallagher’s answer to my question on the Queensland Supreme Court’s decision. The court found measures relating to COVID were mandated on a number of Queensland workers without adequate consideration of their human rights as required under the Queensland Human Rights Act. Identical human rights provisions apply in Victoria and the ACT. So certainly there is the probability of the same or similar decisions being made in other jurisdictions.  

I’d hoped the government would be fully aware of the implications of this decision. I was disappointed. The minister deflected and failed to address the substance of the question, so here are some more reasons the minister should get clarity on this issue. An employee who is fired as the outcome from a vaccine mandate can sue the employer, which may be the government, for wrongful dismissal. An employee who took a vaccine to keep their job as a result of a vaccine mandate, who is now vaccine injured, can sue for damages. Class-action lawsuits will result from this decision. The Commonwealth will be as much in the firing line as Victoria and Queensland.  

It’s not just mandates. Evidence has been presented over the last few months that closing schools and denying children education has caused a permanent drop in children’s educational potential and medical health—permanent harm. Last week, a landmark study of 99 million people including Australians found the injections caused an increase in blood clots, brain injuries and heart disease of up to 600 per cent. These injuries are legally actionable. Whether it’s over mandates, vaccine injuries, education or business closures, victims will be joining class-action lawsuits sooner rather than later.  

All levels of government in Australia made terrible mistakes during COVID. Only a royal commission has the powers and the resources to decide what mistakes were made and how the victims of those mistakes can be fairly compensated. This will be expensive, yet failure to act through a royal commission will create a running sore on public administration for a generation. Only an objective royal commission will restore trust in governments and in the healthcare sector. 

/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

It’s ironic that Labor can suddenly define what a woman is when they want to talk about a gender pay gap.

By publicly sending out information on 5000 Australian companies and claiming they’ve failed to sufficiently pay women in comparison with men, the government has maliciously misrepresented the companies and is effectively doxxing them.

The devil is in the details on this issue. Once you look closely, the myth of a gender pay gap falls apart. The report doesn’t try to compare like for like.

We don’t want a cookie cutter society inflicted on us by ‘leftist’ government bureaucracies. Differences should be celebrated. Where individuals choose to work longer hours, or choose to raise a family, these are differences that should never be ironed out by publicly shaming companies into following the Environment, Social Governance goals of the United Nations.

We need to continue to support men and women in making those different choices, especially when it comes to building a family.

One Nation rejects the divisiveness of gender politics. We support stronger families and the freedom for men and women to make their own choices about work.

Transcript

It’s ironic the Labor government are seeking to rush laws on doxxing through this parliament when they’ve just committed one of Australia’s largest doxxings. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency published a list of 5,000 businesses across Australia and detailed the wages they pay their employees. Doxxing is the act of publicly providing identifiable information about an individual or organisation, usually with malicious intent. With the release of this report, these companies have been battered in national news headlines accusing them of huge gender pay gaps. The cries of the outrage brigade have been heard across the country. They claim that these evil companies have huge gender pay gaps and that the evil patriarchy is in full control, making sure no woman in Australia will ever get paid fairly. 

Make no mistake, the private information about these companies has been published for the purpose of whacking them around in national headlines; it’s easy to see. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is just a roundabout way of doxxing Australian companies, and taxpayers fund the agency $11 million a year to do it. I mentioned details at the beginning of my speech, yet the one thing that’s actually missing from the report is detail. The figures don’t make a fair comparison. 

Don’t let the headlines fool you; this report is not a measure of whether a man and a woman doing the same job at the same company are paid differently. That’s been illegal for decades. The report simply takes the median of total wages and compares them. No accounting is made for whether the men and women work in different jobs or whether they are in part-time jobs. There are no adjustments for overtime or seniority—the list of exclusions goes on and on. 

If a female air steward gets paid less than the male pilot up front, the Workplace Gender Equality Agency will say that that’s a gender pay gap at that airline. The Workplace Gender Equality Agency report is one of the most oversimplified, flawed, misleading uses of statistics we’ve seen from government, and that’s saying something! If we were to truly measure the impact of sexism on wages, we would look at men and women doing the same job at the same time for the same rate. A Harvard study entitled Why do women earn less than men? Evidence from bus and train operators did exactly that. Among men and women paid the exact same rates, they found the small wage difference was entirely due to the fact that men worked 83 per cent more overtime and were twice as likely to accept a shift on short notice. Fathers were more likely than childless men to want the extra cash from overtime. Fathers working harder to provide a better life for their children and their wives—that must be the ‘toxic masculinity’ the control side of politics, the so-called Left, complains about. In short, it comes down to choice. Men and women should always have the freedom to choose how they want to work or support their family. Given the option, they will choose differently. 

Norway is considered one of the most gender equal countries in the world, yet it has some of the most extreme policies with the intention of balancing out gender differences. Despite all of the incentives, Norway still has a 17 per cent wage gap, as the Workplace Gender Equality Agency would measure it, because women still choose jobs that allow them to take care of families. 

Of course, this agency report is the brainchild of the Labor government, bent on dividing women and men for political purposes. If we’re too busy fighting each other about a gender pay gap that doesn’t actually exist, then we’re not going to pay attention to the real issues the government is sneaking through this parliament every day. The idea that women are only useful if they abandon their children and return to the workforce to be a cog in the economy is one of the greatest scams of New Age feminism. Instead of pretending everyone fits into one cookie-cutter shape, we should be acknowledging and celebrating differences. We should be supporting men and women to make the choices they want to make. We should be reforming the tax system to recognise the work that the stay-at-home parent, whether man or woman, does to build a family for the benefit of this country and for themselves. Imagine if we used some of the $14 billion a year currently subsidising day care to instead support families at home. 

One Nation will always fight for stronger supported families and for men and women to choose the work they want. Unlike the $11-million-a-year Workplace Gender Equality Agency, we’ll always reject the divisiveness of gender politics, and we will always choose to celebrate our wonderful complementary differences. 

/2 Comments/by