The ‘Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021’ is a piece of legislation designed to act as the framework for a permanent and expansive ‘digital identity’ for all Australian citizens.
‘Digital Identity’ acts as a master ID, joining together previously disconnected government databases containing confidential personal information.
Where the myGov app links things like a driver’s licence, passport, Medicare card, and vaccination record – the Digital Identity sets out to link ALL government data related to a person. Future iterations of the Digital Identity propose to pair this data against private sector information, such as purchasing records, to create a richdigital view of a citizen.
While Australia lacks the corresponding technological infrastructure to utilise a Digital Identity to its sinister potential (such as China’s spying street lights and billboards), this Bill – whether intentional or accidental – acts as the foundation for a China-style Social Credit System.
Governments do not create large citizen data collection points for no reason. This information is valuable, not only for research purposes, but for political strategies and future policies (such as ‘incentivising’ green initiatives). Once this information starts being collated by the government against a citizen, it will become like a browser history session that cannot be cleared. While the Bill does not specifically lay out applications for Digital Identity, accompanying documents and industry articles (from banking and insurance sectors) have already begun discussing its potential.
The Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021 cannot be read or understood as a stand-alone policy. It forms part of an extensive policy framework under the government’s 2030 digital goals laid out in the Digital Economy Strategy 2030. According to this strategy (worth $1.2 billion in the 2021-2022 Budget), Australia’s Digital Identity is intended to connect into a global digital identity economy.
In other words, the problem is not so much with the technical setup/certifications of the Digital Identity as laid out in the Bill – the issue is with the intention of the Digital Identity and that catastrophic change to both privacy and the existing separation between the economy and the government.
What is also of concern is the heightened level of control that the government seeks to wield over the direction of the economy once it transforms into largely digital entity – as stated in its goals – and therefore its motivation for the establishment of a Trusted Digital Identity. The strategy stresses that Digital Identity is aimed at keeping us ‘safe’ and recovering from a ‘Covid economy’, but as we have learned, government is poorly equipped to carry out these tasks.
Australians have to ask themselves, do they really want the government acting as an omnipresent policeman standing guard over every commercial transaction?
Should the government be able to prevent a citizen from being ‘certified’ to purchase items from a private seller (something that is not possible with cash)?
Further, do Australians want to give the government power over the economy to micromanage its future by monitoring, punishing, and rewarding transactions in the same way they have started to interfere in the ‘green’ energy market?
Also of chief concern is the reason Digital Identity has been created in the first place. The government did not come up with the Trusted Digital Identity on their own to solve the issue of outdated government databases. As stated by the policymakers in their accompanying documentation, the Trusted Digital Identity is the brainchild of the World Economic Forum and their global digital identity roadmap.
The Trusted Digital Identity is required for the Digital Economy Strategy. The following is the intention of the government strategy:
‘The digital economy is key to securing our economic future and recovery from COVID-19. The Digital Economy Strategy targets investments that will underpin improvements in jobs, productivity and make Australia’s economy more resilient.’
‘Further, research conducted by the WEF suggests that digital identity is essential for the growth of the digital economy more broadly encouraging digital, as well as physical engagement with public and private sector services, it has a pivotal role to play in rebooting the global economy in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Digital Identity uniquely positions businesses, the research concluded, to gain and maintain user trust and remain competitive, ‘…guarantee[ing] the realisation of greater economic potential…and advancing an economy that is more inclusive, equitable and stable for all’.’
And from the linked article:
‘The Platform on Digital Economy and New Value Creation helps companies leverage technology to be agile in the face of disruption and to create the new digitally enabled business models for a new normal – post-COVID, purpose driven, sustainable and inclusive. […] An estimated 70% of new value created in the economy over the next decade will be based on digitally enabled platform business models. However, 47% of the world’s population remain unconnected to the internet.’ – Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation and the Davos Agenda Digital identity Frameworks.
In How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world, the WEF states that, ‘To re-boot the global economy and re-connect society physically and virtually in a new reality, people will need to engage physically and digitally with public authorities and businesses.’
The World Economic Forum is encouraging domestic policymakers to ‘move quickly’ and build ‘trust’ with citizens around the secure usage of personal data, which allows extensive third parties to create digital frameworks previously forbidden by privacy laws.
‘But the potential is bigger: the possibility to safely claim who we are will impact how we live and how fast the world economy can recover – alleviating key risks highlighted in World Economic Forum’s COVID-19 Risk Outlooks Report.’
The linked Outlooks Report (tied to the Global Risks Report) seeks to keep the changes made during Covid rather than encouraging business and society to return to its in-person, normal operation. This is no doubt because the biggest winners under Covid were digital services and banks who profited off an unsustainable economic model almost entirely propped up with public money. To encourage this system would be a catastrophic error.
This report includes the header ‘An opportunity to build back better’,directly connecting the Liberal Party’s Australian Digital Identity to the hated ‘build back better’ global mantra. It also forms part of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and, littered through the supplementary data, are references and intentions to eventually incorporate the global Digital Identity into Climate Change policy.
‘Despite the grim economic outlook, the solidarity created by the Covid-19 pandemic offers the possibility of investing in building more cohesive, inclusive and equal societies. When it comes to the environmental agenda, the implementation of green stimulus programmes holds the potential to fundamentally change the way economies and industries operate, especially as societal behaviour change may spur more sustainable consumption and mobility habits. For businesses, the opportunity exists to accelerate a transformation towards more sustainable and digital operating models, while enhancing productivity. When it comes to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, technology has demonstrably helped societies manage crisis and provided a window into the benefits of more technology-enhanced ways of learning, working and producing – from telemedicine to logistics to the knowledge economy. There is a potential for a new era of innovation, growth and enhanced technology governance in the service of societal and environmental goals.’
To be clear, the WEF is the backbone from which the Australian government is drafting Digital Identity policy and the assumptions made by the WEF to justify their recommendations are, frankly, wrong – both historically and logically. To give one example, the need for swift digitisation is based on a prediction that nationalistic tendencies driven by competition for pandemic resources will see countries isolate themselves from the global market and sink into recession. We know from history that nations do the reverse – they expand into trade after traumatic events and the less intervention from global authorities, the better as countries find their economic niches mores quickly.
The Australian government do not challenge any of these assumptions, but rather assumed them as fact with the WEF’s recommendations littered throughout the Bill.
Part of this framework is a concept called ‘Human-centric digital identities’ – which is essentially what the Australian government is attempting to create as a form of ‘alleviation from global health risks’. The description of Trusted Digital Identity in the linked WEF policy is nearly identical to the Australian legislation.
The other WEF reference made is to Reimagining Digital Identity: A Strategic Imperative, which is more of the same except it summarises the other nations creating their own Digital Identities and includes a few worrying insights.
‘Businesses must understand that they will be required to redesign and rethink their relationships with their customers to remain competitive in a changing business landscape. As user expectations change regarding how digital identity is managed, organisations must reposition themselves regarding how they interact with their customers. And the time to act is now. The digital identity revolution has already begun.’
At which point we can point to the Australian government’s Digital Economy roadmap which says:
‘We’ll be succeeding when:
The significant majority of Australians over 19 are registered for myGovID or other trusted digital identity.
By 2030 all businesses will be digital businesses. To be a leading digital economy and society in 2030, every business needs to become a digital business.
Businesses can verify the digital identity of customers and suppliers with absolute confidence.
All transaction are electronic, integrated and secure – from registration through to employment, reporting, marketing, banking, accounting and security.
Which, if you read carefully, attempts to end anonymous cash transactions within the economy under the excuse of ‘progress, efficiency and safety’, removing the essential liberty of customers and businesses to purchase goods and services without heavy-handed oversight.
The recurring theme throughout these documents is that in order to be ‘safe’ and expand after Covid, the government must forge a new digital economy. In reality, a heavily regulated economy is less resilient and slower to recover than an old fashioned chaotic one. This is probably why a black economy in Australia is on the rise (suggested by the staggering increase in physical cash circulation) as individuals seek to recover their jobs outside the inflexible layers of cost and regulation ill-suited to a disaster. The government puts the cash increase down to pandemic hoarding, but it is far more likely that those individuals ‘locked out of the economy’ by state governments are having to find ways to survive. Instead of fixing the environment that has caused this behaviour, the government seeks further regulation to prevent it.
What’s in the Trusted Digital Identity Bill:
The Bill simply introduces itself as, ‘A Bill for an Act to establish the ‘trusted’ Digital Identity system and to provide for the accreditation of entities in relation to digital identity systems generally, and for related purposes.’
In order words, it creates a Digital Identity, sets out how other digital entities can interact with it, creates code of conduct guidelines, and puts forward some general (but by no means exhaustive) application processes, and lists penalties for failing to comply. The word ‘trusted’ is in the title to represent the ‘trusted’ accreditation process that the Bill sets out for third parties to access citizen data. Finally, the Bill sets out an Oversight Authority to monitor the system.
The vast majority of this Bill deals with the technical nature of accrediting digital businesses to interact with your data. Instead, we wish to ask if the Bill should exist as a concept.
Forgetting the more serious consequences of the Bill, does it actually achieve what it sets out to do? The answer is, ‘no’. Based solely on its primary aims, the Bill is a failure of concept.
There are two stated purposes for the Bill’s existence.
Simplify access to clunky government databases for individuals and businesses.
Create, stimulate, and shape a ‘Covid-safe’ economy.
Instead of fixing the government’s disjoined, outdated, and woefully error-laden databases, Digital Identity acts as a band-aid.
It creates a brand new central identity and collects information from the same broken databases. Third party applications then talk to the Digital Identity, where all the information is nicely ordered for modern systems. The Digital Identity did not fix the problem – those databases are stilling heading toward failure. Why not simply spend the billions of dollars allocated to this project to fix the master databases? Or at least fix the databases before using the mess as the foundation for Australia’s largest digital environment…
A good Bill would simplify and reduce government databases, this Bill vastly extends government-held private data into a wide range of accredited domestic and international corporations who can, upon exemption, host data on foreign servers.
This data – crucial to the safety and identity of an individual – is now collated under the Digital Identity where it is shared, used, and hosted by corporate entities for a range of unspecified reasons related to government services, research, and economic practices. The Bill even lists the potential for these services to charge citizens an access fee for their data.
The main selling point on the Digital Identity website is the time people will save.
These promises are unlikely, given the experience and difficulty with both myGovID (created by the same company given the contract for Digital Identity) and the service trouble experienced with vaccine passport certification – the Trusted Digital Identity will probably take people longer to set up and fix than the total time saved by its existence. The government’s time-saving problems do not factor in any difficulties in service which are not part of the current system.Once passed, Digital Identity will be used as a way to validate transactions in the same way that a Vaccine Passport unlocks access to previously unregulated areas.
The Bill is careful to insist that its use will remain voluntary, but the accompanying documentation implies that Digital Identity is a mandatory condition of service in the economy in the same way that vaccine passports are ‘implied’ as mandatory if you wish to continue trading.
‘Digital Identity will give Australian people and businesses a single, secure way to use government services online. Creating a Digital Identity is like doing a 100-point identification check. It removes the need to visit a shopfront with your identity documents. Digital Identity is already being used by over 2.3 million Australians and 1.2 million businesses to access over 75 government services. Digital Identity ensures personal information is securely encrypted and stored in Australia and no personal information is presented through a double blind system. The proposed new legislation for the Digital Identity system will extend these protections and standards to businesses and state and territory governments who will use the digital identity.’
And then it sets out this Digital Identity as a government-controlled protection for fraud against private digital transactions:
‘The Trusted Digital Identity Framework sets out the rules for the national digital identity scheme. This Framework will make it easier and safer for people to access online services and provide additional protections against identity crime, which is estimated to cost the economy over $3.1 billion a year. The Government will progress legislation to enable the rollout of the Framework to the private sector and other governments. The legislation will embed privacy, security and fraud prevention mechanisms to build trust and confidence by those who choose to participate.’
A digital economy is characterised by online transactions and engagement – a virtual, paperless and cashless world […] This means that by 2030:
All businesses are digital businesses, using e-Commerce tools and new technologies to improve productivity, innovate and generate high-paying jobs.
All transactions are electronic, integrated and secure – from registration through to employment, reporting, marketing, banking, accounting and security.
Government services will all be easily and safely accessible online, saving people and businesses time and money. Government service delivery will by supported by better public data availability and sharing that is used by a highly-skilled public service to deliver more targeted policy and programs.
And for individuals:
• The significant majority of Australians over 18 are registered for myGovID or another trusted digital identity.
While not explicitly stated in the Bill, if the government’s Digital Economy Strategy by 2030 is aiming for all business transactions to be digital (no cash), and those transactions require the integrated and secure Digital Identification check to validate them – then those who do not partake in the Digital Identity scheme will be effectively locked out of the economy.
The Digital Economy Strategy also states: ‘To be a leading digital economy and society in 2030, every business needs to become a digital business.’
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/fernando-dearferdo-globe-unsplash.jpg?fit=4830%2C3220&ssl=132204830Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-28 16:17:512023-10-09 13:16:13What is the Digital Identity Bill?
The amount of business tax debt that is overdue with the Australian Tax Office has skyrocketed by 14% in 12 months to $40 billion. This is a very worrying sign. A business which is struggling to keep afloat will try and delay their payments for as long as possible, hopefully to keep some liquidity and survive another day.
Eventually however, many businesses can’t keep going like this and collapse. This blowout in overdue debt is a worrying sign of how many businesses in Australia are on the edge. The Government’s response to COVID has wrecked our economy and country and the full effects of lockdowns and restrictions are still to be fully felt.
Transcript
Around. Thank you.
Okay. Senator Roberts.
Thank you chair, and thank you all for attending. Minister, When all the COVID protections, when are all the COVID protections ending for businesses? You know, for example, the Australian taxation office pause on debt collection activities, and what have you provided to ensure businesses are supported and not thrown to the wolves?
Well, Senator, to answer the second part of your question, types of measures that we outlined in the last couple of budgets, such as, the lost carryback arrangements, the small business loans programmes, they’re the types of support that have been embedded for businesses to help with the economic recovery coming out of COVID. In terms of the dates of when, in some cases already have occurred, or to occur in the future. Certain protections around solvency arrangements, or ATO debt recovery practises, coming to end. I’ll let agencies, where they can speak to any of the details of those. Probably not the right person for that though.
So Senator, there’s a range of support measures that have been provided. The minister referred to the loss. Carryback there’s also obviously the temporary full expensing measures that go to June 2023. They’re the support measures, stimulus measures that I’m aware of in the tax space. I will pass to the ATO who can talk about the administrative actions that they’ve been taking to support business. And I think some of your question or some of the aspects of that support in the space of insolvency or, you know, market front features is probably best put to markets group later this evening. But I don’t know if the ATO want to add anything on the administrative actions.
Yes, Senator. We have recommenced the very measured approach to debt collection. We are concerned that the longer businesses sort of stay out of engagement with us. The more problematic those collection of debts are. I mean, the fact of the matter is that our total collectible debt has, as at 31 December, 2021, has increased by nearly $5 billion. That is collectable debt which is largely, I understand undisputed debt. So they’ve put in a bad statement. They’ve said, they’ve earned this amount. They’ve withheld pay as you go, they’ve collected GST, and for one reason or not, they haven’t remitted amounts they’ve acknowledged they’re responsible for. We are instituting a process of contacting businesses individually to make sure they’re aware of the debt and trying to come to an acceptable payment arrangement at least. But it is something we just cannot ignore because of the debt stock has gone up about 14% from the same time last year, and it’s now around $40 billion. So we have to focus in as empathetic way as we can. But it’s something we just have to get on with without jumping out there too quickly. It’s very well known in the advisory community that we are doing this now. And in some cases they’re saying, well, you should because the longer we leave it the more likely some of these amounts just won’t be paid. But if our Chief Service Delivery Officer wants to add anything to that, I’ll pass over to Melinda Smith.
I thank you. Commissioner Melinda Smith. Chief Service Delivery Officer. I just echo the commissioner’s comments. Last year, we actually had over 8 million engagement activities that we put in place to help small business and individuals. And the growth tends to be in the small business debt to actually help them and assist them to understand what’s their liability and how do we help them to actually get back on their feet. And we’re seeing some positive signs payment plans are being set up. We have very high kept rate in terms of those effectiveness of those payment plans. And as the Commissioner commented, we’re getting some terrific feedback from the community about the balance we’re having to take very empathetically based on quite unique circumstances.
Thank you. So it it’s fairly, and this is not a criticism of you. It’s a comment about the situation. It’s fairly vague. And I understand that. So what does your research indicate will be the likely business insolvency rates for the next two years and across what industries and regions
Senator, I don’t know that the ATO, and they can obviously speak for themselves. We don’t know the ATO undertakes its own modelling or research in relation to business insolvency rates. And again, revenue group of treasury wouldn’t be the right agency to provide analysis in that regard. To just add to at least answer to your first question. I just wanted to check but the relief for directors against personal liability for insolvent trading, that was part of the initial package of measures has also expired. So, in that sense some of those initial early extreme COVID protection measures that were put in place at the depths of uncertainty have come to an end as the ATO indicated from their perspective, they now manage debt recovery in their cautious and targeted ways that they’ve indicated and are very conscious in terms of, in terms of the impact of their activities and seeking to maintain business viability while doing so. The government did outline some other insolvency reforms which I can get some information tabled if you like. I’d note that insolvency rates have been down quite significantly as a result of both some of those temporary measures, but also the additional financial support government has provided to businesses during the pandemic. I’m not aware of there being any spike in those insolvency rates since any of these measures have come to an end. But we would expect to see at least a normalisation of those rates.
Minister. Thank you. The early on. And in fact, the first and second day of sitting single day sessions on this coronavirus issue were on Monday, March 23rd, 2020, and then Wednesday the April 8th, 2020. And I pointed the government to Taiwan. Which has had a far superior performance to ours. They, despite having a population similar to ours, have had one quarter that casualties per million population that we’ve had. They did it without locking down. In the previous Senate estimate sessions, I confirmed with the Chief Medical Officer and the Federal Department of Health Secretary, the seven components that would be suitable for seven strategies for managing a virus comprehensively and properly. And the Federal Government has missed the two key ones. Never even looked at it even though they were mentioned months ago. And as I said on the first single day sessions back in 2020. I believe the Federal Government has mismanaged COVID. Now you probably won’t agree, but,
No I won’t Senator.
But you know, the facts are there. So, What’s happening is that the Federal Government has not protected people. And at the same time has decimated their economy and we are losing a lot of revenue.
Senator Roberts. Have you got a crisp question-
Yes. I’d like to know when the government is gonna come up with a proper comprehensive plan.
Well, as, you noted on the way through Senator Roberts, I don’t agree with your assessment there. Australia has some of the lowest fatality rates in the world and some of the strongest economic outcomes, a jobs market that is booming and is seeing levels of participation that are at record points for Australia and are above the performance of other developed economies. So Senator Roberts, I think we have a very strong record there as Prime Minister’s indicated. Has every decision that we have managed to, that we have made right throughout the course of the pandemic and being the one that we would make with the benefit of hindsight. No, of course not. If we’d been able to foresee every potential twist and turn along the way, we would navigate the route differently. But we’ve been dealing with the global pandemic with different variants that have come along to the COVID 19 virus and we’ve responded accordingly. We have applied through the last two budgets in economic recovery plan that has stimulated business investment that has seen the jobs market recover very strongly in Australia, that has seen the budget improve in ways beyond what had been forecast. And we’re obviously committed to continuing to implement that plan.
Thank you for that minister. I just quote some figures here from Adam Creighton. He’s a well respected, clear thinking economist who relies on data. And he’s pointed out, Australia overtakes Japan in COVID deaths, a densely populated nation with many old people that never once lockdown, never mandated vaccines and barely tested anyone. No riots, no tear gas. The lockdown argument has become a sad joke. You didn’t implement lockdowns, but you enabled the states to. Taiwan with a similar population to ours. We have 4.4 times higher death rate per million population. Taiwan never locked down. They properly tested, traced in quarantine. So my question was, when will you, I’ve checked with this Chief Medical Officer. There are seven strategies that he confirms. I’ve omitted none. I’ve got none that are in there that shouldn’t be there. Seven strategies. The government is not doing the two most important ones. When will you come together with plan
Senator Roberts? We have applied a plan right throughout the pandemic, responded to circumstances and have the clear economic recovery plan as I said before. I’d also just make the point in terms of your comparisons there, that lockdown is used as a single word or phrase to encompass what different people have in mind. There have been, in the countries you referenced, some very tight restrictions on human movement and activity in response to what, COVID 19 and limitations in terms of areas of activity that have had in terms of economic impacts and impacts on different businesses. Very significant impacts in parts of their economy. There are circumstances that every country’s grappled with. I don’t say that as in any way as a criticism. We have indeed engaged quite closely at different times with Japan and with Taiwan during the pandemic in terms of sharing information, in terms of assistance between between one another where possible for things like PPE or the like, so. There is much that we admire and respect about their responses, but I think to sort of characterise as you have that makes it sound like they’ve managed in a way where there haven’t been some very tight restrictions that are analogous in parts to the way some of the states have applied lockdowns or ongoing restrictions is not accurate in terms of what they have actually done in those countries or in the country of Japan and of course the economy of Taiwan.
Of Taiwan, which is way in front of us in terms of performance on COVID has not locked down. Their economy and their economy has basically suffered just a minor blip. I think 0.6 of-
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kunjkH4HQXc/0.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2022-02-25 14:34:322022-02-25 14:34:38How many Aussie businesses are on the verge of collapse?
Companies have been using labour hire contracts to cut wages and benefits for workers. Our One Nation ‘Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022’ will put an end to this unfair abuse.
Transcript
In the last Senate week I introduced my bill to make sure workers employed under labour hire contracts are paid the same rate of pay as workers who are employed directly in certain awards, including the black coal Mining Industry Award and the Aircraft cabin crew award. You know, breadwinner jobs used to be able to provide for a family on one wage and still buy a home, a car and have holidays.
Labour hire contracts are one of the devices that large corporations are now using to drive down wages in industries that have traditionally provided breadwinner jobs. My bill, this bill, will help to bring a better life for Australian workers. Coal mining is in my blood. I started work as a coalface minor for three years underground, including in the Hunter, before progressing to mine management.
The exploitation I have seen lately in the coal mining industry is an absolute disgrace. This bill is the product of work I’ve been doing for years with Hunter Valley coal miners and Queensland coal miners.
One Nation was instrumental in achieving positive change to the Fair Work Act in 2021, including protections for casual workers and casual conversion rights for workers: casual to permanent, improvements to work health and safety incident reporting, proper payment of workers compensation, proper payment of accident pay, proper leave and freedom of speech for casuals who are threatened with the sack if they speak up about saefty.
Labour hire contracts have been exploiting workers for years and the CMFEU Union bosses, the mine owners and the Labor Party and the liberal national governments in New South Wales and Canberra have done nothing about it, and they don’t want to do anything about it. Union bosses do very well, very nicely out of these labour hire contracts.
The One Nation, Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022, will put an end to this unfair abuse. With our previous work and this Bill, One Nation is now the party of the workers.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/dHEZFdypZok/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-24 13:58:542022-02-24 15:22:57One Nation introduces Equal pay for Equal work Labour hire bill
Video was sent to us of an RF meter from EPIC campgrounds at the convoy to Canberra showing spikes in frequency. When shown this, we didn’t know enough about RF to understand what it was showing so we consulted external experts to explain if the levels seen on the video were dangerous.
The measuring device appears to be a Trifield Meter Model TF2 set to RF mode (dial to the right). In this mode the device is measuring in milliwatts per square meter (mW/m2) up to 19mW/m2 which can also be seen on the screen. The manufacturers specifications can be found here: https://www.trifield.com/product/trifield-emf-meter/.
In the video the meter can be seen recording levels of up to 19 milliwatts per square meter, spiking only once at the 19.999mW/m2 limit. You’ll notice that the person recording the video mistakenly interprets the reading as spiking at twenty-thousand mW/m2, not twenty (or 19.999) as it actually reads.
Schedule 3 on page 30 shows that the maximum exposure to RF frequency in the 6 GHz range (the maximum frequency detection of the meter) is 10 watts per square meter. 1 watt is equal to 1000 milliwatts. This means that the safe exposure to RF at the highest frequency that can be detected by the meter is 10,000 milliwatts per square metre, far above the 19 milliwatts detected by the meter.
You can see the presence of a phone cause spikes in the meter here (at 2:02):
It’s possible that even the person filming the original video with their phone so close to the meter could have been causing some of the meter spiking, in addition to the larger than usual amount of phones and signals in the area due to the thousands of campers at EPIC park.
In either case, the energy levels seen on the meter are 0.19% of the ARPANSA exposure levels. Many people have sent us this video and asked us to investigate, this is what those investigations found.
This letter is written further to the incident in the senate last week when Senator Andrew McLachlan was Acting Deputy President and undertook to report the incident to you and expected your further clarification on the wearing of masks in the senate.
Following a request from Senator McKim I wore a mask in the senate chamber as a courtesy to Senator Steele-John, who Senator McKim said feels uncomfortable due to an immune condition. I did this as a courtesy to Senator Steele-John’s concerns, perceptions and feelings, and not on any scientific basis.
I have written twice to the Queensland Premier and Health Minister asking for scientific proof of the effectiveness of masks. I have written to the ACT Chief Minister making the same request. None have provided evidence of the effectiveness of and need for masks. There is no randomised controlled trial study that demonstrates masks, especially the cloth masks that some senators wear, are effective in stopping transmission of COVID-19 virus.
Until someone provides the necessary empirical scientific data as evidence to prove the basis for wearing masks, Senators and indeed all Australians should not be required to wear them.
Wearing a mask can lead to headaches, discomfort and safety hazards and needlessly restricts breathing.
I direct you to pages 52 and 53 (page 3 of attachment 5) of the attached copy of my letter to the Prime Minister and Queensland Premier and attachments thereto.
Page 53 refers broadly to New Mexico Senator and physician Dr Greg Schmedes, who criticises America’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for its contradictory and sloppy note entitled “Science Brief: Community Use of Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2”. The contradictions and absurdities abound within the CDC’s note.
Adam Creighton is a data-driven, clear-thinking economist and writer, who presents key scientific conclusions about masks in his thorough article on Monday 14 February 2022. In The futility of mandatory masking now ripped bare (theaustralian.com.au) Creighton cites scientific authorities and practical, everyday examples as evidence for his clear conclusions.
Despite the resounding lack of supportive scientific evidence and despite the availability of scientific studies not supporting the wearing of masks, they have been ordered in some nations and states/provinces. Masks have been used as a form of conditioning people to be fearful and obedient. Masks have been successfully used to ingrain fear and as such, have the hallmark of terrorism.
Capricious, malicious and/or unscientific orders often lead to divisiveness, as seen in the abusive and disrespectful behaviour of Greens senators and of Senator Lambie, who personally abused Senator Rennick last Thursday in the Senate. Senator Rennick had no intention of harming anyone and did not harm anyone. The needlessly aggressive, emotionally driven comments directed to Senator Rennick from some Greens senators and from Senator Lambie in the chamber are disrespectful to a properly elected senator representing millions of Australians and seemed designed to intimidate rather than explain and justify those who disagreed with Senator Rennick. Such abuse is disrespectful to the people of Australia and confirm a lack of scientific data.
This highlights and reinforces yet again the way unscientific and unfounded restrictions in the name of COVID-19, often politically driven, are divisive.
Sadly, this is typical of many issues, debates, policies and decisions made in our parliament and that are not based on objective, reliable empirical scientific data.
Basing positions, decisions, bills and laws on feelings not on solid scientific data, on unfounded opinions not data, on media headlines not data, on advocacy pursuing personal agenda not on data, all lead to needless conflict and wasted resources. Illogical decisions cause increased costs for which the people ultimately pay. Irrationality and/or dishonesty are no basis for making laws or advocating policy.
Those who believe that masks provide protection, however minimal, can choose to wear masks and in so doing feel protected regardless of the choices other people make.
I request that the implicit expectation to wear masks be removed, unless in your deliberations, you can find and provide solid scientific evidence of a mask’s effectiveness based on objective empirical data within a logical scientific framework proving cause-and-effect.
For transparency I have copied in all Senators named in this letter.
Yours sincerely
Malcolm Roberts
Senator for Queensland
You can read more about our response to COVID in our dedicated COVID section, here.
https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.png00Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-15 11:11:002022-03-11 11:53:09Mask mandates must be ditched – Letter to the Senate President
Professor David Flint AM is an Emeritus Professor of Law. He read law and economics at Universities of Sydney, London and Paris. After admission as a Solicitor of the NSW Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor (1962-72) before moving into University teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming Professor of Law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989.
Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. His publications include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution and on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the award of World Outstanding Legal Scholar, World Jurists Association, Barcelona, in October 1991.
He was made a Member of the Order of Australia in 1995.
So David is an expert in constitutional law and I am going to chat about with him about Australia’s Constitution – a document that most people never give a second thought to. Over the last couple of years, as we have watched our freedoms being eroded, references to the Constitution have reached a level of popularity equivalent to “new best seller”.
The Constitution is also being misused and mis-referenced and there are a whole lot of crazy stuff going on in the name of the Constitution. David is going to help me make sense of it all.
Thank you for having me as your guest in your car, your lounge room, your men’s shed your kitchen. It’s indeed an honour all over the world to be with you today. There are two themes to me and my show, freedom specifically versus control, and it’s basic for human progress and people’s livelihood. And the second theme is personal responsibility and the importance of integrity. That’s basic for personal progress and people’s livelihoods.
So we have three aims for the show in the terms of direction and tone. I just let you know, now that I’m under apologetically fiercely, pro-human. I’m tired of the media and the politicians ragging on humans. And I’m going to tell the truth about humans and humanity. I’m proud to be one of our planet’s only species capable of logic and loving care. We’ll be positive. We will certainly deal with what’s wrong with politics. But we’ll also deal with what’s needed in politics. We’ll deal with what’s wrong with politicians and what we need in politicians. We’ll deal with what’s wrong with the media, as well as what’s needed in media. We’ll get to the core issues, what’s and all to develop solutions. We’ll cover the human aspects, the strengths, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, failings highlights, and what makes people real.
The second basic aim is to be data driven and factual, truthful and honest. And the third thing I’ve been given and that I comply with and why I’ve been invited to compare this show is to speak out, to be blunt and will certainly be that. Hubert Humphrey who lived from 1911 to 1978, served as the United States vice president from 1965 to 1969. And he said, and think about this as we remember that a private company is locking down private citizen in an age care facility. He said, “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the Dawn of life the children, those who are in the Twilight of life the elderly, those who are in the shadows of life the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
Well, think about our society in Australia and growing around the world. This week in the news, there were stories continuing regarding age care residents being literally locked because residents and staff have COVID. In some cases, apparently there’s no COVID, but they have been locking down anyway. So today I have two very impressive guests. First up, I have the privilege of talking with Professor David Flint, and this man is not only an expert, he’s a wonderful person. Professor David Flint order of Australian medal is an Emeritus Professor of Law.
He read law and economics at universities of Sydney, London, and Paris. After admission as a solicitor of the New South Wales Supreme Court in 1962, he practised as a solicitor for 10 years before moving into university, teaching, holding several academic posts before becoming professor of law at Sydney University of Technology in 1989. Professor Flint is the author of numerous publications. These include books and articles on topics such as the media, international economic law, Australia’s constitution.
And on Australia’s 1999 constitutional referendum. He was recognised with the order of world outstanding legal scholar. I’ll say that again, world outstanding legal scholar. The World Juris Association Barcelona in October 1991, he was made a member of the order of Australia in 1995. So David’s an expert in constitutional law, and I’m going to chat with him about Australia’s constitution. A Document that most people never give a second thought to. Over the last couple of years, as we have watched our freedoms being eroded references to the constitution have reached the level of popularity equivalent to the new bestseller.
My office is handing them out will very, very frequently. The constitution is sadly also being misused and misreferenced. And there’s a whole array of crazy stuff going on in the name of the constitution. David’s going to help me make sense of it all. Now importantly about David he’s one of the world’s most eminent legal scholars, and professors, in academics, but more importantly he’s one of the people. This man you’ll see him at social functions, gatherings with speakers speaking in the street, he speaks at rallies.
He is truly a wonderful human being. And to give you context, there are eight keys that I have for human progress. The first is freedom. The second is the law rule of law. And the third is the constitution to provide continuing ongoing governance and succession. The purpose of law is to protect people, not control people. So welcome David.
Well, it’s a pleasure having you here and we’ve met a few times in the past. What is it… David, before we start what is it… Tell me something you appreciate.
Well, listening to what you said. I do appreciate integrity, but I also appreciate common sense because common sense seems to be escaping so many in public life these days. And I suspect that goes back to belief, to strong belief in principles and a commitment by those in public life towards the national interest and not their personal interest. And I think there’s a lot of that missing today. And not only in Australia.
I think it’s rife in the Western world where there’s something afoot and it’s beyond our national borders, David, but we can see what’s going on. The governments and the parliaments, state and federal level. Their aim is not to control the virus because clearly they have failed at that. Other countries have succeeded in that and the recipes are simple, but the aim is not to control the virus, the aim is to control the people. And yet, we have a constitution to protect us. What is the constitution? What’s its purpose, role? Why is it significant and why is it failing?
Well, I think we have to remember that we were already self-governing before we entered into our constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, the British had given us self government. We were still part of the empire, but we were governing ourselves with our own system of government and they gave us the one that they knew that is the Westminster system in contrast to the American system. Instead of having an executive who’s independent of the other two powers, we have an executive which is controlled by the lower house, must be responsible to the house of representatives.
And ours is a collective executive, unlike the American, which is essentially an individual or president, ours is a collective like the British always responsible to the house of representatives and liable to lose office. If they lose a vote or lose the confidence of the house of representatives. Now that’s a good system. It works well. And it has been exported. I think between the American and the British, there’s not much difference except a difference way of dealing with the problem of government.
And the essential problem of government was set out by Lord Acton. A great English peer and historian who stated an essential principle. And that goes with the nature of man. And that is that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there’s a lesson in government, that’s the lesson because there’s Madison and all that. One of the great American founding fathers said, man is not perfect, and that’s why we need government.
But we can’t give if absolute power, there must be checks and balances. The Americans have it in their constitution, we’ve got it in ours. But what our constitution was essentially, was a document to bring six self-governing countries, states, there were still self-governing colonies to bring them together into one country that was its purpose.
There’s a constitutional system, and then there’s a federal constitution. The constitutional system is wider some of it is not as guaranteed as in the constitution. For a definition of constitution I think one of the very best definitions given by Berlin Broke in England a few centuries ago, in which he said a constitution is that body of laws, customs, and institutions by which the people have agreed to be governed. That assembly of laws, customs, and institutions by which the people have agreed to be governed. So it’s the people who are the essence of this. One of the really great things that happened when our six colonies decided to federate was that in the course of that, it was firstly, that was the process.
When we first had a convention appointed by the state parliament, it met together, they drew up a constitution. And then when it was sent back to the sixth state parliament, they all bickered among themselves, tried to do it again. And there was a conference held at a place called Corowa, which was on the border of New South Wales in Victoria. Important in those days, because we had tariffs between the colonies. If you wanted to transfer goods from one colony to the other, you had to pay a tax. And that of course was inimical to forming one country.
People met at Corowa was a private conference, a conference of people. And they came up with a solution to the problem of overcoming the politicians, and getting a constitution which could unite this country, the first continent of the world to be formed into one country. So they met in Corowa a man there called Sir John Quick, who’s not remember today, no school child wouldn’t know anything about him, but he came up with a proposal which was adopted by the conference.
And that was the future conventions should instead of being appointed by the state or colonial parliament, they should be elected directly by the people. The second part of his proposal was that when the convention had decided on a constitution, on a draught and sent it out for discussion by the people, by the six colonial parliament, it would then come back to the convention. They’d settle the final form, and then the way of getting it approved would be to have referendums in every colony.
So we had six referendums. New South Wales was proved to be a little difficult so it had to be done again, but eventually it was all passed. It was the people who agreed to the constitution and because they had that model in it, they put in a vital part of the constitution. In fact, the prime minister of South Australia as the premiers used to be called Charles Kingston, wanted to introduce into the constitution, not just having a referendum, not just require a referendum for changing the constitution, but also introducing more control over the politicians so that the people could in relation to any new legislation, stop that legislation. If they petitioned for a referendum and the people in that referendum decided they didn’t want that piece of legislation.
So he was going to introduce much more of what we call direct democracy. America, Australia, Britain, we’re all representative democracies. We elect people to represent us. And then the past laws on our behalf. In Switzerland, and in later years in parts of the United States and Canada, they’ve introduced more direct democracy. And what that means is that the politicians are much more accountable to the people than they are in a pure representative democracy. There’s a Sword of Damocles hanging over the head of every politician, which is the ideal. I know you won’t like that Malcolm.
You’d love it. Good. And it’s wonderful because you are a good politician, but there are not many who follow, who do what the people want. And if the politicians did something which the people don’t like, the idea is, well, they could by petition ask for a referendum to decide whether that should happen. To take it a step further they could even have a referendum in which they propose their own legislation, which then has to be adopted.
Now, some people say that won’t work, it works very well in Switzerland, every three months, every three months, they have a number of referendums, which the people propose and being a federation, they proposed at the central level, the federal level they’re also propose is at the state level, they call them cantons at the state level. But also at the municipal level, the local government level. And you don’t have to vote if you don’t want to.
It’s not compulsory as in Australia, but it does mean that everybody can have a say and the people can make decisions, which doesn’t prove the quality of government and certainly improves the quality of politicians. So we have a federal constitution, and those parts which essentially relate to creating a single country. Those can only be changed by the federal parliament proposing referendum and the people then agreeing to that. But not everything is covered, not everything in that constitutional system is covered by that.
And two things which are not covered in the constitutional system came out very much during the crisis over the pandemic. And this was that most of the decisions the politicians were made on the quite often on the spur of the moment too often for political reasons, rather than genuine health reasons. And they were made by way of regulations. That is by the executive government quite often just by a minister. And that was never envisaged to work that way.
And this was done without any parliamentary scrutiny. Even in colonial times we had two checks and balances on the making of regulations, which seemed to have been whittled away. One was that for important regulations to be made, these had to be done by the governor in the executive council. The governors in Australia is appointed by the crown on the recommendation of the local premier or the federal government. But the role of the governor or the governor general is as a sort of auditor to see all the [inaudible 00:17:33]in the two he’s crossed that all the proper details are there before regulation is adopted and it’s adopted properly.
Instead of, as for example in New South Wales, there’s a moment in New South Wales, one of the Australian states where during the pandemic, the premier that’s the first minister, the prime minister of the state. The premier decided suddenly that we should close down the building industry. It was closed down for two weeks until there was enormous amount of outrage over it. But that cost $2 billion put a lot of people out of work, stopped all building in the cities. And even the bureaucratic medical advisor said, “Well, I didn’t advise that, there were no health reasons for that. It was just that the premier thought this is a good idea at the time.”
Now that should have gone to the executive council, it should have been put to the governor who wouldn’t decide on the merits. The governor would just make sure that all the documents there, the argue were there. And most importantly, that this was in power because the regulation about closing the building industry was being made under health legislation. And surely there would have to be documents there supporting the case for some health reason to do that. But in addition to having the executive council, what we thought of, and this was in colonial times. Wat we thought was also an important check and balance was that the two houses of parliament and all states except Queensland in Australia have two houses and governments rarely control the upper house.
The two houses of a parliament exercised close scrutiny over regulations. They call for evidence. They call the minister before them to explain why this regulation was made. And they have a power of disallowance governments, as I say, rarely control the upper house. And if the cross bench and the opposition joined together, they can quite often get a majority. And a lot of the excesses might have been stopped in the upper house after a proper scrutiny. But those two things, both of those two things disappeared during this crisis. And quite often, the power to make regulations for health was abused.
In what lawyers would call misfeasance in public office. The trouble with the laws, you would know Malcolm is it takes a terribly long time for a case to come on. If you want to argue that the government has exceeded it’s powers in making regulation, it can take years. A few years ago, we had a ban on the export of live cattle to Indonesia. There were complaints that in some abattoirs in Indonesia, the cattle were being treated cruelly. So the minister adopted a regulation banning cattle to those abattoirs were ones where there might be inhumanity to the cattle. They weren’t being treated properly. But then a few days later, because of pressure from the left, from the ABC and other sources, the minister issued a second regulation.
And that was to totally ban all export of cattle from Australia. That was done suddenly, it ruined farmers, it ruined people working for farmers, it ruined people working the ports. People lost their jobs. Those people who suffered were indigenous people. We have a great concern in Australia about the indigenous people. They also suffered all done suddenly, and they all decided to assume about this. It took almost 10 years to get together the facts, get together a case and get a ruling by the judge who found that there was in fact misfeasance in public office that the minister went too far.
Now, damages are being worked up, but guess who pays the damages? Not the minister he’s in retirement. He’s got other jobs, no doubts, consultancies, and so on. He’s living well. The government’s living well. When the damages are worked out, it’ll be the poor old taxpayer who’ll pay the damages, but it took a long time for that case to come on.
David, can I interrupt you there for a minute, please? Well, actually we’re going to have to go to an ad break. This is wonderful. It is absolutely wonderful. What I would like to do before going to the ad break is to summarise for our listeners and then go to the ad break and come back and let you continue. And I’d like to get onto a couple of specific things after we come back. For now my summary is that you mentioned Madison and you mentioned that man is not perfect.
And Jefferson recognised the failings of humans. And he recognised we need to protect individuals in government, in Congress, in parliament, from those failings, because everyone has them. The second thing is that you have made it very, very clear. The core of the whole parliamentary process should be the people. You’ve also said that there is a need for a solution to overcoming the politicians. You’ve also said that it was the people who agreed to the constitution. You’ve also said that it’s the politicians who must be accountable to the parliament and that they aren’t.
You’ve also said… Implicitly, sorry, I’m going to extend what you said here. Leaders, in my opinion are servants. There is so much material you are raising that I would like to invite you back now for a second show sometime in the future, if you could do that. But leaders are servants. Whether it be in business, corporations, clubs, parliament, football clubs, the community leaders go and listen to people and then develop a vision. And then they have to convince people that their vision is the best solution. If the people believe it is they will follow.
The whole of this COVID nightmare, this mismanagement has been atrocious in Australia. The whole thing is about control of people not serving the people. This is not… And the leadership has not been about leadership, it has been about coercion and forcing sometimes brutally and inhuman immoral ways. You’ve mentioned that there’s a lack of parliamentary scrutiny. I couldn’t agree more. David, this is echoing throughout the west because the west is under people now who want to control the people and it’s happening in the west. And perhaps that’s for another discussion in the future.
But I do want to finish with the words of Jeannette Young. She was chief health officer for Queensland during most of this mismanagement. She admitted to her credit that as chief health officer, she was responsible only for people’s physical health. The premier is a really guilty one here in Queensland and right throughout the country, because the premier abdicated, she said, “It’s all about physical health.” Well, that is complete rubbish. It is about people’s economic health now and in the future. You mentioned the construction industry in Victoria being brought to its knees for no valid reason. She also ignored the premier up here, ignored people’s mental health. They did nothing to do that. And they made it far, far worse, all to control people.
And now you’ve told us how suing parliament to prove malfeasance takes a decade. And that’s because the damn parliamentarians are not doing their job. And you finished with one key statement. Always the people pay the price. And that’s what makes me sick because I’ve noticed this time and time and again. The government stuffs it up. The parliament fails to hold them accountable because they’re both working together and the people pay the price. So let’s go to an ad break now and come back and listen more to professor David Flint.
They outsource a lot of this what they call Turk work, believe it or not, Amazon coined that term called Turk work. So they farm all this stuff out to various places around the globe. Try to take advantage of the cheaper labour. No, in theory, there’s nothing wrong with that. Yes, they are creating jobs to some degree, but that’s not the point. The point is this, the point is that either algorithms or some completely unqualified person in a foreign country is actually, looking at the dashboard and deciding what gets banned, what doesn’t get banned. And most of the times the people making these, the human decisions on this, they have no idea what the issues are.
Using meth taught me everything about freedom. Only, not like you think it taught me how easy it is to lose your freedom. If you think meth is taking control of you, ask for help, you have the power to be truly free. I know I’m Yon and I’m free from meth.
If you or someone you know, is struggling with meth, call 1800-662 help for 24 hour free and confidential treatment referral. Learn more at samhsa.gov/meth.
That’s when Steve received a lung transplant made possible by an organ donor. Now Steve could do things he never imagined like climbing 94 floors to the top of a skyscraper.
What could you make possible as an organ organised tissue donor leave behind the gift of life. Go to organdonor.gov, US department of health and human services, health resources, and services administration.
Welcome back. And thank you for having me as a guest along with professor David Flint, as a guest, wherever you are. Professor Flint has just given us a very, very comprehensive, yet succinct summary of the constitution in Australia. Professor Flint, before we move on to you’ve identified some problems in our constitution before we move on to discussing some of this solutions, perhaps you could deal with some questions on something that is at the moment, occupying a lot of hype, particularly on social media, regarding people serving papers to public officials under the banner of the wait for this, the international court of common law in the high hope that we can restore our freedoms. What is the common law courts?
Well, the international court of common law or something I would suggest when people receive these documents, they should look up. They should Google it because I regret to say it doesn’t exist. The top court in Australia is the high court of Australia. There’s no such court above the high court of Australia. In fact, such a court does not exist and people are being misled by this. I can understand there’s a great need for change. And I don’t agree with all of the decisions of the high court. I disagree with a number of them, but one has to accept them because those are the decisions we have, but what we have to do rather than being way laid by something, which doesn’t exist.
These documents concoct a court which has no presence. And you’ll notice that quite often, there are not many names on it of judges whom you could check on as to whether they exist. These documents relate to something that somebody is creating for their own purposes. And I can understand people feeling upset and dissatisfied with the system. And there’s a very full reason for this as I’ve quite often said it’s hard to think of any one problem confronting Australia, probably many other countries, hard to think of any one problem confronting Australia, which is weren’t created by politicians has not been made significantly worse by them.
And we have to have a system which overcomes that. Australia is in a particularly poor position because in Australia, we have a situation where a rigorously controlled two-party system has been captured not by the members, but by cabals of power brokers who control pre-selections. Who are making quite often a lot of money out of government transactions. It is much more controlled in Australia, for example, than in the United Kingdom. Just take for example, question time in the house of representatives and compare it with question time in London, at Westminster.
At Westminster, it works properly, real questions asked. In Australia questions asked from the government side are written by the whips, the officials in the party, the ministers know of them in advance. And they say, “Thank you for the question without notice.” And they know it’s not a question without notice. It is a choreographed third rate theatre, unlike the situation, in west minister, where quite often you get it in the house changes among the party members who just cannot abide with what their government is doing for example-
In fact, members of the Labour party, the Liberal party, the National party have told me that question time is theatre. Much of parliament is theatre. And I sit back, I’ve never yelled out in parliament. And I sit back and I look at these monkeys and I think they are showing so much disrespect to the people, perhaps before we go on to the changes necessary. So what you’re saying about these, the international court of common law is that it’s not real. So who are the sheriffs? The judges that are mentioned are they self-appointed?
Well, do they exist? There are names there. Sometimes there are names. Sometimes there are no names, but do they exist? Are they real people? And what is the purpose of this? People are being misled, unfortunately. And the solution is very simple as to ascertain whether this is real. Do a Google search or take it to a lawyer and say, “Well, can this be progressed?” And the lawyer will now tell you, “Well, this is not a real document. Quite often as a nice seal on it, but it’s not a real document.” And I cannot understand the purpose of this. We have a problem, a serious problem as this is not the solution. I think that if I may go onto the solution, the solution is-
So someone’s put a lot of effort into creating these documents. What do you think they hope to achieve? And is it an act of desperation and can they get away with it?
Well, you’ve got the declarations that they found a number of governors and premiers and the prime minister guilty of treason. And others, guilty of misprision of treason that is of hiding treason or letting people get away with treason. Now that’s a very serious offence that would involve life imprisonment in Australia, along with the death penalty but’s very serious. These just do not exist. There have been no such trials. There are no such courts. It is being run for some purpose, perhaps it’s somebody using this to try and get votes, to get into parliament. We don’t know what it’s all about, but it is not true. A few years ago, there was a similar thing where, because the government is registered on the financial markets in New York and it has the state as a corporation.
This led to a great debate that the government had turned itself into a corporation. That the wrong seal was being used because the seal had changed. That the queen’s title had become the queen of Australia by legislation, which is perfectly proper. All of these were pointless, and they would’ve carried no water in any competent court. And it was very difficult to see for what purpose this was being undertaken? People have to do something about the serious problems that we just lived through, but they won’t do it by being sidetracked by this nonsense.
So these people are essentially misleading for potentially political purposes. Well as significantly they’re wasting politicians time. They’re wasting the public’s time. They’re wasting the people’s time. They’re diverting valuable attention, time, resources, and cruelly. They’re giving false hope.
And to me, I know that a simple definition of fraud is the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain. So if people are doing this for political purposes and to mislead people and to scrounge votes, then this is fraud. And that’s very, very hurtful fraud.
It is. It’s because people are being lulled into believing that there is a simple solution and there’s no such solution. This is fabricated. And as you say, this is a fraud and it should be ignored because it is such a fraud. And if the police are involved, they should be involved about the fraud. I noticed there’s a script there to go along, see your policeman, what to say about your police-
You take eight people along to the police and you say, “Go through the script.” Now this it is unfortunately nonsense. And understandably. If people fabricated a statement concerning medical treatment, well, I wouldn’t know what it was all about, and it could well be fraudulent. And that would be just as bad because this is fraudulent. It has no effect and it will cause no advantage and it won’t solve anything.
And as a member of the federal Senate. I agree completely with you that our country has been dragged down. To me there is not a problem with the constitution, but with the way the processes outlined in the constitution are not being followed bypassed. You’ve already talked to us about two of those. Most decisions are being made by politicians on the spur of the moment. Secondly, for the political benefit. Thirdly, by regulations at a time when the Senate doesn’t sit to disallow. So you’ve already mentioned those. You’re going to mention a few solutions now. Could you tell us the solutions because understanding is our constitution is a wonderful document, but it’s not perfect. What would you do to make it perfect?
Well, and if I may refer to it, I do have a petition on this. May I refer to the short title for that, that’s change.org/takebackyourcountry, change.org/takebackyourcountry. And firstly, people must be very careful in elections. The major political parties are under the control of cabals of power brokers, and people should be very careful how they vote. And in particular, which parties they give their first preferences to. And it would be a mistake I suspect to give your votes to the major parties, at least your first preference votes, who should be looking at the smaller parties who offer sensible solutions, that’s important.
And the second thing is we desperately need significant change. We do need to make the politicians accountable. And the best way to do that is to demand that a convention be elected by the ordinary people of Australia, whereby certain important changes could be made to the constitution. The most important change is to empower the people so that the politicians don’t have to face the people quite often in confected election. The elections are confected because the pre-selection are often prearranged and people by habits tend to vote for the major parties.
It’s not like the United States where there’s much greater flexibility in relation to choosing candidates. In Australia the choice of candidates is controlled very much. In America, particularly in the Republican party it’s a wonderful system. And that allowed Donald Trump to emerge as the dominant candidate in the last presidential election, because the control of the pre-selections is not in the party bosses because the selections are done not only by members of the party, but also registered supporters of the party. So you get a very democratic way of choosing candidates we don’t have them in Australia.
What we need in Australia is we need a convention like the choral war convention, which wrote and founded our country. We needed a convention, an elected convention for the people to review the constitution on the Corowa principles. It’s all set out in my proposal. This is very important because if we don’t make changes to the constitution to block the politicians, to make accountable 24/7. You know, Malcolm in most jobs as you would know, you’ve held jobs, you’ve had real life experience. Unlike most politicians, who’ve only had a political life.
You’ve had real life experience and you know as I know that in most jobs, in most businesses, you’re subject to accountability, you’re accountable to your customers, your clients, to your bosses and so on. You’re accountable, 24/7. The politicians aren’t, they’re only accountable in these elections. And when they confect the elections where the pre-selections are done by the party bosses, you’ve got a situation where the people’s voice is not there because of the habit of voting for one of the major parties like we desperately need change. And I’ve suggested in this petition, the changes which the convention should make to the constitution.
Yes. The five Rs. And very briefly I set them out in that petition. The five Rs are that at this convention, we’ve got a return to the constitution because we’ve got a way for the constitution. Our high courts, like the American Supreme courts has too often indulged itself with the judges deciding that the constitution means what they want it to mean. And we’ve seen several cases of that in America, where the Supreme court has written things to the constitution that are just not there. For example, a constitution right to abort.
There’s nothing in the constitution about that. They invented that. So firstly return to the constitution. Secondly, reduced Canberra’s powers and taxation because Canberra powers have been expanded beyond that in the constitution. The high court has given Canberra powers the people never agreed to. And I went through a number of powers. I was looking at them and I found sometimes the people had refused to give the federal government a power up to five times in referendums. They refused to give them that power up to five times.
And what’s happened is the high court has given them that power, which is completely wrong. Then we’ve got to reform the political parties. The political parties get enormous advantages, financial they get a money for each vote. They get exemptions from a number of pieces of legislation, electoral privacy and so on. In return for that, they should have to be open, transparent and democratic. They don’t want to be open, transparent, and democratic and run by the members. Then they wouldn’t get all of those advantages. The third R is reform the political parties. The fourth is recall elections. We’ve got to be able to give the people the power to create an election as they can in California.
We’ve got to have the same power in Australia, whereby petition there can be a vote on whether there should be an election. And finally referendums initiated by the people. The people should have the power to initiate referendums, to stop legislation, to initiate their own legislation, to initiate regulations if they wish. All sorts of things that the people should have the power to do. And we should give that power take it away from the politicians and give it to the people.
This is what we must do, and that can only be done through a convention. And the politicians will only allow a convention to be elected with appropriate powers. If there’s an enormous demand for that, they’re not going to give the people of Australia any extra power they’re going to hold onto it and abuse it and use it for their own benefit.
Well said, well said, that’s exactly what happens. The everyday Australian though provides a conundrum because David, the people are responsible, ultimately. Who we vote for determines the composition of our parliament. And that means that we ultimately responsible for the mess and which our country is now in. However, what you are saying is that the system has been corrupted and the people are being bypassed. You’ve said that with the people being hoodwinked and bypassed yet the yet… Sorry, the people are quite smart.
We as voters are quite smart, we’ve knocked the politicians back on their changes to parliament on the changes to the constitution. Yet we are bypassed by the high court. So I just realised we’ve only got seven minutes left and I’d like you to take it right to the end of the programme. So let me go through a summary for people now. And then I’ve got one question and then let you continue. Your petition is at change.org/takebackyourcountry. The major parties you said are under the control of cabals of power brokers. That is exactly what is happening.
I know from being inside parliament, that is ex exactly what’s happening. So therefore what I’ve been saying to people is, and pretty much your message, put the majors last. You want a constitutional convention, elected by the people for representatives attended should be reelected by the people. I’d like to get your views sometime about Trump. You mentioned the key in all of this accountability, and that’s been missing in federal parliament. Pauline Hanson. And I try to get accountability. We held them accountable verbally at times, and we get the message through.
Yet it is so difficult being the only two that are really doing that. We need to return to our constitution. It’s been bypassed, undermined, we need to get back to it. Professor David Flint provides solutions with the five Rs. Return the first of all return the government to the country. Return the government of the country to the principles set out in the constitution and agreed in our old constitutional system. Get back to our constitution, return. Number two, reduce Canberra’s powers and excessive taxation, which is part of the first return to our constitution. Now, number three, reform the political parties.
Number four, recall elections. Number five referendums that is comprehensive. David before getting onto whatever you want to close the show with for the next five minutes. Could you tell me effectively we are a Republic already? Aren’t we? I know we’re a constitutional monarchy and as a young man, I didn’t want the British to be running out country. I realised they don’t. And When Malcolm Turnbull’s dreadful referendum proposal was put up, I listened to three high court judges, including Harry Gibbs, who was at the time, the chief justice, I believe. And I immediately changed my mind and protected this constitution. And I have been ever since. We’re effectively a Republic. Are we not or?
Yes, we are. And even Britain in 1688, the Glorious Revolution that was referred by Montesquieu as a disguised Republic, because the idea of the king having great powers disappeared in 1688. But we have in Australia effectively, a crown Republic. If we’re anything, we’re a crown Republic. In fact, we are a constitutional Commonwealth. We chose the name Commonwealth, which is the English word for Republic. And if you look at the definition of Republic and the Corel dictionary, the Australian dictionary you’ll find that we fit in with easily most of the definitions of Republic and argument, certainly the other one.
But the point is that the we’ve chosen the Westminster system. There was an option at the time. Not many people know about this, an option at the time during the conventions, there was a proposal that the governor general be allowed to develop into effectively, a president elected by the people that was a proposal. And that was rejected strongly, not because of a debate over monarchy or Republic. It was because our founders decided that after experience the United States and in the United Kingdom, they said it’s better to have a collective executive rather than a one person executive, who’s very difficult to remove. That was their argument. And sometimes I think that’s probably better, but when Margaret Thatcher lost office, I thought, “Well, that wasn’t so good.”
When Donald Trump was elected, I thought it wonderful because I didn’t know anything about him. You asked me about him. I didn’t know anything about him, but when I looked at his Gettysburg address and I saw what he was going to do. I thought if he does a third of that, he will be wonderful compared with his predecessors back to Ronald Reagan. And I wrote two pieces for the Sydney daily Telegraph for, and received an email, for example, from a friend in Thailand saying, “Have you lost your marbles?” But I thought that Donald Trump would be a brilliant president. He turned out even better than I thought he was. And this is one of the problems we’ve got you.
You talked about the people voting the wrong way. Well, the problem is the press, the media, the media supposed to be there to exercise their vast powers and liberties to tell the truth, to inform the people. But we saw in the United States, the mainstream media joined up with those power who wanted to get rid of Trump, who that they, for example, they suppressed with the social media, all the information that people ought to have known about Biden and his role, the Biden family in their role in selling access and influence when he was vice president to foreign oligarchs. And that was an outrage and a new book has just come out by Peter Schweitzer, who points out that the Biden family has received 31 million.
Thank you very much. We have a lot of more territory to cover. This is Malcolm Roberts. I am staunchly pro-human and believe in the inherent goodness of human beings. We need to care for and love one another and remain proud of who we are. We’ll be back after news with another guest to apply what David is telling us.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/MalcolmRoberts-SHOW-min.jpg?fit=1920%2C1080&ssl=110801920Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-02-05 11:23:002022-02-24 10:09:33The Malcolm Roberts Show – Professor David Flint – 05 Feb 2022
Misinformation has been spreading that One Nation, Pauline Hanson and Malcolm Roberts support putting pensioners on the cashless debit card. This is categorically untrue. My position on this is very clear in the HANSARD.
At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate calls on the Government to provide a commitment that no recipient of the Age Pension or a Veteran or Service Pension will be placed on the Cashless Debit Card, with the exception of those who volunteer or are referred by the Family Responsibility Commission, child protection workers, social workers or the Alcohol Mandatory Treatment Tribunal in the Northern Territory”.
I voted YES for this amendment protecting pensioners and veterans which is shown in the official HANSARD division (voting) data, as did the Government, indicating that this commitment was accepted by them.
With a Federal Election approaching some disingenuous actors are trying to stir up fear based on lies about One Nation. Pensions are not welfare like JobSeeker (formerly the dole) payments are.
I do not support pensioners being put on the Cashless Debit Card. My voting record on this issue couldn’t be more clear. This scare campaign against pensioners appears to have been led by Labor and activist groups aligned with them. Early in 2022, QLD State Labor MP Brittany Lauga had to apologise for misleading Parliament when she said there was a plan to put all aged pensioners on the Cashless Debit Card.
One Nation supports a raise in the Aged Pension. While the major parties will continue to play politics with the Aged Pension only One Nation can be trusted to stick to its word.
Your attention as a member of the University of Queensland senate is drawn to the accompanying copy of my letter to the Prime Minister discussing matters of considerable risk and concern to students and staff for whom you provide governance. You are responsible.
Similar letters were sent to the state Premier and to state and federal health ministers.
As a board member you are a person conducting a business for the purposes of Workplace Health and Safety compliance. Given the complete lack of longitudinal studies, ineffectiveness in stopping transmission and serious documented conflicts of interest and adverse events in relation to the COVID vaccines, your university’s vaccine mandate places UQ and you, as a member of the Senate, in a challenging position.
I wonder if you have been afforded independent or critical advice on the risks of the university’s policy of banning students and staff from campus based on Covid-injection status?
Has the UQ Risk Assessment and Management Plan identified that mandating vaccination is necessary and there are absolutely no alternatives to reducing the spread of COVID? How could it be necessary when COVID vaccines do not stop the transmission of COVID? Why is a Rapid Antigen Testing regime not an acceptable alternative to reduce the spread of COVID, given that a vaccinated person with a positive test result can still transmit COVID, presenting a bigger transmission risk than an unvaccinated person with a negative test result?
These are questions that UQ has not adequately answered and which you must answer to satisfy your duty of care.
A finding of misconduct on some students can mean they will effectively never be able to pursue a career in their chosen field. What justification is there for such a heavy-handed punishment for the supposed behaviour of a student or teacher entering land and buildings which taxpayers have funded for the purpose of providing a tertiary education?
Having seen one of the surveys and the Vice-Chancellor’s letter dated 20 December 2021 to students, I am deeply concerned with the process that led to an apparent 80+% implied “acceptance” of these mandates. The process, pressure and leading questions that the university applied to achieve this are a betrayal of critical thinking and an excursion down the slippery path of propaganda. [1]
It seems that feelings and appeals to ‘safety’ rooted in media and political statements have replaced health data, facts and objectivity. Your students and staff have raised with me their fear that their university is destroying the original aim of university as a place for rigorous thinking, and honest and vigorous debate.
The strongest indicators of COVID mortality rate appear to be old age and pre-existing co-morbidity conditions, not vaccine status. Perusal of Queensland’s reported COVID deaths confirms this. Despite a vaccination rate over 90%, transmission is occurring at the highest rate ever, with Israeli studies suggesting that even four injections are not enough to stop the Omicron variant.
Specifically, there is a distinct lack of COVID deaths among young people of tertiary student age and almost all of the few deaths in that age group are reportedly due to underlying health factors.
I know that several senior members of your university’s medical faculty are aware of significant concerns among the university community, at all levels, about the university’s mandatory vaccination policy.
Please refer to the attachment containing remarks and questions associated with the Vice Chancellor’s letter of 20 December 2021, the Risk Assessment and Management Plan and the Policy 2.60.09 COVID-19 Vaccination.
I ask, what have you done to satisfy yourself that the university’s vaccine mandates are soundly based on independent and objective empirical scientific evidence and that the mandates respect the aim of universities to be places of independent thought and critical analysis?
Our political leaders now tell us every day that we need to simply live with COVID, signalling that we are no longer in an emergency requiring declarations and mandates such as the punitive mandate that the university is enforcing.
On behalf of my constituents among the university’s students and staff, I ask that you please provide your students and staff with the respect and courtesy of a reasoned and proportionate policy that appropriately and accurately reflects quantified age-appropriate risks to students and to staff.
In view of the risk of serious adverse health effects, including death from the COVID injections, personal informed choice must be returned to students in place of your imposed risks. This is particularly important because COVID injections are publicly acknowledged among health professionals to not offer protection from transmission to those around them on campus.
It is a hallmark of our human civilisation’s values, and notably of our health system, that wherever there is risk, there must be choice.
In regard to the COVID injections, the federal Minister for Health, Mr Greg Hunt stated, quote: “The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial.” [2] The COVID injections have been granted provisional approval based on a literature review of overseas data that pharmaceutical companies provided. Australian health authorities have done no independent testing. Yet on that basis the University under your governance is mandating a medical procedure with no longitudinal studies and forcing students and staff to participate in a trial – against their will. You are forcing them to inject themselves with something for which nobody knows the long-term effects. It is essentially experimental.
Instead of being punished and exiled from your community, students who choose to analyse their individual risk profile and make their own choice should be respected and their individual autonomy and critical thinking encouraged. I implore you to take action to oppose and dismantle the vaccine mandate at UQ and to respect individual autonomy as part of the critical thinking process necessary to every university in Australia.
There are alternatives that enable students and staff alike to be safe and to complete their studies, research and work.
Last year the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies) Bill was passed. Some have said it will allow foreign tanks to roll down Australian streets and be immune to liability. This is simply untrue. When reading all of the bill, we see that this is more about fighting bushfires than foreign troops and they DO NOT get immunity for any act of aggression against Australians.
Section 123AA (1) of the Bill states – a “protected person” is “not subject to any liability (whether civil or criminal) in respect of anything the protected person does or omits to do, in good faith, in the performance or purported performance of the protected person’s duties”.
This operates as a limitation on the immunity. Someone will only have immunity where they are, in good faith, carrying out their duties to respond to the emergency (e.g. acting in good faith to conduct back-burning to help fight a bushfire). If someone were to act in bad faith in the performance of their duties to respond to the emergency (e.g. purposely harm or assault an Australian) the immunity would not apply and they would be liable, either criminally, civilly or both.
Transcript
My office has received many questions regarding the Defence Legislation Amendment Enhancement of Defence Force Response to Emergencies Bill 2020. It passed both houses of federal Parliament on the 8th of December, 2020. As Senators, we’re obliged to fully understand all legislation before taking a position and voting. And we cannot just look at one clause at a time in isolation. We need to scrutinise all clauses together because some clauses may modify other clauses. This is particularly relevant to this legislation.
The banter on social media around the Foreign Trips Bill is an excellent example. The most common yet false claim is that this bill allows the government to bring foreign armies into Australian soil to control Australians with complete immunity from criminal or civil liability. This is completely false. There is no cause for alarm. Let me give you some background. During 2019, 2020, eight foreign nations provided assistance to Australia to help fight the bush fires.
You may remember the US Coast Guard came out here and were water bombing the bush fires. Tragically, four crew members lost their lives when their water bombing plane crashed. Under the existing laws, if the plane crash damaged Australian property, or even worse, took a life on the ground, the pilots would have been liable for that damage, if they survived. Or if they died, then their estates would have been liable for that damage.
We don’t believe this is reasonable, as these people are over here helping save Australian lives and property, It’s only fair they have the same level of indemnity that Australian troops and emergency service personnel have when they’re fighting natural disasters. It’s worth remembering that the Commonwealth government, has always had the ability to call on Australian defence forces and foreign personnel to help in emergencies when quote, “immediate action is necessary to save human life or alleviate suffering, prevent extensive loss of animal life, prevent widespread spread loss or damage to property or to prevent environmental damage and when state or territory resources are not adequate,” end of quote.
The immunity granted to foreign troops is only given in relation to the conduct of the individuals in the performance of their official duties, connected with the natural disaster emergency. What that means is they can’t grab a truck, not belonging to them or back burn someone’s property to carry out their duties or to protect the greater good.
Therefore, quote, “immunity only applies when the duties are carried out to assist either the ADF or Defence Department in preparing for, or responding to a natural disaster or other emergency. Should force, coercive powers or a criminal offence occur against anyone in our Australian community, the foreign troops lose this indemnity immediately, as would our own troops. Those people then are held accountable under our existing laws. Only Australian Defence Force members and foreign personnel, who act in good faith in the course of their duties are offered this immunity. Social media speculation about this bill is false.
It needlessly worries people for no reason. It’s important for all people to diligently research legislation, to ensure messages are accurate. Remember, Pauline and I have consistently called out corrupt, unelected, overseas organisations, interfering with Australia and with our policies. I will never support anything that’s not in the best interest of Australians. You can be absolutely reassured that I would never support a bill that would let foreign armies onto Australian soil to control Australians and with complete immunity from criminal or civil liability.
There are times when we need international support to battle natural disasters and those serving troops, performing their duty, deserve the same immunity as our own troops and emergency services.
With government continually engaged in corrupt behaviour, there is a lot of speculation about why they would do it. Some of the more outlandish claims centre on Australia being or being owned by a corporation itself and the Governor General being invalid. Hopefully I can explain some of the detail behind this.
Transcript
My office deals with many telephone calls and emails on a whole range of topics. There are a few topics that keep popping up and this video is about responding to the many misconceptions around Australia being a corporation, the use of Australian Business Numbers, the relationship between Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive and the Great Seal of Australia. There are many social media posts stating that Australia is owned by one or more corporations, or that Australia is a corporation. One such company that many people mistakenly think owns Australia is Pecker Maroo Proprietary Limited. This is not true.
Pecker Maroo owns some cleverly crafted business names that attempt to mimic state and government departments. For example, Pecker Maroo has registered the name Office of Fair Trading New South Wales, whereas the actual government entity is called New South Wales Fair Trading. Simply stated, some businesses operate by buying and selling registered trading names with a view to making a profit. One such company that does this is Pecker Maroo. Australia is not owned by any corporations and is not a corporation. Another commonly asked question is around the use of Australian Business Numbers, ABN’s. The Australian government uses a number of registered business names in order to enter into contracts and agreements with other businesses and countries. This is common international practise and is not unusual. Those government business names and companies are registered in the necessary registers, including foreign registers.
The relationship between the Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive can be confusing. Australia is a sovereign country and its governance consists of three arms: the Parliament, the Judiciary and the Executive. Australia is also a Constitutional Monarchy, which means the Queen is the Head of State of Australia. Our government relies on the terms of the Australian Constitution, which came into effect upon Federation in 1901. The Parliament is where the laws are made and gathering assent from the Queen or her representatives is part of the parliamentary process of making an Act of Parliament.
The Judiciary comprises the judges within the court system and the courts apply and interpret the law that Parliament makes. The Executive comprises all the public service, including the police force, where our laws are administered. The police, for example, are public servants working for either a State or the Commonwealth government. The current Great Seal of Australia was issued under Royal Warrant by Her Majesty the Queen on 19 October 1973, to be used by the Governor-General and the Queen as Queen of Australia. A Great Seal is a formal, traditional means of certifying a document. The change to the seal in 1973 happened because the Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 changed the previous title of the Queen as set out in the Royal Style and Titles Act 1953. The changes in 1973 essentially removed the words “United Kingdom” and word “Defender of the Faith” from the style and titles, and it was considered appropriate that the Great Seal also reflect those changes.
The Royal Style and Titles Act 1953 states: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of the God of the United Kingdom. Australia and her other Realms and Territories Queen. Head of the Commonwealth. Defender of the Faith. The Royal Style and Titles Act 1973 states it most succinctly: Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of the God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth. At times there is a great deal of chatter and argument about the current Great Seal of Australia not being the true Great Seal, or that the incorrect Seal has been used. These arguments have been rejected by the courts. It appears that some parties, who perhaps have received unfavourable outcomes from various laws or decisions, are attempting to discredit and invalidate the laws, the judges, governor generals or elected governments, that operate under the Great Seal of Australia. These claims are baseless and I can assure you that the current Great Seal of Australia is the true Great Seal.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/k1HfleyFgDM/0.jpg90120Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-12-31 09:00:002021-12-22 15:11:41Corporations, Pecker Maroo and the Seal
