Immigration Levels Still Too High

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

/8 Comments/by

One Nation Opposes Labor’s New Car Tax

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

/7 Comments/by

ACCC Needs More Power Against Foreign Predatory Billionaires

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We want both. 

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We did. 

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes, we are. 

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

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

CHAIR: This is your last question. 

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by

Encouraging Competition Among Unions Will Protect Workers

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/3 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

/3 Comments/by

Traitor Former Politician MAY Still Have Access to Parliament House

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting— 

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

An honourable senator: Yes. 

Senator Gallagher: Yes, it is. 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

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

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

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

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

Media Release

Media-Release-1Download
/37 Comments/by

Truth Wins: Vaccine Mandates Were Unlawful

,

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

/by

Government Doxxing Australian Companies Over Gender Pay

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/2 Comments/by

Is ACMA Biased Towards the Left?

,

During recent Senate Estimates I checked with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) as to why it did not publicise complaints about the ABC, yet pushed out press releases for similar breaches by the Sky Network.

I also inquired into the Optus outage last year to see whether there is any new information around the failure of emergency 000 calls and whether Starlink (high speed satellite internet) was being considered as a backup in the future.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. On 26 April 2023, you issued a press release about the Sky News program Outsiders for breaches of industry codes. On 20 March 2023, in relation to the ABC, in response to Senator Henderson, you agreed that the ABC breached the codes during their coverage of a community meeting in Alice Springs. You endorsed the ABC Ombudsman’s finding that there were breaches of the code yet published no press release about that, from what we can see. Why does a conservative news service cop a full press release when you conclude they’ve breached the code but when the ABC breaches a code there’s barely a peep from you publicly? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I might need to refer to my colleagues for the details of that circumstance. 

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I would have to say that we put out media releases for pretty much every breach that we look at under the Broadcasting Services Act, be it a national or a commercial broadcaster. I can take it on notice. There are certainly circumstances in the last year where we have put out media releases on the ABC. So it is not our practice to discriminate between types of broadcasters. We like to make transparent our decisions about breaches across the board. I might just see whether or not my colleagues have anything to add. 

Ms Chapman: In the instance of the ABC Alice Springs issue, we didn’t undertake a full formal investigation. We fully considered the matter. We looked at the content. We considered the report by the ombudsman at the time. We didn’t find a formal breach in that instance. That was on the basis that the ABC themselves had found a breach. The ABC themselves conceded that there were issues with the broadcast and that there was considerablemedia attention at the time which highlighted the findings that the ABC made. So we didn’t put out a press release because we didn’t make a formal finding. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Ms O’Loughlin: I will add to that. I just found something in my notes. For example, from the investigation we did on the ABC’s Four Corners program called The Big Lie, we did a media release for that on 21 December 2022 because we had found breach findings in that program. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I accept your answer from before. I refer to your letter, Ms O’Loughlin, to Senator Henderson on 20 March that is file reference BM11801. You mentioned in the second last paragraph the matter conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter, including any changes to its editorial processes. Did the ABC advise of any changes to its editorial processes? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I don’t have the letter in front of me. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll read it. 

Ms Chapman: We did seek a response from the ABC, but I think we need to take on notice whether we received a response. 

Senator ROBERTS: I will read the second last paragraph. However, the ACMA has requested that the ABC keep it informed about the outcome of any further internal investigation conducted by the ABC about the circumstances attaching to this matter (including any changes to its editorial processes) and any additional steps that may be taken by the ABC as a result. 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, we will take that on notice for you. I don’t have that in my pack. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What does it do to the trust of a media company when it has obvious bias? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Senator, I don’t think that’s something on which I can express an opinion. I do think in our experiences broadcasters take very seriously their obligations under the various regulatory codes that they are subjected to, which do come to, in most cases, provisions around bias, impartiality and factual accuracy. 

Senator ROBERTS: It would erode trust if it is done often? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That would probably be a matter for the broadcasters to comment on, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will ask some questions here briefly. If they’ve been covered, just tell me so. I’ve checked with Senator Cadell. He hasn’t covered this one. Could you briefly explain the obligation for carriers to allow network switching for Triple Zero calls and why this didn’t happen during the Optus outage? The second part you’ve already discussed at length, so I’m not interested in that. Could you please explain the obligation? 

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly, Senator. The obligation is usually referred to as the mobile camp-on provisions. That is a globally standardised arrangement. Where emergency call services can’t be delivered by a particular carrier for a particular reason, those networks allow those calls to camp on to their network for them to be delivered to the emergency call service. That’s what— 

Senator ROBERTS: Free automatic switching? 

Ms O’Loughlin: So it’s an automatic transfer of those particular calls going to emergency call services to camp on to another network. If I have that incorrect, my colleague will let me know. 

Senator ROBERTS: She’s got it. Thank you. Are there any fines applicable for carriers failing to allow switching or failing to make switching work for Triple Zero calls? Would Optus be facing that? 

Ms O’Loughlin: I think part of what we’ll be looking at in our investigation is what was the reason, if in fact that was the reason, some emergency calls didn’t get through. As I mentioned earlier, it’s still not very clear. We’re still in information gathering mode about why that didn’t work. I will ask Mr Fenton to go over some of the potential regulatory responses we may have, if we do, in fact, find any breaches. But it is early days. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Mr Fenton: I will clarify again that these are enforcement options available to the ACMA if it does find breaches of the determination in question—the emergency call determination. The ACMA can issue a formal warning. It can issue a remedial direction to take action to comply. It can accept a court enforceable undertaking. There are infringement penalties available currently set at $18,780 per contravention. It is open to the ACMA to apply to the Federal Court for penalties as well. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is an interesting quirk. Does per contravention mean each phone call?  

Mr Fenton: It would depend on the construct of the particular obligation in question. But it can apply to a specific contravention. Once again, it comes back to the actual structure. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand. Thank you. Finally, it strikes me that there is the Starlink service, which covers almost everywhere in Australia. It can access the sky, and that’s pretty much everywhere. Would it be a good back-up for text messages and limited voice conversations and emergency calls to fit into that network? 

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s a really interesting question. I think there’s a lot of interest in Starlink and, indeed, other satellite services, such as low earth orbit satellite services, that may be able to provide direct to handset text or, indeed, calls which are now starting to emerge. There is the potential for that to really benefit particularly people in regional or remote areas or areas of Australia that have trouble getting signals. I think the department is commencing to look at that in more depth to see what that potential is. There has been quite a lot of strong interest internationally as well, as you can imagine, from particularly countries who have the same sort of issues we have in trying to get signals into various areas. The United States recently, from my reading, had come to the conclusion that technology was just not quite mature enough at the moment to be a backstop for emergency calls but could be in the future. I think the department is going to be looking at whether that is a potential in the future. We think that’s a really exciting development in the satellite space. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate the direct answers. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor Dashes Hopes for Murray Darling Basin Community

,

The Albanese Labor Government are shifting the goalposts on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. There’s only 42GL left to complete the water acquisitions across the whole basin, so the pain is almost over and there’s still the 450GL of water for South Australia, which means this doesn’t need to be taken from irrigators. And there’s another 3 years to find that water through capital works.

In this Estimates session I asked whether these last few measures would be the end of the nightmare for Basin communities. I was expecting a yes – instead I got a no.

It seems the bureaucracy and the Albanese Government are hell bent on taking everything for themselves, forcing even more farmers off their land. Their answer certainly sounds like they intend to demand more water for the environment when the plan ends in a few years, starting the nightmare over again.

Landholders, including farmers, just want to know what the government is planning so they can adjust. Clearly the Government does not understand farming to know this, or simply don’t care.

The science underpinning the scheme is flawed, which is unsustainable, hurts farmers, fibre producers and the environment.

One Nation would complete the remainder of this plan and then call it done. No more water to be taken off the farmers. We would also sell the 78GL of water over-purchased by the department back to the farmers, to grow food and fibre to feed and to clothe the world.

Anything else is sabotaging the bush. #nofarmersnofood

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS:  With all the numbers flying around, I feel confused sometimes; things don’t seem to change. I would like some clarification. Talk of water buybacks created a lot of anger when the Albanese government came to power. That talk seems to have gone quiet. There was a plan to buy back 44.3 gigalitres immediately, a threat to use buybacks to get another figure to complete the plan—I will raise that in a minute. How much has been purchased so far? Your website is still saying that you need another 38 gigalitres, yet we heard the tender was oversubscribed.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the open tender, we were seeking 44.3 gigalitres for the Bridging the Gap component. I want to be specific here; that was for Bridging the Gap. It was oversubscribed. We had 250 tender responses, which accounted to 90.34 gigalitres in terms of across the catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So double?  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes, just over double. These Bridging the Gap requirements are catchment specific. There is a certain amount of water to be recovered in a certain catchment. It was oversubscribed in total, but specifically we are purchasing to an amount in a particular catchment. It also has to represent the right type of water, and value for money, before we proceed. From that 44.3 gigalitre tender we have agreed to purchase 26.25 gigalitres towards that target. We will, as a result of that, complete the requirements in three of those specific catchments.  

Senator ROBERTS:  So you still have the fourth catchment to do?  

Ms O’Connell:  There are six catchments in total.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You still have three of the six to do.  

Ms O’Connell:  That’s right; to complete the recovery.  

Mr Southwell:  That is correct. There are three catchments that we expect to recover through this tender, subject to all contracts being finalised, and three to go. I might take this opportunity to give an overview of where we are in the process. The tender sought to recover 44.3 gigalitres. When all of those contracts are signed, we expect to have spent around $205 million. Contracts are still being signed. That is important to note in terms of where we are up to. A table on our website provides an outline of each catchment, the volumes we expect to have recovered and the volumes that remain.  

Senator Davey:  That table was only uploaded today.  

Mr Southwell:  It was uploaded yesterday, I think, Senator.  

Senator Davey:  Late yesterday.  

Mr Southwell:  I understood it was later than 9 am yesterday morning.  

Senator ROBERTS:  You will still buy the 90 gigalitres that came in as tenders?  

Mr Southwell:  No.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Just the 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  That tender process was specifically for Bridging the Gap, and the volumes that we are purchasing are for Bridging the Gap.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That is 26.25?  

Mr Southwell:  Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I note that the Restoring our Rivers Framework, currently under consultation, is for the full 450 gigalitres South Australian flow; your website says 424. Can I have this confirmed: this is the same bucket of water, whether it is 424 or 450—not two buckets?  

Ms O’Connell:  No, there are not two buckets. The requirement is 450 gigalitres, of which 26 gigalitres is contracted, delivered or underway. The remaining component is 424. So it is one lot of 450, with 26 already recovered.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Senator Hanson-Young, in an interview with the ABC last November, said there was a further 300 gigalitres of water to be found to complete the plan, not 38 gigalitres. This was not including the 450 gigalitres. Is that statement correct? If so, can you explain how that figure is arrived at?  

Ms O’Connell:  We would have to see what exactly she was referring to and get that quoted number.  

Chair:  Could you table it? Do you have it with you?  

Senator ROBERTS:  I don’t have it with me, no.  

Mr Fredericks:  We will take that on notice.  

Ms O’Connell:  For us to be able to answer that, would you be able to provide the document as well, so we can make sure we are referring to the right thing?  

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes. By our calculations, if you get the remaining 38 gigalitres on buybacks, you will also have 78 gigalitres of excess purchases in some bailees. Will you sell this back to the farmers?  

Ms O’Connell:  On Bridging the Gap, which is what we have been talking about, it is a catchment-specific amount that we need to recover. We don’t intend to buy more than what is needed. There is a minor amount of incidental overrecovery that happens when you buy water, but that is minor and incidental. Our intention is to bridge the gap through the 44.3 gigalitres.  

Ms Connell:  In relation to the 78 gigalitres of overrecovery you referred to, there are two issues to highlight. The number of overrecoveries won’t be confirmed until New South Wales water resource plans are accredited. A significant proportion of that figure relates to overrecoveries in New South Wales. The other thing to keep in mind is that water is currently held by the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder and used at the moment.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, once you get that figure, the 38, and the 450, minus what is underway now, is it done? Is there anything else? Can what remains of farming in the Murray Darling Basin get on with growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world, without this nightmare of the plan hanging over farmers? Is that the end of it?  

Senator McAllister:  I think the best way to describe the government’s intentions is to implement the plan in full. That was the purpose of the legislation that went through the parliament. As you have observed, there is substantial work to do. That work includes the recovery associated with Bridging the Gap, which the officials have been talking about. It also includes establishment of the framework for reaching the 450-gigalitre target. The government is presently consulting on that framework. That document is in the public domain and we are seeking public comment about that approach. There are other elements of the work associated with completing the plan; the officials can talk you through that. Rather than accepting your summary of the work before us, I would prefer to point to the way the government characterises the work that is underway.  

Senator ROBERTS:  What amounts are required to finish the plan? That is what I heard you say: when the plan is finished, that is it—no more buybacks.  

Ms Connell:  In the first instance, the plan doesn’t finish. It is an ongoing instrument, subject to a review by the Murray Darling Basin Authority in 2026. That will be the first review of the Basin Plan. Under the current Basin Plan, there are two key targets.  

Senator ROBERTS:  That means that the plan could change.  

Chair:  Senator ROBERTS, the river is a living thing. The reason why we ended up with the Murray Darling Basin Plan in the first place was over-extraction and the utilisation of the river.  

Senator Davey:  Happy to replace the chair to answer questions from the committee. Thank you, Chair.  

Chair:  Thank you, Senator Davey. Minister, maybe you could help us out here. It is a point of clarification that is worth making.  

Senator McAllister:  I am happy for officials to talk through the approach. The main point is that the government’s commitment is to implement the Basin Plan in full. Under the previous government, insufficient progress was made on some important initiatives. Progress basically stalled for an entire decade. We talked about this a lot during the committee stage of the Senate debate. You are aware of the government’s perspective on this. It is for that reason that we had to change the legislation. We are presently consulting on the key initiatives that are underway. The officials can talk you through all of the important next steps.  

Ms O’Connell:  In terms of the Basin Plan, it is about sustainable river systems long-term management. There are two major components in the plan to be fulfilled that need to be delivered. We have been talking about Bridging the Gap. The remainder is the 450 gigalitres. There are new legislative time frames for delivering those that provide more time, more options, greater flexibility and greater accountability to be able to deliver on those targets. Beyond that, there is a review role for the Murray-Darling Basin Authority in terms of the long-term sustainability and sustainable management of our river systems. That review is not until 2026, which would foreshadow what might be required in the longer-term future.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Let me understand that, Ms O’Connell. The plan as it is—as we have just been told, it’s a living document and a living plan and it could change—the 450 and the 38, that’s it; but it could change in 2026 when the review is done. Because it is a living plan, the plan could grow another arm and leg.  

Ms O’Connell:  Yes.  

Mr Fredericks:  I don’t think we can pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  People’s livelihoods are at stake, Mr Fredericks.  

Mr Fredericks:  I understand that fully. There is a review. It is in 2026. It will be very well conducted by the MDBA. I don’t think that, sitting here in 2024, we, as departmental officials, can really pre-empt that review.  

Senator ROBERTS:  I am thinking of farmers in southern Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia who are wondering whether or not to invest in their future and the future of their communities. Businesses in many rural communities have gone downhill, in large part due to the Water Act and the plan. These people want to know that they’ve got something more than two years. They just want to know: is this the end?  

Senator McAllister:  Can I make this point, Senator Roberts? The origin of the plan lay in a recognition across the country that we had overallocated the Murray-Darling Basin system. That had very significant consequences for basin communities. It had very significant consequences for the food and fibre producers in the Murray-Darling Basin, who depend on reliable access to water. It had consequences, of course, for the natural systems in the Murray-Darling Basin, which were under enormous pressure. It’s a while back now, but it really came to a head in the millennium drought. We saw some very severe impacts across the basin at that time. There was a recognition across the country, including within the basin, that we couldn’t go on in this way and that the overallocation needed to be addressed. That is the origin of the plan.  

It matters to farmers and food and fibre producers that these issues are tackled and addressed because there is an interrelationship between the access to water by communities, the access to water by farmers, the availability of water for environmental purposes and, increasingly, the recognition that cultural water matters to First Nations people as well.  

All of these things are interrelated and, at their heart, the success of all of those stakeholders, and the interests of all of those stakeholders, lies in having a healthy, working river that is being appropriately managed. Those are the underlying ideas that drive our government’s commitment to implementing the Basin Plan.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Minister, while we do argue about the science underpinning the Basin Plan, let’s set that aside. Modern civilisation cannot exist without a healthy environment. We get that. A healthy environment cannot be achieved without modern civilisation because it reduces the pressure on the environment. Landholders are the number one protectors of the environment—that means farmers. At the moment, farmers and small businesses in rural communities see a shifting of the goalposts repeatedly. That’s what’s bothering them. They get the point about the need to protect the environment. They’re tired of having the goalposts shifted on them. That’s why my question was: is this the end of it? So far, what we’ve got is: ‘No, it’s not. In 2026 we’ll have a review and see what happens.’ 

Senator McAllister:  The plan has been in place for a very long time, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS:  Since 2007.  

Senator McAllister:  Our party has been very consistent in supporting the implementation of that plan. Our view is that the plan should be implemented. For much of that period, that was the stated position of the coalition parties as well. Unfortunately, in the final years of the last government—in fact, really across the period of the last government—the Liberal and National parties undermined and sabotaged the plan’s implementation.  

Senator Davey interjecting— 

Senator McAllister:  That has caused a very significant problem.  

Chair:  That is the minister’s view. She is entitled to answer the question as she sees fit.  

Senator Davey:  I dispute that. The terminology ‘sabotaged’ is absolutely— 

Senator McAllister:  Senator, I think you said— 

Chair:  The minister will finish her— 

Senator Davey:  We might have had a different perspective on how to implement the plan.  

Chair:  Senator Davey, the minister will finish her answer and then you will have a turn.  

Senator McAllister:  I think the core facts are before us. In nine years, that government delivered just two of the 450 gigalitres—two gigalitres, under the 450-gigalitre target— 

Senator Davey:  We were focused on the environment and a sustainable level— 

Chair:  Senator Davey! 

Senator McAllister:  which would have meant that the plan would have been completed at some time around the year 4000. Steps needed to be taken to get the plan on track. We are taking those steps. I think the government’s priorities in terms of implementation are very clear. As I’ve indicated a couple of times now, we’re engaged in consultation with the community about the practical ways that we’re going to take the next steps together. 

/1 Comment/by