In Senate Estimates, I questioned ASIC over the case of Roxanne Mysko, a whistleblower who spoke up about major safety failings in the trucking industry, only to be left unprotected.
Why hasn’t ASIC used the Corporations Act to protect her?
Why was the matter referred elsewhere when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?
Will ASIC reopen case CAS-94551 and prosecute for whistleblower retaliation?
ASIC couldn’t, or wouldn’t answer, taking every question on notice. It’s clear that right now, Australian whistleblowers are standing alone. I won’t stop pushing until that changes.
If our regulators won’t act, “protections” are just words on a page. We need real accountability for those who risk everything to keep us safe.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I hope that this session is a bit longer than the previous one. Are you aware of Ms Roxanne Mysko?
Ms Court: I will try to be. The name is vaguely familiar but—
Senator ROBERTS: Roxanne Mysko?
Ms Court: Is there a company that Ms Mysko is associated with that you could help me with?
Senator ROBERTS: I think she’s a whistleblower. Yes, she’s a whistleblower to you guys.
Ms Court: If that’s the case, I won’t be able to speak about anything to do with that. But just let me check with Mr Savundra, just to make sure, to see if we have anything that we can assist you with here.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ll ask the question. You can decide. Ms Roxanne Mysko is an honest person who discovered that there were significant failings of safety in the trucking industry. She found that international corporations, including Santos and Ensign, had contracted ECS Project Logistics as freight logistics. ECS and approximately 70 contractors operated with zero safety audits, fatigue controls and licence and registration checks done from 2007 to 2020. Why did ASIC fail to enforce the Corporations Act whistleblower protections?
Ms Court: I don’t have any information about that with me, I’m afraid.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice?
Ms Court: Of course, I’ll take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did ASIC refer whistleblower matters to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?
Ms Court: I’ll have to take that on notice as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIC reopen CAS-94551 and prosecute whistleblower retaliation, identified breaches and victimisation by Santos, Ensign and ECS under Part 9.4AAA?
Ms Court: I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to, but, again, I’m happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: These disclosures by Ms Mysko revealed grave safety failings in the heavy vehicle industry. These safety issues are of significant concern for all road users. Ms Mysko has suffered terribly at the hands of big corporations and those public servants who have not done their jobs. Minister, when will this government get serious about protecting genuine whistleblowers and stop them from being victimised by wrongdoers?
Senator Ayres: I have no knowledge of the matters that you raise. I understand you’ve asked ASIC questions about how they may or may not have dealt with this, and they’ve taken it on notice. In terms of the extent to which—you could make an argument that their responsibilities touch on this matter. But I have no knowledge of this set of circumstances, and I can’t help you.
Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible for you to comment once we get the answers from ASIC?
Senator Ayres: If there’s anything that we can help you with, we will.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know when this government will protect whistleblowers. That’s all.
Senator Ayres: That’s a broader policy question. I’m not sure that ASIC’s in a position to respond to it.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m asking you for that.
Senator Ayres: The broad approach that the government’s taken in relation to whistleblower protections is probably a matter for the Attorney-General. I’m here representing the Treasurer, and I’m not sure that I’m in a position to provide you with much information at all about this issue, as important as it is, both broadly and in relation to the person who you’ve referred to.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think that’ll give whistleblowers much confidence, but thank you for your answer.
Senator Ayres: Then you should ask these questions in the Attorney-General’s section if you are genuinely looking for an answer.
During Senate Estimates in October, I raised an issue that’s hurting Australians — insurance costs.
Health Insurance: Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from insurers, yet those same insurers are posting record profits — over $5 billion. Why are hospitals being starved while insurers rake in billions?
The ACCC Chair acknowledged the challenges but said they haven’t actively investigated this. She noted that private hospitals face rising costs and tough negotiations with a small number of insurers — a clear sign of limited competition.
Home and Car Insurance: On paper, there are 11 home insurers, many just brands under the same company. Suncorp owns AAMI and Apia; CGU and NRMA are both IAG. That means only eight real players. Car insurance is even worse — 12 brands, yet only six actual companies. When I asked the ACCC if this lack of competition worried them, they expressed their concern and said that they’re reviewing IAG’s proposed acquisition of RACWA because it could remove an important competitor.
Australians are furious about insurance premiums skyrocketing in areas that have never flooded, and never will, based on speculative climate change claims. Insurers argue that future flooding risk justifies massive hikes, even though extreme weather trends are flat. I asked if the ACCC has looked at how insurers justify these increases in a low-competition market. The answer? No.
All five publicly listed insurance companies share the same major shareholders — BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Norges Bank. These global asset managers hold significant stakes across insurers and banks. I asked if the ACCC considers the impact of these interlocked holdings. They said they’re aware of the investors yet will only act if they see evidence of coordinated conduct.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Insurance is the second most painful item on the consumer’s shopping list after groceries. There’s a lot of pain. I’ll go to the hospital aspect and then to the competition aspect. Private hospitals across Australia are under extreme stress because of funding shortfalls from the health insurers. We’ve been told this by many. Why are private hospitals being starved out of existence when the health insurers have recently recorded record profits of more than $5 billion?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There will be a number of factors there. They’re not questions, I believe, that we have actively looked at. Some relate to the level of competition among private hospitals, but they need to negotiate with a small number of private health insurers. That leads to difficulties for them in that bargaining situation. We’re also aware that the private hospital sector, from recent events, has been facing significantly increased costs at the same time as they are having to undertake complex negotiations in relation to coverage from private health insurers.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’ll do is I’ll go to the lack of competition that you talked about with the insurance companies and come back to this and the hospitals. There are 11 companies in Australia offering home insurance. We’re going away from health to home. Of these, Suncorp, AAMI and Apia are the same entity and CGU and NRMA are the same entity, meaning there are only eight companies offering home insurance. Is that what you meant by limited competition in insurance?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There I was particularly talking about health insurance. But you are right that, partly as a result of prior acquisitions, a number of the groups have multiple brands, but it’s actually one insurance company behind it.
Senator ROBERTS: Similarly, there are 12 insurance companies doing car insurance. IAG owns CGU and NRMA and has underwriting ties to RACV. Separately, Suncorp, AAMI, Apia, Bingle and GIO are all the same entity. This means there are only six companies in the car insurance market hiding behind several different logos. So it’s the same. Are you worried about the lack of competition in the retail insurance market?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are certainly very focused on this. We currently are assessing, under the informal merger assessment regime, a proposed acquisition by IAG of the RACWA, which is the Western Australian Royal Automobile Club. We have put out for public response a statement of issues concerned about the removal of the Royal Automobile Club. Our preliminary view set out in that statement of issues is that they provide a very important competitive constraint.
Senator ROBERTS: We know that, in the home insurance market, insurance companies are putting up premiums on homes and businesses in areas that are supposedly affected by flooding despite never having flooded. In fact it will never flood. The argument is that, owing to climate change, which we’re told is coming sometime in the future, your property is now likely to flood, so premiums are going up, and they’re going up exponentially. I wonder if you use flags like these. Suncorp is making so much money out of insurance that it sold its bank in order to grow its insurance business. That tells you how profitable it is. Have you looked at the basis on which insurance companies are increasing premiums in a low-competition environment using specious claims of global warming when extreme weather events have not changed? There’s been no trend. It’s just flat.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We haven’t looked at that specific issue, no.
Senator ROBERTS: The answer for people is not to change insurance companies—they can’t, because they’re all the same. They’ve got similar policies, similar conditions and the same shareholders. Specifically, all five publicly listed insurance companies in Australia have the same shareholders. I’m not trying to verbal you, but I think I asked you if you had heard of BlackRock, and you said no. Was it you?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have heard of BlackRock.
Senator ROBERTS: Maybe I misunderstood. That’s why I checked; I don’t want to verbal you. The most notable common shareholders across all five entities based on top 10 holdings are BlackRock, a global asset manager which owns five to eight per cent of insurance companies. With State Street, it’s the same deal. They’re a global adviser with six to 16 per cent. That’s even more. Vanguard Group is the same type of entity, with five to six per cent. Norges Bank Investment Management has only two per cent, but they have a combined controlling interest, and these funds apparently are interlocked. Are you aware of these significant holdings that basically control our insurance companies?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: What you are describing in terms of global funds managers and global funds does not surprise me in relation to who would look to invest in insurance companies. As to your comment that they’re interlocked, a number of those will be operated and will be advised and managed independently. It’s possible what you’re referring to is that they have either financing or shareholding agreements relating to the particular investment. Those elements are not ones that we would be aware of.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have many more questions?
Senator ROBERTS: I can put some on notice.
CHAIR: That would be great.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have a couple more questions. Are you aware that the banks are similar to the insurance companies—Westpac, NAB, ANZ, Commonwealth? Basically we’ve got one bank, it seems, owned by the same controlling shareholders, the same entities that I just mentioned. We have four banks that hide behind four logos, but they have similar policies, similar conditions, similar products and similar strategies. They’re effectively controlled by BlackRock, Vanguard et cetera.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: In relation to the four banks, I’m also aware that there are both individual Australian shareholders and Australian super fund investors in them as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration given to investigating BlackRock’s behaviour, for example, or State Street’s, Vanguard’s or Norges’s and their connections with each other?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Where there are situations where the ACCC sees both common shareholdings and interlocking directorships, we take that into account if we see conduct that we think indicates concerted action, but we would need to see conduct that we considered indicated concerted action between the relevant companies.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put five questions on notice.
Thislegislation – The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 – is a direct assault on small and medium businesses. Forcing employers to pay superannuation within seven days of payday, instead of the current quarterly system, is stripping away the “cash flow buffer” that keeps businesses afloat.
Here is the reality of what these bills do:
If a business is even slightly late, they face brutal penalties: 25% for a first offense and 50% for subsequent ones.
To cover the immediate cost of bringing these payments forward, businesses (especially in retail, hospitality, and tourism) will be forced to cut staff levels. This means tens of thousands of young Australians will lose work during peak seasons like Christmas and Easter.
The government is also scrapping the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Instead of one bulk payment, small business owners will now be buried in paperwork, manually paying dozens of individual funds every single week or fortnight.
This isn’t about workers, it’s about funnelling more money faster into union-backed industry super funds. While small businesses collapse, these funds and large corporations get richer.
One Nation believes workers should be able to use their super for a home deposit — investing in their own future rather than being forced to rent from the very super funds getting fat off this legislation.
Ultimately, this is nothing but a revenue-raising exercise disguised as “virtue signalling.” It ignores the reality of record-high bankruptcies and unaffordable energy costs, choosing instead to “shaft” the very people, the workers and small business owners, it claims to protect.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 penalise employers who do not pay their employees’ superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as salary and wages. The payment must reach the employee’s super account within seven business days of the employee’s payday. Currently, payments are due 28 days after the quarter to which they relate.
This is a major change in cash flow. It brings forward a significant expense for businesses, particularly small businesses, while only adding a small amount to their super across their working life—if they can get a job, of course. So many jobs these days require ABNs, in which case the person must pay their own super. It says in the legislation:
The reforms intend to ‘strengthen Australia’s superannuation system’ by reducing the SG gap—
which was estimated at $5 billion in 2022. Treasurer Chalmers wrongly says:
While most employers do the right thing, some disreputable ones are exploiting their employees.
Most of the shortfall is in small businesses and microbusinesses and includes solopreneurs not paying themselves super. The quality of data on this is surprisingly poor for something being used to justify this onerous bill. The government doesn’t want the facts to get in the way of their virtue-signalling and pork-barrelling of union backed industry super funds. That’s the target. That’s what the government wants to do here—look after their union bosses’ super industry funds.
If the employer hasn’t paid the super 28 days after payday, they will receive a notice giving them 28 more days to pay. If they still fail to pay, there is a penalty of 25 per cent of the missing super. That’s for the first offence. There’s a 50 per cent penalty for a second offence and for subsequent offences. This will be a nightmare for small and medium businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and tourism, and it will be a gift for super funds, the unions and the Australian Taxation Office.
Treasurer Chalmers has no clue how businesses—especially small businesses and microbusinesses—work. The current quarterly super system increases the ability of small and medium businesses to smooth their cash flow over what is, effectively, a four-month period. Businesses could set their staffing levels to the expected revenue for a three-month period.
Let me give you an example. Retailers have mostly completed hiring their staff for over the Christmas period, even though Christmas spending doesn’t get going for another few weeks. They know they can afford the wages now but don’t need to pay super until the money comes in next month. What’s going to happen under this ignorant, anti-small-business legislation is that small and medium retailers will cut their staffing. They’ll reduce the number of their workers equal to the amount of the super contribution that they’re bringing forward. They’re taking the cost out of labour because there’s nowhere else to take it from. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. You certainly don’t understand rents or profits.
Most small and medium businesses in this country are struggling as it is. Business bankruptcies are at a record high under this Labor government, and now more will go under. Large retailers—wait for it—will simply pass this cost on to everyday Australians through higher prices, so the people of Australia, and the workers in particular, are going to get shafted by this bill. Treasurer Chalmers and this Labor government have ensured that tens of thousands of, mostly, young Australians will not have a job this Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day or Black Friday and other retail highlights.
It isn’t just retailers, though, who will lose. This bill will, in addition, harm markets, tourism and hospitality—all of which are weather dependent. These businesses will not be able to smooth out the ups and downs coming from good and bad weather—and there are ups and downs. That’s the way the earth operates; weather is variable. They will be forced to set staffing levels lower to ensure that they can cover the wages of staff and their super. I expect we will see a change to employment terms, with weather clauses being written into awards and further reductions in shifts to allow staff to be sent home if businesses are not busy.
This Labor government has already had a lesson in unintended consequences with its greedy hike in tobacco tariffs leading literally to open warfare, firebombings and killings in the industry, and lower tax revenues. Everyone loses except the criminals. Treasurer Chalmers is in for another such lesson here. It will not be the government that’s harmed. It will be young Australians—and retailers—who will be harmed. Of course, Labor won’t care. They don’t govern for young Australians. If they did, then the Albanese government would not have flooded the country with new arrivals, driving up rental and home prices, lowering wages and reducing living standards. Did anyone mention unaffordable power?
The winners from this bill will be the government’s mates. The unions’ super funds will get richer. The large corporations who can afford to carry staff for the few weeks will get richer. The big end of town gets richer, and Australians get poorer. I said last week that the Australian Labor Party spell ‘labor’ without a ‘U’, l-a-b-o-r, because the Labor Party do not care about ‘you’. They bypass the ‘you’. Young Australians are about to get another lesson on how little they matter to this government.
Workers will be sacked, and businesses will close as a direct result of this policy. It’s clear. The revenue-raising figures and estimates in this bill make no allowance for expected employment downturns, which will come—the unintended consequence of this bill. It’s not, as proposed in the legislation, better for employees because they get their super money earlier, because the job market and the private sector will immediately shrink.
After Treasurer Chalmers had his fantasy tax grab on unrealised capital gains trashed, he has evidently pivoted to recouping the money off the dying and struggling ecosystem of private industry, which has borne all the costs of unaffordable energy increases, foreign competition and Labor’s recent award changes.
These bills are estimated to increase taxation payments to $589 million over the next three years. This is about a taxation increase, which ignores as usual the decrease in revenue from business collapses and staff sackings. There will be lower employment.
Why is the government banking on this bill boosting their bottom line so much? Is this about superannuation or is it revenue raising—fining small businesses for laws the government knows they won’t be able to comply with on time? Maybe the government don’t know; that’s how out of touch they are. Despite this, this bill is disguised as being pro worker, when in fact compulsory super contributions are eating away at workers’ take-home pay and preventing them from saving for a home. The $4 trillion—that’s right; $4 trillion—in Australia’s super accounts is employees’ money. It’s the workers’ money. It’s come out of workers’ wages.
One Nation will counter this Albanese government attack on our young with better policy. We will allow young Australians to use their super balance towards a deposit on a new home. That’s been a standing part of our policy for a year now. The higher the deposit, the lower the repayments. The more the young are advantaged there, the more realistic purchasing a house becomes. The investment from the person’s own super account into their home is secured with a loan, so their super grows as the value of their home grows. You’ll never see that policy coming from the ALP, the Australian Labor Party, because their policy is for the government to own your home, or a share of it, so they can dictate to you how to live and who you should live with. Think about it. This has all been documented.
This measure adds to payroll complexity for large corporations, especially around employment mobility. Large corporations will not pay for this measure. The Australian public will, though, through higher prices or staff reductions.
Industry has already asked for a one- to two-year delay to make the necessary software changes. That’s how extreme the measures are. Accounting software giant Xero provides the software that 1.8 million businesses use and has recommended a two-year window for implementation. Instead, this bill is going to be rushed through, with an implementation date of July. Imagine the cash-flow burden on a medium business with a thousand staff across different states, on different awards, all taking leave and changing super funds during this period.
Treasurer Chalmers can’t imagine that. He has no business experience, and, quite honestly, he hasn’t a clue about the misery his policies are causing small and medium businesses in this country. That’s apparent with the decision in this bill to abolish the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Small businesses today can pay a lump sum of all their employees’ superannuation contributions to the clearing house along with their employees’ super details. The clearing house then makes the necessary payments to the employee’s individual super fund. This saves small businesses a truckload of paperwork by letting them make one bulk payment instead of dozens to every employee’s individual fund. That will be gone with this bill. Small businesses will have to take care of dozens of extra super payments, and they will be penalised 60 per cent if they are later than seven days from payday.
Nonetheless, a lot of the blame for small-business hardship must be directed at the minister for climate change and sending Australia broke, Minister Chris Bowen. Unaffordable energy is driving the country to ruin. This legislation has come into this Senate at the same time as the government announcing it would require super funds to invest almost $2 trillion of Australia’s super money in the United States. That’s how much this Labor government cares about jobs for Australians. They are taking an amount equal to one-half of all the money in super funds in Australia at 30 June this year and sending it to America over a 10-year period. Prime Minister, superannuation is not your money! Yet the government is sending your super overseas to grow the American economy.
Imagine how many breadwinner jobs could be created in Australia with the $2 trillion being invested right here in projects like the Capricornia project, an integrated rail, steel and concrete project, to provide Australia with security on steel, ceramics, fertiliser, explosives and pharmaceutical precursors—steel, the foundation of modern civilisation. Instead, young people will be competing with millions of new arrivals in a labour market that’s currently in a race to the bottom of wages, conditions and security—Prime Minister, in case you’re not aware of it despite so many people shouting it from the streets, stop mass migration—a trend this bill will make worse.
The Albanese government is pursuing policies that ensure young Australians don’t have the abundance, wealth and income necessary to buy their own home in a country with more resources than any other country per capita. Instead, young people will have to rent from union super funds and predatory wealth funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. Putting a roof over a young couple’s heads is critical to starting a family. Measures like this, combined with over migration, mass migration and unaffordable energy, will continue to steal opportunity from our young people. Never has a generation been so lied to as the people aged today between 18 and 45. One Nation opposes this bill because One Nation supports employment, workers and small businesses. We support a fair go and fairness for all.
One Nation is the party of free enterprise, which has lifted the Western world out of poverty, providing high standards of living within peaceful societies.
In recent years, predatory billionaires—who already possess more than their fair share—have used their wealth to compromise industry, media, and politics. Their reason is simple: for these individuals, no amount is ever enough. They covet every cent you have and every freedom you enjoy.
The end result is not free enterprise but crony capitalism—a corruption of true free enterprise. This corrupted system serves only to enrich the elite while enslaving everyday citizens in a debt trap and more recently, a digital prison designed to ensure their transfer of wealth is protected.
Transcript
Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson recently declared that no new airlines could survive in Australia; that was about Bonza. We’ve since seen Rex’s demise, leaving two companies running three major airlines in a market worth $20 billion a year.
One Nation believes free enterprise competition delivers the highest quality product for the lowest price to the most people. Competition best meets people’s needs. In Australia, we do not have free enterprise competition; we have crony capitalism. Those are not the same thing; they’re enemies.
Crony capitalism occurs when a cabal of companies acts together to capture production, manufacturing and delivery, to provide the lowest quality product at the highest possible price. That arranged market domination inevitably lowers wages and transfers wealth from working Australians to crony capitalists.
Anyone who shops in foreign-owned-and-controlled Coles or Woolies will have noticed that everything is smaller, cheaper and doesn’t work like it used to. That’s crony capitalism at work. The world’s largest wealth funds have bought out Australia and turned our once-loved companies into weapons of mass exploitation. Our corporate sector no longer serves us. Instead, we serve the corporate sector, including by the forced purchase of fake medical products during COVID.
One Nation believes government regulation—including of airlines, banking and the medical field—does not protect the public against corporations; it protects the corporations against new competition and, therefore, against the people. High levels of regulation are barriers to entry to new players, allowing large corporations to thrive while small local players like Rex are strangled and wiped out. Masses of regulations protect corporations with expensive lawyers against court cases.
If you believe it’s time to reduce regulation, to reduce the presence of foreign corporations and governments in our economy; if you believe it’s time to unleash real competition, to solve the cost-of-living crisis and provide better choices, then welcome to the light. Welcome to One Nation.
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
