Posts

Wrap up of the National Anti Corruption Commission

The National Anti Corruption Commission (NACC) has passed Parliament and will be established next year.

So what’s covered by the NACC and what is One Nation’s view on these issues? I spoke on this in Parliament this week.

Something to tackle corruption is long overdue, we’re looking forward to having this body up and running and fine tuning it so that corruption is punished.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the National Anti-Corruption Commission Bill 2022. Shoddy governance is Australia’s greatest problem and biggest threat. The absence of data in making policies and legislation—some parties go to great lengths to avoid data and substitute emotion. That is partly corruption, but this bill that we are discussing today goes to real corruption, illegal corruption.

Initially I thought parliament contained the procedures for self-accountability. After two years, I realised I was wrong. Then I started participating enthusiastically in presentations and discussions in this building and outside, around a national crime and corruption commission. I thank that many people I listened to—lawyers, judges, former judges and everyday Australians concerned about corruption. I appreciate the conversations that I had with former senator Bill Heffernan. I realised when I spoke out about the fact that we need to have a commission in place to provide oversight of four main groups: federal members of parliament, federal bureaucrats and public servants, federal judges and federal police.

Now I turn to the government’s proposal. For too long corruption in government has been almost impossible to deal with because current protections are totally inadequate. Each state has a body to deal with corruption at the state level of government. All the state bodies, however, face jurisdictional and evidential hurdles. Whistleblower protections, particularly for private-sector whistleblowers, have failed to provide assumed protections. In recent years, many whistleblowers have had their lives and/or careers publicly and privately trashed—destroyed. Some have faced criminal charges or been destroyed financially through civil actions.

Integrity as an expected attribute of those in public office has been invisible and left to chance. That lack of integrity destroys the people’s trust in the governance of this country. This bill, when passed with appropriate amendments, will go a long way towards setting up a workable scheme, ensuring that integrity becomes a fundamental feature of our legislative and executive arms of government.

To get this bill right, a number of issues need to be addressed through internal or external amendment. One thing this bill does not address is third-party corrupt conduct, where the person being dealt with is an otherwise innocent public official dragged unknowingly into a circle of corruption. This is a scenario included within the jurisdictions of most state anticorruption bodies, except those of Tasmania and Western Australia. To be comprehensive, the bill must include this scenario to ensure that corruption, even involving innocent public officers, can still be investigated for corruption.

It’s important to understand that this bill is not designed to be purely or only punitive. It’s much more than that. It’s designed to get to the root cause of corrupt processes, practices and systems, to rectify, eliminate and prevent corruption and to systematically do that and systematically prevent corruption. This provision will assist in identifying relationships vulnerable to abuse and exploitation so that processes may be introduced to provide effective risk management, oversight and accountability. This will be an alternative to relying on the ability to satisfy the restrictive requirements of proving crime beyond reasonable doubt. That’s highly restrictive. We need better than that. Another power that should be clarified in the bill is the commission’s power to commence investigation of its own volition, without being reliant on external referrals from other agencies and individuals. This clarification would ensure that the source of complaints or information did not limit the full ambit of justification for investigations.

The issue of public hearings has challenged those in favour generally of establishing this commission. It has been suggested that holding public hearings may expose a person to vilification of their reputation, and potentially there may be insufficient evidence to establish an offence. People are worried that this will be used as a mechanism to turn into unjustifiable political witch-hunts, as we’ve seen in some of the states. This was one of my concerns, and it was the reason for my rejection of the bill in its earlier form. To address this, the bill indicates that hearings may be held in private unless the commissioner is satisfied that exceptional circumstances—exceptional circumstances, as it says in the bill—justify holding the hearing in public and it’s in the public interest to do so. The phrase ‘exceptional circumstances’, if included in the bill, would make it virtually impossible to hold public hearings, as it would require a court to determine whether circumstances are in fact exceptional. That’s a lawyer fest for sure. The removal of the requirement for exceptional circumstances is essential, and there are proposed amendments before the Senate that will fix this problem. I support these amendments. It would be appropriate that, if a public hearing were held, the commissioner or a deputy commissioner preside, because they are legally qualified to deal with the more obvious legal issues.

Another concern raised with me is the composition of the proposed parliamentary joint committee, where the chair is required to be a member of the government. This raises questions on the independence of the joint committee. A better solution may be that the chair should not be a member of a political party forming government or should at least be a person enjoying bipartisan support of the committee. It’s important that an extensive whistleblower protection authority be established to ensure protection for genuine disclosures. The government assures me that the introduction of such an authority is imminent and an essential supportive element of this bill’s operation.

Next, I raise what Senator Bill Heffernan has raised with me in extensive personal discussions, as well as senior judges and practitioners of the law. What’s missing from this bill is the jurisdiction to overview the misconduct and actions of the judiciary. This option is desperately needed, and there is information showing that this jurisdiction has been overlooked for far too long. It needs to be included—it must be included. It would be welcome to think that our judges are all free from human weaknesses, but they’re human. In practice, it’s not a realistic conclusion that they are free from human weaknesses. Judges are human and susceptible to the human frailties that may lead to misconduct in their offices. We know that. The judiciary must have a mechanism that provides independent review of the conduct of its members.

I look forward to the development of a bill to cover judges and senior police and associated amendments to strengthen the safeguards designed to protect our society from evildoers hiding behind public office—a bill the government has flagged with us. The Australian public deserves protection and reassurance. The people deserve integrity. To be effective, government must be trusted. We do not have trust in governance at the moment, but that’s what we need. We have one flag above this building, one flag for the nation. We are one community. We are one nation. And we support the integrity of our political representatives and public officers whose duty is one of service to the people.

/1 Comment/by

Left turns on Lidia Thorpe for opposing the voice

Lidia Thorpe has a pattern of disrespect for the Senate, the Australian people and Australia itself. She must be accountable for those decisions. Yet, the only choice that bothered the left was her opposition to the indigenous voice to Parliament. It is only when she opposed the voice that the left and media pile on started.

Transcript

Conservative values, including freedom, mean we embrace diverse opinions within our wider embrace of the rich tapestry of God’s creation. From free debate of different opinions comes strong policy, fair policy. Yet our opponents on the control side of politics play the person, not the argument. This is second nature to the Left, the control side of politics, with hubris and intolerance covering for ignorance and driving their personal attacks.

In discussing Senator Thorpe’s behaviour, we see that, unlike the control side of politics, conservatives embrace differences of opinion. Could it be that the Left’s own attack on Senator Thorpe is political payback for her opposition to the voice? Remember how an old social media message from Lidia Thorpe, asking for Senator Hanson’s support in fighting the voice, was dredged up?

That dredging up was the warning shot Senator Thorpe did not heed. Now we have the bikie boss scandal. Adam Bandt reacted quickly, with an immediate sacking—as if it was orchestrated. One Nation asked what Adam Bandt knew and when he knew it. A head may roll, yet not the one intended. Listening to confidential briefings on bikie gang criminality while in a secret relationship with a recent boss of a bikie gang deserves strong censure. Cheating on one’s significant other deserves censure in another place, not here. One Nation hopes, in future, to see less petulance and better judgement from Senator Thorpe.

Australia needs the control side of politics, the Left, to demonstrate decency and tolerance towards competing viewpoints. We must work hard with everyday Australians across our nation to stop the Left’s lynch mob mentality—made worse in this case because the lynch mob is Senator Thorpe’s own party.

The Left do not debate. The control side fears debate. Instead they abuse and ridicule, silence and divide, and then seek to destroy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and conservatives celebrate difference of opinion.

/4 Comments/by

The COVID Inquiry 2.0

,

The COVID Inquiry 2.0 is a cross-party, non-parliamentary inquiry held on the 17th August 2022. The COVID Inquiry 2.0 followed COVID Under Question to interrogate breaches of the doctor-patient relationship and the regulatory capture of Australia’s health and drug regulators.

Witnesses from a range of backgrounds presented personal and scholarly evidence that was shocking and revealing. The day of questioning from 8am to 7:30pm was livestreamed and recordings of all witnesses are available below.

Please note: Captions on videos are machine generated. They contain a number of errors. The audio of the videos or transcripts linked under each video should be relied on as the accurate statement of what was said.

Welcome Video and Introduction

Transcript

Schedule of Presentations

CONTEXT AND DATA

Brook Jackson

Transcript. Brook Jackson was regional director of Ventavia Research Group. That company was contracted by Pfizer to provide three phase three test sites for the vaccine trial, the Pfizer vaccine trial, in Houston, Fort Worth and Keller, Texas. 12.22min

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses mental health of children and adults. Associate Professor Peter Parry is a child and adolescent psychiatrist whose career encompasses that of a medical officer in the Royal Australian Navy, a GP and palliative care, prior to training in psychiatry from 1990. 11.15min

Dr Pierre Kory

Transcript. Dr. Pierre Kory from America. He’s a medical doctor, a master of public administration, a specialist in pulmonary diseases and critical care medicine. Won many awards, but two major international awards he received during the COVID are, in 2021 from South Africa, the SAHARI Foundation a Certificate of Appreciation to Humanity, in 2021 again from Malaysia, the Cheng Ho Multicultural Education Trust Benevolent award. 24.51min

Suzie Pollock

Transcript. Suzie Pollock graduated from the Queensland University of Technology in 1995 with a Bachelor of Law. She spent 11 years working for one of Australia’s big four banks. That’d be enough to do it in for you, wouldn’t it. Followed by roles in top tier law firms in Australia and Hong Hong Kong in international banking and finance law. 12.37min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Phillip Altman, who has a bachelor of pharmacy honours degree in master of science and a PhD. He’s had a background in clinical research and regulatory affairs, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and biotechnology. 48.26min

Mary-Jane Stevens

Transcript. Mary-Jane Stevens who’s a mother of four, four children and until late September, 2021, she was a registered nurse in the emergency department of a Queensland Health hospital. She’s now been de-registered due to an Ahpra March, 2021 directive. 15.27min

Alan Dana

Transcript. Alan Dana learned to fly in the United Kingdom in 1988. He holds British, United States and Australian professional airline transport licences, including an FAA Accident Prevention Counsellor Designation. His total experience, over 35 years, is now exceeding 23,000 flight hours. Alan took the time on a career route for pilots, instructing pilots for 32 years. 17.13min

PFIZER AND THE VACCINES

Christine Dolan

Transcript. Christine Dolan is an American senior editor and chief investigative correspondent for CDM.press. She has a long history of tackling corruption, having worked at four American networks, served as CNN political director, covered three wars, and has investigated human trafficking in 140 countries for over 22 years, as well as the Catholic church globally. 28.03min

Warner Mendenhall

Transcript. Warner Mendenhall, who’s a United States lawyer. He’s a prominent activist attorney from the United States who is currently representing Ms. Brook Jackson in her lawsuit against Pfizer. Warner has a strong history of representing people being abused by government decisions and protecting whistleblowers fighting against injustice. 13.16min

Dr James Rowe

Transcript. Dr. James Rowe is a pharmaceutical scientist with over 40 years experience in the pharmaceutical industry and academia in the design development and testing of novel drug dosage forms. He has held academic positions at the University of London, University of Sydney, and Western Sydney University. 13.56min

Senator Gerard Rennick

Transcript. Senator Rennick was elected in Federal Parliament in 2019 representing the people of Queensland. He’s one of only a handful of politicians who is holding the government to account regarding the mismanagement of COVID, and he’s willing to question the science behind it. He did that not only with the current government, but he did it with the previous government, which was of his own party. 43.42min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, is a man of a very high integrity. He’s co-director of Australian Medical Network, Australia’s largest and longest running dissident doctor group in the COVID era. He’s a member of the founding executive, so he dares to question things and he speaks up. A member of the founding executive of the Australian medical professional society, and a regular commentator and host on TNT radio.live. 13.32min

THE DOCTOR PATIENT RELATIONSHIP

Dr Chris Neil

Transcript. Dr. Neil became a cardiologist mid-career having been continuously engaged in medicine or the study of medicine for 26 years, quarter of century, since specialisation he has undertaken doctoral and post-doctoral studies being successful in obtaining research grants, completing investigation driven studies, and supervising, and co-supervising higher degree research students to completion as well as supervising and mentoring multiple physicians in training. Discusses doctor patient relationship. 24.22min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Mr. Julian Gillespie, who’s a lawyer and a former barrister. Julian is currently closely involved in the federal court judicial review case involving vaccine mandates. He’s deeply involved with issues relating to the oppressive approach that the government has taken with management of COVID-19 in the community. 29.16min

Dr Duncan Syme

Transcript. Dr. Syme winner of the Nicholas Collins Fellowship Achievement Award, the Australian Hospital in the Home Society 2018. Dr. Syme graduated from Monash University in 1987. He’s been in clinical practise for 34 years and a general practitioner for 27 years. Currently, his registration is suspended due to providing exemptions for patients who do not want to be injected by the COVID-19 medication. 24min

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke is an orthopaedic surgeon and vocal proponent of nutrition being a major component of prevention and management of modern disease. In 2014, he became repeatedly targeted by the processed food industry for his opinion, culminating in a silencing by the AHPRA medical board. Prevention is the key to management in this recent COVID pandemic and future pandemics to come. 21.34min

Peter Fam

Transcript. Peter Fam is a lawyer on human rights. He’s a human rights specialist and the principal lawyer at Maat’s Method A human rights law firm in Sydney. He holds a degree in journalism as well. Peter is a defender and advocate of universal law, his aim is to assist restoring truth, justice, and balance to our world. 24.19min

Julian Gillespie

Transcript. Julian Gillespie talks about government manipulation. He spoke in his first session about the doctor-patient relationship being destroyed. Now he talks about the government manipulation that orchestrated that, and then about new legislation and declaration of demand. 47.01min

Dr Robert Brennan

Transcript. Dr. Robert Brennan, speaking about public health. 13.38min

CONDITIONING AND ETHICS

Dr Peter Parry

Transcript. Dr. Peter Parry, discusses social engineering. A psychiatrist perspective on social engineering based on human behaviour. 19.53min

Professor Iain Benson

Transcript. Professor Iain Benson, discusses medical ethics, not only the problems, but the solutions. He has four degrees, including a PhD. He’s professor of law at the University of Notre Dame, Australia. He’s published many academic articles and book chapters, work cited by both the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, and in April 2019, the High Court of Gauteng, which is in Johannesburg, South Africa. He discusses the ethical problems involved with the forced use of experimental drugs. 29.05min

Carla Mardell

Transcript. Carla Mardell, who has a Bachelor of Education, is an EFT practitioner, Postgraduate Certificate of Digital and Collaborative Technology, NLP Coach Practitioner. She discusses how we have been programmed in our beliefs with conditioning. 27.47min

SUMMARY AND SOLUTIONS

Dr Gary Fettke

Transcript. Dr. Gary Fettke discusses solutions as to how people can better prepare their own health. 16.04min

Dr Philip Altman

Transcript. Dr. Altman talks about two things. One is a summary of the day. What have we learned? Then secondly, solutions. 24.27min

/47 Comments/by

Federal ICAC must investigate all corruption

I once said that this parliament is a crime scene and our new government doesn’t look any better. Both major parties are rife with undeclared conflicts of interest and cronyism. A Federal ICAC must be able to investigate all of the lobbying and cronyism happening in Australia’s Parliament.

Transcript

I’m meeting this week with Attorney-General Dreyfus to review the planned national anticorruption commission. I’ll be taking One Nation’s position to the Attorney-General—that checks and balances must be in place to preclude witch-hunts. The terms of reference must allow for all outside influence on our decision-making to be identified and removed. Outside influences are driving lucrative subsidies for unreliable solar and wind energy. These subsidies are lining the pockets of donors and sponsors of members of parliament in both chambers—cronyism worth tens of billions of dollars.

In my speech entitled ‘This parliament is a crime scene‘, I detailed the cronyism that infected the previous Liberal-National government. Crikey (Queensland ALP has a conflict of interest) has now detailed similar cronyism and conflicts of interest in the Labor Party and their affiliated fundraising entities. Running government for the benefit of oneself or one’s party’s finances is a betrayal of the trust the Australian people have placed in us. It is corruption and it destroys confidence in government and governance. A government without the confidence of the people must rely on authoritarian measures to maintain control.

This is the path the state and federal governments chose to take during COVID, and those powers have now become permanent. Freedoms stolen are never willingly surrendered. A federal ICAC must investigate the many conflicts of interest and tainted decision-making in governments’ COVID responses—questions of complicity, cover-ups and cronyism. A royal commission, though, is the only way to deal with the wider illegal issues that arose during COVID. Constitutional questions about federal and state roles, the legal standing of the National Cabinet, vaccine mandates in the public and private sectors, the use of troops against law-abiding citizens, criminal harm from medical procedures conducted under duress and police use of excessive force must all be reviewed before we can move on, or we will be there again.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation founded on freedom and personal responsibility.

/by

Letter to the Health Minister: Jane Halton pharma conflicts of interest

,

Hon. Mark Butler, MP

Minister for Health and Aged Care

Dear Minister

RE: YOUR REVIEW INTO ALL THE MORRISON GOVERNMENT’S COVID-19 VACCINE DEALS

While welcoming your review, regarding your appointment of Ms Jane Halton to conduct the review for you, I ask whether you are aware of the many reported serious conflicts of interest associated with Jane Halton on this topic, based on her reported statements, relationships, appointed positions and history?

If you are aware of these reported conflicts, how do you intend to manage her work for taxpayers and citizens so that we obtain, in your words, quote – “good independent advice to the government about our existing arrangements – the contracts that we have inherited from previous government both in relation to vaccine delivery … and treatments?”

Based on these conflicts and as a matter requiring transparency and integrity, I would seriously question whether any advice provided, or review conducted by Ms Halton, could be said to be unbiased and sufficiently independent concerning existing arrangements and contracts related to vaccine delivery and associated treatments.

Minister, how can a review be independent and credible without release to senators of the details of contracts between vaccine manufacturers, including intermediaries and suppliers, and the government?

Yours Sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

/5 Comments/by

Who profits from Inland Rail’s half billion dollar property purchases?

,

The Australian Rail Track Corporation is projected to spend $494 million dollars on acquiring property for the proposed Inland Rail route. Despite rumors of certain people buying land on the route prior to the purchases, the government refuses to release who they are acquiring the properties from with nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer money.

Transcript

Happens when you don’t think it through. Thank you, Senator Roberts over to you.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you all for appearing tonight. What is the current budget for property purchases for the Inland Rail project?

It’s $494 million.

494 million, thank you. In the last estimates, I asked Infrastructure Australia a simple question. Who owns the land being purchased by Inland Rail? And I received this response on notice. Quote, the full cost of the property acquired for the Inland Rail project will not be known until all 13 sections of the project are completed. The cost will eventually come out. That’s the end of the quote. Cost will eventually come out, but apparently ownership will not. Firstly, when is Inland Rail scheduled for completion?

Current schedule of completion in late 2026.

[Malcolm] 20.

2026.

2026, thank you. My office is aware of reports as to who bought land prior to the announcement of the Inland Rail alignment, which we of course pay no heed to. So is it the position of the Minister that the public will never be told who owned the land the Australian taxpayers just spent 494, or will spend $494 million buying, and that we’ll have to wait until 2026 or later to find out how much we paid for it?

Yeah, I think per that previous answer, it would not be our intent to disclose the information about individual landowners.

So the taxpayers are paying for something but won’t receive any any accountability for it until another four years, if it’s finished on time? So we can’t find out as representatives of the taxpayers. Okay, let’s move on. In 2010, the ARTC stated Inland Rail would not be cost effective if completed in 2021, but may provide a positive net value by 2035 against a projected cost of $9 billion if rail freight demand increased. In the 2015 business case briefing paper two, the ARTC found $16 billion in GDP increase over the first 50 years. The project tonight I understand we were told is now stated to have a total cost of $14.5 billion, with solid third party, independent assessments, at over $20 billion, some well over $20 billion. When was the last time the cost benefit of Inland Rail was calculated in terms of net present value? And specifically, what was the total financial benefit to the taxpayers over the payback period? And what is the payback period, and what project cost did you do the sums on?

Do you want to give business case?

Do you want me to take?

Yeah.

Yeah, okay. So since back in 2020 when the increased equity was provided, there was an update to the economic benefits. So there was a revised assessment that came out with a net $18 billion economic benefit over that same period, 50 years, that you mentioned. And in that sort of same timeframe, the Commonwealth Government also did some further studies that looked at some of the economic benefits that would be capitalised, not just from that $18 billion which is really associated with efficiency improvements in the supply chain, but then a further $13.3 billion that was found to be catalysed by the stimulation of further regional economic industry and development. So that was probably the the latest updates in that regard that were undertaken.

And perhaps I can just add the comment that we haven’t seen the full business case. Much of it has been redacted from memory. And the assumptions, in particular, just slight changes in the assumptions can dramatically affect the business case and all the claimed economic benefits. And we’re kept in the dark about some of the assumptions. So I’ll go on to the next question. The Inland Rail business case relies on a series of calculations about transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst many others. By way of example, the share of freight Inland Rail will attract supposedly on the Melbourne to Brisbane route will go from 26% currently to 62% by 2050. And that’s one of the massive assumptions. And these assumptions, models, and calculations are said to be commercially sensitive. So, as I’ve said a minute ago, they’ve not been made public and will not be made public. Is that a correct statement?

It’s exclusive.

Look Senator, the business case for Inland Rail was produced in 2015, which was the last one. Simon, do you want to make?

Yeah, it was certainly public. And I’m not sure exactly what assumption you’re looking at, Senator. It’s not-

Well, I’ll read them again. The transit times, intermodal delays, train speed, track wear, projected freight volumes and revenue, route reliability, amongst other things. And some of the reports that were submitted or made by some of the big four accounting firms or management consulting firms, they’re not available. And we understand that two reports contradict each other.

So Senator, the information that you went through is available. We can certainly, we could talk through it tonight or we could certainly come back to you outside of the session with that information.

We’d appreciate you coming back, that would be great.

Yeah, absolutely. I’m only aware of one. Sorry, I’m aware of one macroeconomic report to do with the assumptions around the GDP and also the market share figures, which was undertaken by the PWC Deloitte. EY undertook a more specific reasonable analysis. We’re not aware that they contradict. They were looking at quite different elements of the benefit streams of the programme.

Well, perhaps we could show you what we mean by that with the reports and with some documents, and you could at the same time as you can come back with your assessment. And we’re happy to arrange that with our office.

[Simon] And we’d been more than happy to do that, Senator.

Thank you very much. Minister, why is this project proceeding when the taxpayers are most likely to lose tens of billions of dollars if the taxpayers are not benefiting qui bono? So who is?

Well, I think based on the answers you’ve received and some of those things that’ll be taken on notice and subject to further conversations between you and the officers from ARTC, I think some of the assumptions underlying your questions may still be in contention. But obviously, the principle is that it’s a project worth backing and the government remains willing to do that for the good of the country. But obviously, further detail required to satisfy the questions you’ve asked so far. And hopefully the officers will give you the answers you’re after.

Okay, Chair, I’d just like to ask two questions, following up on what you asked. Thank you. The preferred alignment from the ARTC 2010 Melbourne-Brisbane alignment study became the final alignment in the 2015 programme business case. Is there any significant change between those two alignments? Because on a map they look the same.

The short answer is yes, that there were some minor adjustments. Off the top of my head, I’m probably couldn’t navigate through all of those. But the Inland Rail, route history document, does detail those and gives a lot of further detail. We can come back with some more if you need.

That’s on the website.

Yeah, that’s on the Inland Rail, the ARTC website, yep.

Okay, thank you. Last question to you. And this may be touching on something that Senator Van asked about. In the last estimates, I asked Major Transport and Infrastructure Projects about Inland Rail environmental impact assessments. And Ms. Hall, the First Assistant Secretary replied, the route has actually been set. This is a quote. The route has actually been set. The purpose of the environmental assessment processes are to give confidence to the communities that the environment is protected. So environmental impact assessments are still underway, and yet the route is set. Is it a statement of fact that the final Inland Rail route was decided before the environmental assessment of that route had even been started? So are you backfilling the project? Backfilling the EIS’s?

Senator, I think you’re referring to me. The route has been set. The purpose, as we’ve just discussed before, Minister, Mr. Helena has said is that an EIS process is designed to give assurance to the community, give assurance to the regulatory requirements. A coordinator general, for example, in regards to Queensland will set the conditions by which that piece of infrastructure needs to be built. So that is the purpose of an EIS process.

[Malcolm] Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

/by

THIS IS NOT A PARLIAMENT: IT’S A CRIME SCENE

,

Sports rorts, carpark scandals, corrupt water trading, crooked disaster funding projects, AusPost CEOs being forced out for not pleasing government party hacks. This government disrespects the people of Australia so they can look after their corporate mates.

Transcript

Earlier this month in my flag speech I spoke of parliament’s duty to serve the people. Today I’m asking: who does this parliament really serve? I’ll review the Morrison government’s actions and this parliament’s actions that carry the stench of cronyism and corruption.

I’ll start with changes to water policy that Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard introduced in 2007. Those changes turned ownership and the trading of water rights into a $20 billion industry. Large corporate interests, trade union bosses controlling industry super funds and National Party powerbrokers have rushed to take advantage of this new wealth. And by taking advantage, I really mean make out like bandits at the expense of family farms that can no longer afford water for their crops. I’m raising this issue first up because it illustrates how things are done in federal parliament.

The Water Act requires a transparent water-trading register. The government tried to introduce one in 2012, stuffed it up and then gave up. I thought asking the government to take another run at it—to reveal who was lining their pockets with the proceeds of water speculation—would be straightforward. How naive was that! My amendment was opposed. The same parties, the Liberals and Nationals, that passed the legislation in the first place requiring a water-trading register, opposed my amendment that sought to ensure compliance with the parliament’s legislation. The Senate, with Labor’s support, passed my amendment. It proceeded to the lower house, where Labor rejected it. What happened in the 100 metres between the Senate and the House of Representatives? The fix happened—the fix to protect corporate water traders. Labor agreed to cover for its Liberal and Nationals mates and they returned the favour. That’s how this parliament works. Cronyism is an art form.

The same pattern of immoral behaviour occurred with the legislation One Nation introduced to stop banks bailing-in depositors’ funds to save banks in a crisis, stealing customers’ hard earned deposits. In 2018, parliament passed legislation to allow a bail-in as part of emergency financial measures. The Labor, Liberal, and National parties teamed up to oppose my bill and justified that action with a complete lie: that the emergency provisions did not give APRA the power to order a bail-in. My legislation to protect the one trillion dollars in bank deposits of everyday Australians was defeated, despite the Treasury admitting, in a briefing to my face, that those emergency provisions do allow a bail-in. The Liberal-National and Labor duopoly lied so their donors in the major banks can keep the right to steal your money to save themselves.

The same cronyism was in place over the Christine Holgate watch scandal at Australia Post. As we now know, those watches were given to management as a reward for completing a very profitable deal for Australia Post. Australia Post executives accepted the watches and agreed to forgo much larger bonuses. Why would the Prime Minister and the parliament misrepresent a measure that saved Australia Post money? It’s because Christine Holgate had negotiated a fee with the banks of $20 million a year for the provision of banking services through licensed post offices, but the banks wanted a bigger share of those profits. Christine Holgate made the mistake of costing the big four banks money, and an example had to be made of her. What a show Scott Morrison put on! After Ms Holgate was sacked, and Australia Post was placed back into the hands of friendlies, the deal was renegotiated. The banks are now only paying half that, $10 million per year, and 4,000 licensed post office franchisees got screwed. How much did it cost the banks to get the outcome they wanted from this parliament?

In the last election cycle Australian banks donated $500,000 to the Liberal and National parties and $400,000 to the Labor Party.

There’s more. The Australian people can see that cronyism extends to pharmaceuticals. Most people don’t know who funds the body that approves pharmaceuticals in Australia—the Therapeutic Goods Administration, known as the TGA. The big pharmaceutical companies applying for approvals themselves fund the TGA. The expert committees that advise the TGA on what to approve are comprised largely of university academics, whose departments receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. That doesn’t pass the pub test, nor does this. In the last election cycle the pharmaceutical industry donated $276,000 to Labor and $400,000 to the Liberals and Nationals.

Earlier this year One Nation combined with the Greens to extend the licences of community TV stations C31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, after Malcolm Turnbull in 2012 confiscated those free-to-air transmission rights to force viewers back to commercial TV owned by his mates. C31 and Channel 44 survived on the back of large public campaigns. Why was it so hard to get an extension for community TV to use a spectrum that’s not needed until 2024? Could it be because the commercial stations, through Free TV Australia, donated $17,000 to Labor and $13,000 to the Liberals? That, of course, is the problem.

Yesterday in the Senate the Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly teamed up to stop the measures that One Nation and Senator Rex Patrick jointly proposed to make Woodside Petroleum pay for the $2 billion cost of cleaning up their environmental damage in the Timor Sea. Woodside easily evaded its responsibilities to the people of Australia. It simply sold the little bit of extraction left in the gas field, including its clean-up liability, to a small company for a few million dollars. That company was then wound up. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the clean-up. One Nation’s amendment would have restored the liability on Woodside. The crossbench supported that. Labor and the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Then I discovered that Woodside donated $135,000 to Labor and $148,000 to the Liberals and Nationals. What a surprise!

Then there’s the Beetaloo basin. It’s in the news this week because the government passed legislation to allow cash payments to its mining mates to frack the Beetaloo basin. Guess who funds the cost of the exploration—some $7 million per well? Taxpayers via a grant, yet the gas extraction company owns the well and keeps the profits from the extraction. This little earner is called socialising the risk and the costs while privatising the profits. The first recipient of this cronyism was Empire Energy, a Liberal Party donor. But you didn’t hear this from the opposition, because Empire Energy donated $25,000 to the Labor Party. In echoing Senator Hanson’s repeated calls, Senator Patrick rightly pointed out that the oil and gas industry exported $62 billion in 2018-19 and paid taxpayers just $1 billion in royalties. The taxpayers are getting royally screwed by this crony capitalist approach to government.

One Nation support free enterprise; we do not support cronyism. Earlier this year One Nation introduced a motion to refer to a Senate inquiry the misuse of federal government disaster relief funds. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are being misappropriated, with no suitable work being conducted. The Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly rode to the rescue of their mates and voted down our motion—no inquiry.

The car park scandal has seen the Morrison government give $420 million of taxpayer money for commuter car parks in areas that don’t need commuter car parks, including three in the Treasurer’s electorate and one for a train station that’s closing. I assume that even this government is not stupid enough to build a car park at a train station that is not there anymore, so I wait to see which of the government’s mates just got free car parks. The sports rorts scandal, the Inland Rail infrastructure grants, the Kimba radioactive waste dump, the Murray-Darling Basin’s upwater program and ‘watergate’ are all corruption scandals that a federal corruption commission, if we had one, would have dealt with. Parliament rubberstamps decisions and policies, costing the people trillions of dollars so mates can feed off taxpayers, bludge off taxpayers and transfer wealth from taxpayers. The people are rightly angry.

Decisions taken in the parliament must not only be honest, they must be seen to be honest and be justified with hard, solid data.

Australian voters will shortly be asked to pass judgement on this sorry parliament. Make no mistake, voting for the Liberal Party with their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, or voting for Labor and their ticket to power, the Greens, will represent business as usual for the Liberal-Labor duopoly that has ruled this parliament for decades. It’s now time, at the next election, to break this cycle of abuse. Stop repeatedly alternating Liberal-Nationals with Labor and expecting anything to change. It’s now time to change the parliament.

There are many third parties putting their hands up in this election, and none have a track record of achievement greater than One Nation. I’m very proud of the contribution Senator Hanson, Mark Latham, Steve Andrew, Rob Roberts and I have made and are making to restore governance to Australia. Despite the Liberal, Labor and Nationals parties’ many dishonest attempts to destroy her, for 25 years Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have remained true to the Australian people, and we will continue to be so. In conclusion, I make an observation regarding the perspex security screen that now protects the Leader of the Government in the Senate from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and vice versa. This screen sends a powerful message to the Australian people: the Senate chamber now resembles a visitation centre at one of Her Majesty’s prisons. How very appropriate! This is not a parliament; it’s a crime scene.

/1 Comment/by

LABOR BACKFLIPS ON WATER TRADING REGISTER IN DODGY DEAL

, ,

Labor has sensationally backflipped on a One Nation water register in the House of Representatives after supporting it in the Senate. The Water Act was passed in 2007 with the provision that trades be recorded in a central, basin-wide, transparent water trading register.

The Council of Water Ministers agreed to this register in 2008. The Murray Darling Basin Authority tried to introduce this register in 2009 and failed. Nothing has been done since, my amendment simply put a date on getting it done of September 2021.

The amendment was passed in the Senate with the entire cross bench and ALP in support. Then the ALP and the Government did a dodgy deal to vote the amendment down in the lower house.

The Nationals and the ALP are acting together to breach the Water Act in order to stop a transparent water register which will show who is trading water for speculative purposes. The only logical conclusion is that these parties are protecting their own.

Transcript 

The amendments on sheet 1200 simply implement an existing requirement of the Water Act to maintain a transparent register of water trades. This provision has been in the Water Act for 14 years. As Minister Dutton kindly pointed out in the House of Representatives debate this morning, this amendment has a solid legal basis. The pathetic excuse the Nationals gave that the states each have their own register actually supports our case for a basin-wide register. The Nationals have confirmed that there is not a basin-wide register. By taking this action, the ALP and the Liberals and their sellout sidekicks the Nationals are making it clear that they intend to pick and choose which aspects of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan they intend to follow. It’s a bit like they’re saying: ‘We like this bit. Let’s spend years stealing water from farmers, forcing up the price of water so the holdings of our friends are suddenly worth a fortune. But we hate this bit. We don’t want anyone to know what we’re doing.’ On what legal basis are the Nationals, the Liberals and Labor doing this? (Time expired)

/by

Integrity Commission needs to include judicial conduct

, ,

Last year the government unveiled their totally lacking plan for a toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Important powers and jurisdictions were completely missing from their proposal, including oversight of the conduct of judges.

When there are complaints about the judges, it is essentially up to the judiciary to investigate itself.

This type of self-regulation does not work, it always fails. That’s why a well-resourced, powerful, independent external agency is needed and would only increase confidence in the judiciary.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] And today. My question’s too are in regard to establishing Federal Integrity Commission. First question. Is it the intention of the government to consider adding to the duties of such a Federal Integrity Commission, the overview of the judiciary and other officers of the court?

I think the former Attorney General had indicated that the coverage of the judiciary was an issue under consideration, but not necessarily within the integrity commission, because of constitutional complexities, but also looking at the possibility of a separate judicial commission.

[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s true, isn’t it, that there is currently virtually no authority with jurisdiction to overview the conduct and actions of the judiciary, many of whom are appointed for life?

So the federal judges are appointed to the age of 70 and then they have to retire. The current process is that if someone has a concern about a serving judge, they raise that with the Chief Justice or chief judge of that jurisdiction. The Chief Justice or Chief Judge is empowered to either appoint a conduct committee to investigate allegations made against a sitting judge or, alternatively, the Chief Justice or Chief Judge can refer the matter directly to the Attorney General, and there’s a process of where both houses of parliament can be asked whether they wish to make an address to the government general seeking to have the removal of a sitting judge on grounds of, for example, misbehaviour. So there is that process, but the conduct committee, appointed by the Chief Justice or chief judge is the first step.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there is… thank you. There is wide support for a commission with the jurisdiction to overview the conduct of the judiciary, coming out of the recent inquiry into family law, from retired judges, from academics, from constituents, and from the legal profession itself. So at the moment the errant judge’s conduct is not addressed under an independent system. Correct? You’ve just outlined that system.

That’s correct. Well, it’s an independent conduct committee, so it’s appointed by a Chief Justice or chief judge. It’s not composed of people from that court, so it’s independent to that extent, but they make a report to the Chief Justice of that court. So, no, it’s not a standing independent commission at the moment.

[Malcolm Roberts] And to trigger it requires someone from within the system?

It requires a person to make a complaint. So that might be a litigant, who has been disappointed with how a sitting judge has behaved. It could be someone who is a staff member, an observer, it could be anyone. Anyone who has a concern about a sitting judge can make a complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] They can make a complaint, but whether or not it goes anywhere, it still depends on someone within the system?

It will then depend upon the relevant Chief Justice and what they wish to do with that complaint.

[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, who heads up that independent conduct committee?

So it’s a matter for the respective chief general Chief Justice.

[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s one for each court?

They can appoint one per court. So for example, if it was a complaint, Senator Roberts mentioned a family law. For example, if there was a complaint about a sitting family court or federal circuit court judge practising in family law that’d be a matter for the Chief Justice of that family court or the chief judge of the federal circuit court to appoint a conduct committee to look into that particular allegation.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I just listed some of the areas we’ve had complaints from. So given the increasing number of complaints being level of judges based on their conduct, is it not time to ensure such complaints can be examined and addressed in a timely, reasonably costed way ensuring that there are real consequences if necessary?

So wait, my colleague, Ms. noted before that the previous attorney acknowledged there is certainly a question there about whether there should be a body, an integrity body that is able to look at complaints against sitting judges. That is something that the department is continuing to work on, but there are a range of complex constitutional and other legal issues that we’re working through. Attorney General Porter had said it’s perhaps a second order issue in terms of looking at integrity commission first, and then simply look at a judicial integrity type commission but it’s something we’re continuing to work on.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. So let’s change tact just for a minute for two short questions. What is being done in the way of suicide prevention for judges as well as for the victims of poor judicial behaviour?

So suicide prevention for judges is particularly a matter to address to the courts themselves in terms of what what measures they’re actually taking to looking after the wellbeing of judges sitting in the courts because things such as the allocation of work to judges and the allocation of support mechanisms are within the control of the chief judge or chief judge of each jurisdiction.

[Malcolm Roberts] So I imagine being a judge in certain circumstances would be very taxing emotionally. So it’s recognised that the stresses on judges may lead to a need for professional help for these judges. Is this assistance being provided at the moment at an adequate level?

So that would be a question better directed to to the federal courts. And I note that the family court and circuit court are appearing tomorrow, tomorrow at five o’clock.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. And thank you chair. That’s all I have.

[Chair] Thank you very much Senator Roberts. Just as a followup question, in relation to where an independent conduct committee is appointed by Chief Justice about a complaint, a serious complaint in relation to a judge’s conduct what sanctions are available to that committee and ultimately to the Chief Justice?

It’s an excellent question To some extent there are measures that can be put into place by the head of a jurisdiction in terms of for example, does a judge require retraining or should a judge be moved from a particular court and practise in a different court. Things like that, are steps that are available to a judge. But if the concern of the head of that jurisdiction is that that judge should in fact no longer be a judge then they need to refer that to the Attorney General, who would then consider whether the matter should be brought to parliament again, for consideration of whether they should have been addressed by both houses of parliament and to seeking the removal of that sitting judge.

[Chair] Ultimately the power to remove a judge is in the hands of the parliament and the people…

In the hands of Governor General, ultimately

[Chair] Yes, but that’s obviously a very serious matter,

Extremely serious.

/by

How to restore Australia’s productive capacity

,

Australia used to have one of the highest household incomes in the world. What has happened since then?

Decades of weak leadership under Liberal and Labor governments, and it doesn’t look like it will get better anytime soon.

Transcript

The government at the moment is proposing industrial relations reform. It is tinkering. That’s all it is. What I want to do is discuss the bigger picture that we need to consider. First, let’s look at the decline of our country. Look at the decline since 1944, with the stealing of property rights from 1996 onwards and with the destruction of the electricity sector, the guts of our manufacturing sector and our agriculture sector. And yet, at a time when other countries have been reducing their electricity prices, Australian electricity prices have doubled or even tripled. We’ve got a taxation system that’s counterproductive, and there’s the neglect of our water infrastructure. Overregulation is decimating our manufacturing sector and, in fact, all sectors, especially small business—our biggest employers. Now let’s look at the recent devastation from the COVID restrictions, or rather government restrictions imposed as a result of COVID. They’re capricious, unsafe and devastating on small business and employees. If you look at Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, COVID is managing us. Pretty soon JobKeeper ends—in fact, it ends at the end of next month—and then what will happen?

Let’s come back to what we need. We will work with the government to fix a bad bill—that is, its latest proposal. We will work with them in an attempt to do that. The three aims guiding us are: protecting honest workers, protecting small business and restoring Australia’s productive capacity. But not just to recover back to where we were last February before the COVID restrictions from government but to recover back to where we were when we were at the top of the world. We were literally number one for per capita gross domestic product. If I had a wish list, these are the things that would be on it—at least some of them.

I would want an inquiry into local government corruption in Queensland. Right across the state the waste of federal funding runs into the billions, with the fraud, the extortion, the corruption, the threats and the intimidation. We want to end that.

I would wish for a Commonwealth integrity commission, especially now that, during the last week, we’ve learnt what happened in this building. We need a proper corruption-ending system in this parliament and in this building. We need to restore integrity. We also need proper industrial relations reform—not the tinkering, the increased complexity nor the abandonment of small business. We need proper reform that looks after all employers and employees. We need proper reform that enables, first of all, employers and employees to restore their primary relationship without the IR club dipping into their pockets and putting handcuffs on them. We need to restore primary workplace relationships. We need to make it easier for people to work. We need to remove the complexity and remove the lawyers and the vultures.

We need to reform taxation. We need proper taxation reform—not tinkering and not adding more complexity to tax. We need to make it simpler for companies and small businesses to employ people. We need to make it easier for employees, honest workers, to keep more of their pay for their families.

We need reform of the family law system. We need reform of water. We need to do much, much better with our water. We need to return environmental water management to the states. We need to introduce a water register—it’s 14 years overdue. We need to introduce a weirs-for-life program and turn around drains in the south-east. We have a comprehensive plan we’re going to release soon about what we would do with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and water right across the country.

We need to restore farmers’ property rights that were stolen in 1996 by the John Howard-John Anderson government. We need to make sure we have lower energy prices. We need to restore coal-fired power stations in this country—build a new one at Collinsville and build a new one in the Hunter Valley. We need to address the PFAS problems that are gutting so many areas. We need to look at infrastructure—the national rail circuit, Inland Rail, the Bradfield Scheme—and do it properly. Above all, we need a government with vision that provides real leadership, not tinkering. Get back to basics.

/by