Posts

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

Corruption in Local Government must be investigated

,

The government voted down my inquiry into local government corruption despite concerning evidence being presented to them.

Recent royal commissions into aged care, institutional abuse and banking practices only came about after much opposition. Look how much evidence surfaced when people were able to come forward to tell their stories. This inquiry is urgently needed.

Original Inquiry: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/government-dodges-corruption-investigation/

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to further discuss the corruption that continues in Queensland local government. This corruption is ripping off hundreds of millions of dollars of Commonwealth and state taxpayers’ money. These moneys are being redirected, not spent on their intended purposes, not spent at all or corruptly provided to persons in exchange for overvalued materials and services. Emergency Management Australia, EMA, administers the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, the NDRRA, and the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, the DRFA, funding on behalf of the Australian government. Seventy-five per cent of the funds are from the Australian government, and the remainder is reimbursed by the Queensland state government. The Queensland Reconstruction Authority, QRA, and Emergency Management Queensland, EMQ, coordinate disaster funding in Queensland. Queensland councils received $5.4 billion in NDRRA funds from 2011 to 2019. This may be a billion-dollar scandal.

Recent royal commissions into aged care, institutional abuse and banking practices only came about after much opposition. Look how much evidence surfaced when people were able to come forward to tell their stories. This inquiry is urgently needed. The councils and the Local Government Association of Queensland facilitate a system where contractors make huge profits from road-building by fraudulently claiming payments and stripping 40 to 60 per cent out of NDRRA funding as private profits. These practices are widespread across Queensland. At the heart of this local government corruption has been the Local Government Association of Queensland, the LGAQ, a private company that has a special relationship with the Queensland government and is not obliged to go to tender when contracting with councils.

This lack of transparency breeds corruption. What makes the LGAQ unique is the special statutory provisions that make the LGAQ virtually unaccountable for their actions. Under rule 234 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 a council is exempt from calling contracts to tender or calling quotes if the contract is entered into under an LGA arrangement. Can you imagine that? This includes a contract made with the LGAQ. Every contract the LGAQ enters involves a substantial fee being paid to the LGAQ. I will say that again. Every contract the LGAQ enters involves a substantial fee being paid to the LGAQ. It is classic cartel arrangement prohibited in any other state except Queensland, where it is legalised by rule 234.

Some of this information has been disclosed in the Queensland state parliament and directly to the CCC, which inexplicably declined to investigate. Many complaints to the CCC about a council are sent back to the council to investigate itself; actual CCC investigation is rare. A research paper prepared by Professor Timothy Prenzler into the complaints sent to the CCC found that less than two per cent of complaints were investigated and the other 98 per cent largely disappeared. Why?

After I alerted the Senate that I wished to put a motion to support a Senate select committee inquiry into this corruption, the LGAQ sent representatives to Canberra to try to stop the inquiry. Some mayors contacted the office of the local government minister, Mr Coulton, objecting to the inquiry. What are they afraid of? What do these mayors all have to hide? What do they think an inquiry will reveal? Is this an admission of guilt? A council with nothing to hide would welcome an opportunity to show how well it uses public money. Yet, when the motion was put to the vote, the government, Labor and the Greens voted against this anticorruption motion.

This was quite stunning. The government wishes to introduce an integrity bill, yet voted against an anti-integrity motion. The Greens believe the lies that complaints brought to the CCC had been investigated and found to be without substance. This is false. Key witnesses were never contacted, let alone questioned. Key locations were never inspected or visited. How could the Greens say this constituted an investigation? Crossbench senators Jacqui Lambie and Rex Patrick know I’m right and supported my motion. I thank these senators for their integrity. The mechanics of the corrupt practices are known and have been brought to the attention of the authorities. I call on the Senate to do the right thing. I will continue exposing this corruption and continue to seek a Senate select committee to protect taxpayers’ money and to restore integrity.

/by

Commonwealth Corruption Commission a toothless tiger

Marcus Paul and I discussed the proposed Commonwealth Corruption Commission which is long overdue and designed to be a toothless tiger.

Transcript

[Marcus] Retired Victorian Supreme Court Judge, Stephen Charles said, “This is not a corruption commission. It’s designed to protect parliamentarians and senior public servants from investigation. After two years of waiting, this is a tremendous disappointment. An annual budget of $42 million when fully operational. And of course it will file in its current form of how it’s you know being sold. It will fail to hold people to account. It won’t be anything like a new South Wales, independent commission against corruption.

[Malcolm] The early indications, from what we can see is there will be no public hearings for public sector and, and members of parliament corruption.

[Marcus] Well, that’s right. And we won’t have yeah.

[Malcolm] That’s the place where you need it. That’s gotta be out in front and transparent. The prime minister, the attorney general have dragged their feet on this for a couple of years now. And they now produce something that falls short of the mark. And, you know, so how can we do public hearings for law enforcement and police, but not for members of parliament, and for public sector employees, this is wrong.

[Marcus] Yeah

[Malcolm] And then we’ve gotta have the names out there, and yet people are entitled to make sure that the government that they elect are working for the people. And that’s what we need to get. We need to make sure that there is pressure on politicians to be clean at all times.

[Marcus] Absolutely. You know, under its current proposed format, you won’t see people like, you know, I mean, look, what’s happened in new South Wales in the last couple of months, we’ve had a premiere drag before the independent commission of corruption and grill to within a nature of a personal life. And that won’t happen under this proposed federal CIC. And that’s an issue for me.

[Malcolm] Yes. And the attorney general has the power to limit information that can be considered by the Commonwealth integrity commission. There are also the bars for referral are way too high. Someone approaches the institution with reasonable suspicions of corruption breaches, but no actual evidence. It can be ignored. And then with retrospectivity, which means a sport rots and the Murray-Darling basin quarterbacks, they won’t be investigated because they were in the past. This is, this is just way way too short of where we need to be.

[Marcus] All right now . I’m glad to have you on we’ll chat soon, mate. Thank you again as always.

[Malcolm] Thanks Marcus.

/by

Government wastes $27 million on one piece of land

,

Transcript

[Marcus] Yes look I mentioned that story about Australia Post just a moment or two ago. I mean those ridiculous costings being discussed in Senate estimates and Malcolm Roberts is also involved in all of this. He joins us on the programme, hello Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Good morning Marcus, how are you mate?

[Marcus] I’m okay, busy time in Canberra at the moment, with these estimates going on.

[Malcolm] Yes it is we’re doing a combination of written submissions, written questions on notice, as well as personal appearances. So there’s a lot on–

[Marcus] Good.

[Malcolm] In Senate estimates. It’s a matter of making the best use of the time.

[Marcus] All right good work, because we need questions to be asked about really important issues, like why the government paid $30 million for the land that was later valued at just under $3 million. The previous owner now leasing back the land at a value of $1 million.

The land was owned by the Liberal Party donors, Tony and Ron Perich’s Leppington Pastoral company. What can you tell me, about this so-called Golden Leppington Triangle? Well there must be There must be gold in them there hills, there has to be. I mean I’d love to have my, any asset that I have. I’d love somebody to pay me 10 times what it’s worth.

[Malcolm] It’s more than 10 times, in overall I guess, yeah 10 times, but yeah, it’s just staggering. The land was valued without even entering the site. It just displays typical poor governance from government and federally. You know, the federal government is far too big.

It needs to get back to handing back most of its responsibilities back to the States, because they stolen from the state. And you’re not going to get accountability in government like this. And you know what’s happening Marcus, is that we’ve seen a disregard of taxpayer’s money and a bypassing of data, making decisions based upon what looks to be like mate’s needs. And we know we need an ICAC, Federal Government ICAC. The attorney general has promised one two years ago, draft bill–

[Marcus] Yup, yup.

[Malcolm] Since December, 2019, but it’s just a weak, toothless proposal. We need real governance, we need real accountability. And we need above all, a restoration of government’s primary responsibility which is to serve the people not steal from the people.

[Marcus] Yeah I mean Pauline Hanson’s One Nation, you support a federal independent commission against corruption, we absolutely 100% need one. I mean how? Look at this for poor governance. I mean, it’s typical, a disregard for taxpayers money and bypassing data.

I know you love using data, but I mean how on earth can this land be valued without anybody even entering the site for goodness sake?

[Malcolm] Well you’re absolutely correct. And you know this is big as it is. It’s tiny compared to what is going on, say in the rorting of our energy, which is destroying jobs, exporting jobs overseas. That’s why we want to chase the CSIRO, yet again in Senate estimates and I’ll be holding them accountable.

I’ve written a letter ahead of time to make the best use my time saying I want certain questions answered. This will be the fifth opportunity for the CSIRO to produce evidence that climate policies are needed. And without that, we need to scrap these policies. Why hasn’t the government done it’s due diligence at the site where the land transaction–

[Marcus] Yup.

[Malcolm] Took place, why hasn’t the government done its due diligence on the CSIRO? We’ve given the CSIRO four opportunities, this will be the fifth, they have not come up with the goods we’re destroying not $30 million worth of wealth. We’re destroying trillions of dollars worth of wealth–

[Marcus] Yup.

[Malcolm] In this state, in this country because of these climate policies that have got no basis in science. So we’re giving the CSIRO yet another attempt, a fifth opportunity to provide the evidence.

[Marcus] All right, well, as I’ve discussed with you before, I mean, in order for our economy to continue for all, in order for investment to take place whether it’s in renewables, whether it’s in nuclear, whether it’s you know in coal or anything. There needs to be something on the table from the government.

There needs to be direction right now it’s a rudderless ship and we need, you know, if you want to attract investment into any energy source, renewable or otherwise, you need to let those who may be willing to invest in our energy needs. You need to let them know a roadmap, what’s happening. There’s nothing going on at the moment.

[Malcolm] Exactly and you know the reason why Marcus? Is because there’s no basis in fact, or science or data for their climate policies, there is none at all. The CSIRO has never proven that four times to us, because they’ve failed four times. And that’s the reason why there’s so many rudderless moves, so many rudderless direction’s going on or lack of direction going on in this state–

[Marcus] Yup.

[Malcolm] In this country, because there is lack of data underpinning the policies. And therefore people just get pulled from one side to the other in parliament. They don’t know where they’re going. They’re lost, they’re in a fog. Canberra is the most destructive city in the country. And I mean that sincerely.

[Marcus] Okay.

[Malcolm] Because they’re paid enormously and they add no value. The fastest growing income in the country is in Canberra. The fastest growing population of a city is in Canberra.

[Marcus] Yes.

[Malcolm] And the lack of accountability is there. And when government, federal government is the source of your growth, then you’re on a really downward slide slope into oblivion as far as this country is concerned. It’s just ridiculous because there’s nothing there that drives this, and this state, as in the state government, the government.

[Marcus] Yup.

[Malcolm] Is out of control.

[Marcus] All right, let’s just move on to youth crime, if we can now, now there’s been some suggestions that if the opposition in Queensland get in, they’ll put a curfew on youth up there in Townsville, and also in Cairns. I mean, what has led an increase in youth crime?

And that’s your neck of the woods up there in Queensland, I mean, what’s going on here? Is it poor parenting, high unemployment, lack of maybe consequences, you know, revolving door through courts, what is it? All of that?

[Malcolm] There’s a really positive story here Marcus, a wonderful story. There are community groups now in Townsville who are so concerned about the crime, that’s gone out of control in Townsville. It’s similar in Ipswich, in Caboolture and in Logan. These areas that have been traditional Labor Party Strongholds, Labor Party’s taken for granted and neglected them.

But the really positive sign is that there’s a group of, they’re actually a couple of groups in Townsville. They’re coming together now, both indigenous people and European descent. One for example is called One Community One Standard. And they’re saying, ‘We’ve had enough.

You people in government are not doing your job in the state government under the Labor Party machine. And we want to make sure that we put in place active community responses to the crime.’ And they’re not just saying let’s punish kids, because a lot of this is crime from juveniles.

They’re saying, let’s look at the root causes of this. Let’s get parents to stand up and say, we’ve got to look after the kids, learn and teach them responsibility which means parents have to take responsibility.

Let’s get energy policies correct, So that we get a return to cheap energy, which means more jobs instead of exporting jobs to China and having our kids on drugs and out of control on the streets, let’s give them work something meaningful.

And there are also some wonderful people up there who are Jeff Adams for example and Ross Butler, who has, coming up with juvenile boot camps that have been proven over many many years. And the government is just sitting on his hands. You know what the first initiative these people want Marcus?

They want a simple, confidential survey of all the people involved with these kids because the state government won’t let them speak. They can’t get the facts out. So government is now not only actively condoning this violence and this crime, they’re encouraging it by suppressing any doubt on it, again government just wanting to abandon people for the sake of political correctness and looking good rather than doing good.

This is a really positive story coming up in Townsville

[Marcus] All right.

[Malcolm] Because, One Community, One Standard.

[Marcus] But look Jacinta Pryce will be speaking more and Mundine. Yes tell me about this CPAC, that’s the U-S election day. Tell me about yeah okay, tell me about CPAC.

[Malcolm] CPAC stands, the philosophy is basically conservatism is the political philosophy which States that sovereignty resides in the person. It’s about restoring freedom in our country.

[Marcus] Yup.

[Malcolm] I spoke there last year.

[Marcus] Okay.

[Malcolm] It’s a wonderful gathering. I spoke there last year, I shared the stage with Jim Molan.

And it’s on this year, just one day this year, for Wednesday, the 4th of November, hopefully to celebrate Trump’s re-election, but they’ll also be handing out the CPAC Keneally Cup, which will be presented by Craig Kelly, because Christina Keneally won it last year for trying to stop this going ahead because Christina Keneally is one of the controls of politics and she wanted to stop free debate, stop free speech.

And she got so much publicity for CPAC, that CPAC was sold out. So I really strongly recommend anyone in Sydney to go there. But I can’t go this year because of the border closures

[Marcus] Sure.

[Malcolm] But it’s a wonderful display, wonderful forum.

[Marcus] So just on this, I, this is going to be cheeky. So the 2020 picks for this so-called Christina Keneally Cup will be what, Kevin Rudd, why? I mean, all he wants is for Murdoch not to control all of the newspapers up there in Queensland. Come on you’ve got to agree with that surely Malcolm

[Malcolm] Look and that’s Kevin Rudd just wanting to intimidate free press–

[Marcus] No he’s not.

[Malcolm] By promoting Royal commission to . We don’t need that, we just better a marketplace. If people don’t need Murdoch papers, they just don’t have to buy it.

[Marcus] Yeah but hang on, that note, Malcolm we’re going to have our first disagreement and you know how much I respect and admire you, but come on if Murdoch owns all of the papers in Queensland, what other choice do they have? There’s no other choice.

[Malcolm] Well, there are plenty of choices because we’ve never, it’s like the ABC up in the Pilbara Marcus.

[Marcus] No don’t try the ABC in Pilbara at me. I’m talking about Queensland, stop distracting. I thought you were better than that Malcolm.

[Malcolm] No what I’m saying is in the eighties, they only had the ABC and the–

[Marcus] Now he’s going back to the eighties, here we go.

[Malcolm] But hang on, hang on, give me a go.

[Marcus] All right.

[Malcolm] What’s What’s happening is that we’ve now got media from all over the world. You can get it on the internet. You don’t have to watch Murdoch. You don’t have to watch the ABC.

[Marcus] Yeah but now I know that. And people yeah that’s true, and hopefully they do, but people, you know, a lot of people aren’t as savvy as you they are stuck in their ways, older people and they buy newspapers. That’s what they’ve done all their lives. And a lot of them aren’t on the internet, funnily enough Malcolm.

And what they’re getting is the one source of news in the sunshine state. And I just, Malcolm I like you, but I can’t agree with you on this.

[Malcolm] We’ll agree to disagree.

[Marcus] All right then.

[Malcolm] I don’t see that we have to buy anything from Murdoch it’s up to people to choose whatever they want. Most of Murdoch’s stuff is on the net now. He publishes hardly any regional papers because they’re just not viable. So, you know, if you can get him on the internet, you can get anyone else on the internet too. So, you know, if you don’t like Murdoch, go elsewhere.

[Marcus] It’s not about not liking Murdoch. It’s about having a variety of sources in which to get your news and information all right mate. But anyway, we’ll talk more about this. We’ll have another disagreement but I do appreciate you coming on the programme mate. Thank you so much.

[Malcolm] You’re welcome, pleasure to be here, Marcus.

[Marcus] Talk soon, there he is.

/by

Kick Labor out of Bundamba

Let’s kick Labor out of Bundamba at this Saturday’s by-election.

Here’s why.

Transcript

There’s a by-election for the state, Queensland state seat of Bundamba this coming Saturday, the 28th of March. And there’ll be pre-poll every day leading up to that at five particular booths.

For those who don’t know in Bundamba, the Labor Party has a commitment to make Ipswich into Tipswich, with massive, new incinerators, massive new dumps, super dumps.

One Nation’s Sharon Bell, candidate, opposes that. Labor’s electricity gouging has really hurt Queensland families and individuals and businesses.

It’s exported jobs overseas to foreign countries which burn our coal at a far cheaper rate because they don’t have the government impost and the subsidies for stupid intermittent energies like solar and wind.

So you’re paying for this green fantasy that Annastacia Palaszczuk is driving and taking money out of family wallets, taking jobs out of Ipswich and Bundamba. Sharon Bell will fight to reverse that.

And then the corruption. Everyone knows about the corruption in Ipswich. Labour Council for many years and Jo-Ann Miller was the previous member of Bundamba and she fought very hard to remove that corruption, to expose it.

She spent 16 years and they bullied her and intimidated her. So Labour, is the bulliers. Make sure that people in Bundamba vote to end the corruption in Queensland that extends from Ipswich right through to the Queensland state parliament.

Jo-Ann Miller did her best. She’s fiesty, she’s strong, she’s honest, she’s courageous. But they belted at her. And now, to replace Jo-Ann Miller, Labour is putting up a candidate that is a blow in from Melbourne.

He’s only arrived in the state a few months ago and he was put onto a job, paid more than $200,000 a year on a government agency. How’s that? He’s in favour of the dumps.

He’s not gonna be doing anything about the corruption because he won’t know where to start. And he’s not gonna stop electricity price gouging. Sharon, though, Sharon is just like Jo-Ann.

Fiesty, honest, strong. She listens and like Jo-Ann, she will expose the corruption and she will get stuck into the basic issues for Bundamba. She’ll make sure that we don’t have any more privatisation on her watch.

She’ll make sure that privatisation, by the way from both Liberal and Labour. She’ll make sure, as a mother of three, that she pursues basic education, restoring education standards.

No more political correctness with Sharon Bell. A basic down-to-earth person. So on Saturday and in the pre-polling, make your vote count. Sharon Bell, number one for Bundamba.

And make sure to make your vote count, that it’s formal, that you put two, three, and four in the other boxes. Put ’em in any order you like because you’re the owner of the preferences.

So if you liked Jo-Ann Miller, vote Sharon Bell, number one for Bundamba. If you like Bundamba and its people, vote Sharon Bell for Bundamba. She lives there. She knows the issues. And if you love Australia, vote Sharon Bell, one for Bundamba.

/by