Posts

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Build-to-Rent is Really Build-to-Never-Own

,

Labor’s decision to slash the withholding tax for foreign corporate landlords from 30% to just 15% is a slap in the face to everyday Australians. While families struggle to buy a home, Labor is rolling out the red carpet for global giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—offering them tax breaks to build rental stack-and-pack apartments that Australians will never own.

Let’s call it what it is: build-to-rent is build-to-never-own. It’s designed to lock Australians into a lifetime of renting from foreign billionaires, while those same corporations pay less tax than the hardworking people they’re renting to.

One Nation has been warning about this for years. We believe in the Australian dream—owning your own home, not renting it forever from a global landlord.

We stand with Australians, not greedy foreign corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda.

Transcript

Senator Bragg’s disallowance seeks to throw a spanner in the works of the build-to-rent scheme. That’s a very good thing and One Nation will be wholeheartedly supporting it. Foreign corporations used to pay a 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor cut that in half, to 15 per cent.  

Let’s be clear: this Labor government said to foreign, corporate landlords like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and first state, ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’  

Forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor’s dream is that you live in a stack-and-pack shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock forever, while those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. That’s what build to rent means. 

Whenever you hear ‘build-to-rent’, remember ‘renting forever to a foreign corporation, a foreign corporate landlord and a foreign global wealth investment fund’. They’ll build homes, for sure, and Australians will never, ever own them—never. It’s built to rent forever. I’ll quote from the Economics Legislation Committee report into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. The provisions of the bills include ‘reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—distributions of rental income and capital gains—from eligible managed investment trust investments from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, starting from 1 July 2024’. So there you go—a tax cut in half for those global, corporate, predatory investors, who own almost everything and are determined to own everything. I’ll say that again: they own almost everything and are determined to own everything. 

The report states: 

The draft legislation was adjusted as a result of this consultation to ensure the government’s policy objective of incentivising foreign investment in BTR— 

Build-to-rent— 

including affordable housing supply, is achieved. 

They are admitting that the objective of the bills is incentivising foreign and predatory corporations into owning your home. The report also states: 

The Property Council advised the 15 per cent tax rate for investment in housing is already available to Australian investors. The MIT— 

managed investment trust— 

withholding tax rate applies to withholding tax that goes back to overseas investors— 

Predators and parasites— 

but foreign investors can also capital partner with Australian investors. 

That is the most telling part of all. This bill would only change the tax treatment of foreign, predatory, multinational corporations. That’s all. There’s nothing for Australians. Australian companies could do it. Foreign companies pay a penalty—that’s a good thing. Yet the Labor Party of Australia would change that; you in the government would change that. Are Labor the party for Australia, or are they the party for global, foreign corporations? Build-to-rent answers that question clearly. Clearly Labor are for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. One Nation, though, is for Australians owning their own homes. 

I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from the coalition senators’ dissenting report on the build-to-rent bills—an outstanding report. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the new Labor Party: 

Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. 

This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers. 

Why? The report continues: 

Dr Murray was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: 

It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement. 

That’s just like One Nation policy. The report goes on: 

At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords— 

Really? You would? 

and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’— 

How condescending; how arrogant— 

Senator BRAGG: Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? 

Mr Clare: I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property where there is an option of having longer-term tenancies rather than the more-typical-in-the-market situation where there is a lack of assurance of continuity of tenancy because it’s a small-scale, hobby activity for individual landlords. 

The report continues: 

This is the view of a vested interest. Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. 

Other witnesses did not share ASFA’s view. Grounded Community Land Trust Advocacy told the Committee:  

Senator BRAGG: Are you concerned that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia? 

Mr Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is delivering horrifying results in the Northern Hemisphere, and this legislation makes no account of that— 

No account of what’s actually happening— 

It perplexes me that this government, which purports to be in support of labour— 

That is, workers— 

is allowing rent-maximisation strategies to come through unabated. Yes, I agree: pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition— 

An oligopoly for the big fellas— 

What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice— 

Yet you want to bring it in— 

There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming. 

The report goes on: 

The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership. 

Senator BRAGG: But isn’t it the case that the character of the housing market in Australia is largely focused on individuals? … Do you think that’s a good or a bad design feature? 

Mr Reardon: I think that is a very positive outcome, with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose—all of those dynamics. 

This is reinforcing what we already know and what Senator Bragg has already discussed. Mr Reardon goes on: 

All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes. 

Personal responsibility is a cornerstone, a foundation of a safe and productive society. Personal responsibility enables and is the basis for a safe and productive society. 

Senator Bragg’s report then says: 

Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre: 

There are a lot of foreign investors using the MITs because of the withholding tax concessions and other benefits from using that structure, but there can also be domestic investors using the MITs; they just get a different tax regime. Those investors will be working in partnership with commercial developers to develop these buildings. 

The report continues: 

Cbus Super has previously committed to scaling up in the Build to Rent sector, announcing a plan to scale up its portfolio to approximately $2 billion in apartments. 

Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this Bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned: 

I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. 

It is bizarre. The report continues: 

Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. 

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US— 

I will digress from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report for a minute. The bankers in the United States said in the 1920s that their dream was a combination of predatory behaviour and legislation to get a monopoly and own every house that they could in the country—to control people—because once people have their residence at stake, they are easily controlled. The report says: 

Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing. 

In 2023, corporate housing funds held $1 trillion USD in assets. In Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the rental stock respectively. 

That is what you are wanting here. We don’t want it. The report continues: 

This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting— 

This is exactly what we’ve been warning for the last five years. It continues: 

There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly— 

Watch what’s happening; this has failed— 

While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australians into it. 

Well, Senator Bragg, I’m not ashamed to admit we probably couldn’t have written it better ourselves; thank you. 

Build-to-rent is an abomination that destroys the Australian dream of owning your own home. One Nation raised this cruel reality years ago. One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations. 

An honourable senator interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s see if you repeat that: One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations, predatory parasitic corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda, on your conscience. All Australians should be able to work hard and one day own their own slice of this great, big, wonderful country with so much potential. Only One Nation has the policy to make this real for everyday Australians. 

/by

Australia Must Unite Against Globalist Control

Last weekend, the Australian National Review hosted a free speech summit on the Gold Coast. Although I was unable to attend in person due to commitments in Canberra for the opening of the 48th Parliament, I expressed my strong support for all those standing in defence of free speech and national sovereignty.

We answer to God, our communities, and ourselves.

Transcript

Thank you to the Australian National Review and the organisers of this summit on Free Speech. I can’t be with you in person because I’m in Canberra attending the opening events of the 48th Parliament and working with our newly elected Senators from NSW Warwick Stacey and from Western Australia Tyron Whitten to hit the ground running in the 48th Parliament.

As Senator Pauline Hanson said after the recent election – this is not the end of an election, it’s the start of a movement.

A movement that requires conservatives and patriots to set aside political differences, to forgive those who tried to take a slice out of each other to grow their own support and to band together against the evil that threatens our beautiful country.

Australia is under threat from a parliament that’s been captured. Globalist interests continue pursuing an agenda leading ultimately to serfdom for everyday Australians.

When the World Economic Forum says, “you will own nothing and be happy” they actually mean “The billionaires they work for will own everything and you will be happy – or else”.

This was never a conspiracy theory. Their annual meetings in Davos spend days explaining how the transfer of wealth and sovereignty will be conducted.

Most elements of their control agenda have already been put in place. Continuous, hidden facial recognition and identity verification tied back to a Digital ID is already in place in Australia.

There are no controls over the data, no audits to ensure data is not being copied and that deletions occur in the correct time frame. The audit that’s done looks only at the procedures in place with no forensic audit to see what’s really going on.

Children under the age for Digital ID are being disenfranchised not just from social media, they’re cut from the internet as a whole.

Earlier this month Bing and Google announced they are trialling a system that prevents anyone under 16 accessing the internet without a parental lock. For those who would defend the idea based on “keeping kids safe” understand that evil always finds a way.

Protecting children is the role of the parent and should involve educating the child on how to recognise and avoid harm. Above all else, it should involve defeating grooming. And that involves showing our children love and enabling them to feel valued and worthy. Thereby preventing groomers from cultivating feelings of being valued and worthy.

These are the Christian values on which our society has been founded. The further we move away from these principles, giving life to an age of needless white guilt, victimhood and immorality the worse our society has become.

I was astonished to read a story a few weeks ago of a child predator here in Australia who met his victims on dating apps. Children as young as 13 are on dating apps.

Most of the sites which are of concern, and these are not X, Facebook or Youtube, have apps that the current legislation does not cover. Virtual Private Networks, VPN’s, will become huge.

The Government’s war on freedom of association will have no benefit beyond increasing the tech skills of children so they can continue to talk to their friends online.

This may involve migrating chats from regulated social media to porn sites like Pornhub whose forum has over 300 million users.

To sign up requires no age verification. Visitors simply click a check box saying they’re over 18 and provide an email address.

Video games now have chat facility, and this is a growing area for groomers to find their victims. These are not included in the Government’s control agenda.

What can we conclude from this situation? The social media ban is not about protecting children because it only protects children from the least dangerous websites.

IT’S ABOUT CONDITIONING THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT THIS LOSS OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.

It’s about perfecting the technology to be used at some point against all of us.

And it’s about getting children used to government control from cradle to grave.

We’re seeing the weaponisation, the inversion, of human rights to justify the loss of freedoms to an extent that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable.

No longer are human rights about DEFENDING freedom. In this inverted world human rights are used to limit our freedom, limit our choice of words, limit our right to protest, limit our right to freedom of association and freedom of commerce.

This is a move that’s an essential precursor to the final stage of their global control agenda, which is the imprisonment of citizens inside home units that are nothing more than human filing cabinets, located in prison communities, called variously 15-minute cities dishonestly labelled as so-called “sustainable” cities.

In these digital prisons you will not own a car, your furniture, your whitegoods. Instead, there is life-by-subscription. Which is well underway.

During the governments’ COVID response we witnessed these predatory billionaires respond to the virus using their control of the media and their control of corporations like Coles and Woolworths to spread fear.

Fear that offered as the solution jabs from pharmaceutical companies these same parasitic billionaires own.

In this way, $5 trillion was transferred from everyday citizens worldwide to the world’s predatory billionaires.

All under the protection of politicians who take donations from these crony capitalist companies.

This is called crony capitalism and it’s the greatest threat to human rights in our lifetime.

The growth of conservative powerhouses such as Reform in the UK and AfD in Germany shows the public have finally realised the water around them is boiling.

The fight for free speech and human rights is the challenge those at this conference have accepted.

Praise to you.

Restoring freedom must start with the people’s media, which is rising. Yet it won’t bring enough people to our movement without improving credibility through more rigorous journalism.

Self-control is something we adults teach our children yet often forgot to use ourselves.

In the Senate, I’ve prided myself on being factual and this has protected myself and One Nation, playing a large role in the growth of our electoral support.

Finally, as a movement we need to restore Christian values, biblical values.

We do not answer to Julie Inman Grant. We do not answer to Anthony Albanese. Nor to the World Economic Forum, nor to the UN World Health Organisation, nor the UN.

We answer to God. We answer to our communities. We answer to our self.

Good luck to all the award nominees for the Australian Media Awards and enjoy the summit.

/2 Comments/by

Insurance Costs SKYROCKET as Foreign Corporations Profit

,

How much has your insurance increased? For some, insurance costs have increased by as much as ten times. While many insurance companies operate under Australian brands, they are actually controlled by foreign multinational investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, and Goldman Sachs. These foreign entities influence our government to push climate change propaganda, which they then use as an excuse to drastically increase insurance premiums.

Only One Nation can be trusted to say no to the foreign corporate cartel, ensuring more affordable insurance for Australians.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Financial Services, Senator Gallagher. Minister, Australians opening insurance renewals have been falling off their chairs. Brendan O’Malley from the Courier Mail reported in September that a homeowner on Cheviot Street in Brisbane had their insurance bill increase from $3,000 to $32,000 a year—more than 10 times. Queensland’s Suncorp Bank profited $379 million last year, while Suncorp Bank’s insurance division made a whopping $1.2 billion profit, more than triple that of their banking business. Why is your government letting insurance companies rob Queenslanders? 

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the proposition that Senator Roberts has put as part of his question. But I do accept and understand that insurance affordability is a real issue for Australian households and businesses, and it is something that the government is concerned about. You see in the inflation data that one of the big drivers of inflation is the costs around insurance. There are a number of reasons insurance premiums have increased in the last 12 months—it’s due to a range of factors—but I think Senator McAllister was talking about this earlier in the week. There have been more frequent and more intense hazard events, price inflation is making it more expensive to repair damages, and there is the global distribution of risk by reinsurers, which are having to cover the costs of earthquakes in New Zealand and hurricanes in Florida—that all has an impact on costs here. The government has established an Insurance Affordability and Natural Hazards Risk Reduction Taskforce within PM C to address the impacts of climate change and inflationary pressures that are driving up the cost of insurance. We are looking at what further steps the government can take, working with industry and stakeholders through the taskforce, including some things the insurers always raise this with me: risk mitigation, land use planning and other near-term opportunities to address affordability. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

That insurance bill that I talked about before went up because Brisbane City Council published new climate scaremongering flood maps. The street never had a problem with flooding yet was included in a new zone marked for a one-in-2,000-year climate change doomsday flood. Minister, why are you letting insurance companies use baseless climate change scaremongering as an excuse to gouge billions at the expense of Queenslanders? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I said in my previous answer, there are a range of drivers impacting on the cost of insurance. Some of it is around local hazardous events that we’ve had, including floods, and including floods in Brisbane and other areas of Queensland. But there are other reasons, like price inflation and like the reinsurance market, which is being affected by those big, global natural disasters that we’ve been seeing. Some would say—and I would say—these are caused by climate change. I accept that you might not agree with that. In relation to land use planning, that has been subject to a number of inquiries and reviews post the flooding, particularly in areas like Brisbane. Land use planning zoning maps have changed to reflect some of the risk associated with that, and that would feed into premiums not just in Queensland but around the country. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Foreign insurance companies own these insurance companies in Australia. Foreign multinational, global wealth funds and corporates like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Goldman Sachs are the largest and control shareholders. Insurance is expensive, and the money goes overseas. Minister, why aren’t you doing anything to stop these insurance companies gouging Queenslanders and sending the profits overseas to multinational, global investors? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Certainly, I’ve already alluded to the fact of global distribution of risk by reinsurers. You talk about them. The global reinsurers affect the price of insurance here, as they do in other countries around the world. But I do not accept that we are not taking any action. We have established this taskforce to look at what further steps we can take to build on existing work, including in areas like risk mitigation and land use planning, as well as other steps to deal with some of these affordability challenges. This is a challenge not just in Queensland but around the country. 

/6 Comments/by

Podcast: You’re The Voice

,

I joined Efrat Fenigson on her podcast where we discussed the anti-human agenda and how it has manifested in Australia over the last several years. We discuss the climate change fraud, COVID injections, economic changes needed, Digital ID, and lots more.

Efrat’s Introduction

My guest today is Senator Malcolm Roberts, an Australian politician from Queensland and a member of the Australian Senate. With a background in engineering, mining, business and economics, Senator Roberts is a climate realist, challenging mainstream climate science and exposing lies in this field. Unlike most politicians these days, Senator Roberts is a Truth teller and does not shy away from any topic: public health, Covid, immigration, finance, economics, sexual education for children and more.

In this episode we talk about the anti-human globalist agenda and how it manifested in Australia over the past few years. We cover the Senator’s fight against climate fraud, his efforts to help Covid-19 jabs injured, to expose excess deaths and more, while holding politicians accountable, encouraging people to reclaim their power. The Senator criticizes the centralization of government and the media by globalists, introducing new levels of censorship on Australians. The conversation concludes with monetary and economic changes in Australia, including the move to a cashless society, CBDC, digital IDs, 15-minute cities and more.

The senator highlights the importance of simplicity and the power of individual responsibility in creating positive change and waking people up to the truth. He concludes with a message of hope, urging individuals to be proud of their humanity and to share information to help others become informed.

Chapters

00:00:00 Coming Up…
00:01:06 Introduction to Senator Roberts
00:03:19 Politicians in Today’s Reality
00:11:06 Ad Break: Trezor, Bitcoin Nashville, BTC Prague
00:13:03 Why Politics?
00:16:56 About Human Progress
00:23:04 Australian Politics & Activism
00:25:02 Political Structure in Australia
00:28:47 Balancing the Exaggerated Power of the State
00:30:38 Truth Telling, Simplicity & Education
00:35:02 Efrat’s Resistance to Green Pass During Covid
00:38:01 Senator’s Climate Fraud Views
00:44:30 How To Break The Narrative?
00:49:21 Admitting Being Fooled About Covid
00:55:40 Excess Death & Vaxx Injuries in Australia
01:03:08 Australia’s During Covid & Bigger Picture
01:12:46 Compensation Plan For Vaxx Injured
01:14:24 Media, Censorship & Fear in Australia
01:22:04 Role of Regulation, Legislation, Censorship
01:26:53 CBDC & Digital IDs in Australia
01:32:29 Globalists Vision For Useless Eaters
01:33:58 Money Agenda, Cashless Society & How To Fight Back
01:44:05 Protecting Your Wealth & Family
01:48:04 Bitcoin & Nation States
01:50:01 Globalists Control & A Message Of Hope

Links

/by

United Nations Pact for the Future – A Power Grab by Global Billionaires

,

The world’s predatory billionaires are continuing their quest to rule the world for their own benefit, with vassal states like Australia recently signing onto their latest power grab – the United Nations Pact for the Future.

Before this Pact can take effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties will need to conduct an inquiry, followed by both Houses of Parliament voting for ratification. The public still has time to bring to heel the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The Pact is essentially a comprehensive wish list for global governance. On the upside, it lacks detail, firm language, and binding commitments. These were in the original draft but were removed to push the diluted document through. Even then, nine nations voted against moving towards a vote, and 40 more abstained. The UN doesn’t have the support it needs to press ahead with any significant theft of national sovereignty. However, that won’t stop some traitors in our Parliament and bureaucracy from handing it over, claiming that “the UN told us to.”

Only One Nation is committed to standing against the transfer of wealth and power to the world’s predatory billionaires and their lackeys in the United Nations, World Health Organisation and World Economic Forum.

Transcript

Last week the United Nations passed its Pact for the Future. Before the pact can come into effect in Australia, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties has to do an inquiry, and then both houses of parliament vote for ratification. The public have time to bring to heal the globalists running the Albanese Labor government.

The pact is a comprehensive wish list for world governance with no detail and no implementation plan. There are 56 bold actions—really, they’re fluffy motherhood statements. For example, action 2, which I will quote in full, is:

Action 2. We will place the eradication of poverty at the centre of our efforts to achieve the 2030 Agenda.

21. Eradicating poverty, in all its forms and dimensions, including extreme poverty, is an imperative for all humankind. We decide to:

(a) Take comprehensive and targeted measures to eradicate poverty by addressing the multidimensional nature of poverty, including through rural development strategies and investments and innovations in the social sector, especially education and health;

(b) Take concrete actions to prevent people from falling back into poverty, including by establishing well-designed, sustainable and efficient social protection systems for all that are responsive to shocks.

That’s the entire section on eliminating poverty. It looks like the AI author trained only on children’s picture books.

Do you remember Labor’s failed slogan: ‘By 1990, no Australian child will be living in poverty’? The pact is not a pandemic treaty. The word ‘pandemic’ is not mentioned. COVID is not mentioned. The World Health Organization is not mentioned. There are no penalty clauses for noncompliance. There is no dispute clause, because the pact does not include anything tangible enough to dispute. In the formal vote to adopt, 45 nations opposed it or abstained. What happens now is that our globalist government will sign up to any and every theft of Australian sovereignty it can while saying, ‘The United Nations made me do it.’ No, the United Nations did not. Whatever nefarious attack on agriculture, standard of living, education and human rights the government is planning is entirely this government’s responsibility.

/16 Comments/by

Global Health Emergency or Corporate Payday?

,

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has declared Monkeypox a global public health emergency, triggering emergency powers to drive vaccine sales that benefit big pharmaceutical companies with ties to the organisation. This decision serves corporate interests rather than public health. Regulatory agencies that are meant to protect the public fall under undue influence from the industries they regulate. The WHO is a corrupt organisation that is designed to funnel taxpayer money to its billionaire donors. Australian taxpayers gave $30 million to the WHO last year, likely as a show of loyalty.

Transparency is lacking. Major donors include Gavi, a vaccine alliance funded by corporations tied to predatory giants like BlackRock and Vanguard, who also own large shares in pharmaceutical companies. The WHO’s Monkeypox emergency, declared solely by its director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, highlights the unchecked power of the position. This decision created a market for four already-approved vaccines linked to companies backed by BlackRock and Vanguard, ensuring massive profits for their shareholders. A new Monkeypox vaccine is expected soon, likely fast-tracked by compromised regulators like Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

The WHO previously tried to raise alarm over Monkeypox but found little public concern, so they rebranded it as “Mpox” to push vaccine sales. This benefits the predatory billionaires who control vaccine companies, funnel money to Gavi and the WHO, and fund political parties, including Australia’s Liberal and Labor parties. Recent revelations show Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a more deadly and highly transmissible Mpox virus. This “gain-of-function” research has pandemic potential and should be stopped immediately. It’s troubling that Australia’s CSIRO was involved in gain-of-function research for COVID-19, yet faces no consequences.

The WHO and the TGA have failed in their regulatory duties, serving political agendas rather than public interest. During COVID, the TGA prioritised government control over public health, and there are concerns the same will happen again with Mpox. Every Monkeypox case should be verified through public lab tests, especially as redacted data was used to justify COVID measures that harmed public health.

The time of blind trust in the WHO’s narrative is over; it’s now the age of ‘prove it’.

Transcript

The UN’s World Health Organization, the WHO, has declared monkeypox a public health emergency of international concern. This triggers WHO emergency powers to drive vaccine sales to financially benefit big pharmaceutical companies that donate to the WHO through their other commercial and ownership interests. The first thing a house of review like our Senate should do is ask, ‘Is this a legitimate decision?’ The answer is: it is not, no. The UN WHO has succumbed to regulatory capture—a troubling development in governance. That may plunge Western society into serfdom under large corporations. 

Regulatory capture occurs where a regulatory agency mandated to oversee and enforce rules to protect the public interest ends up under undue influence from companies with vested interests such as the entities it’s meant to regulate or special interest groups. This can result in the agency making decisions that prioritise the interests of these parties over the broader public interest. The New South Wales government lists six areas for regulatory capture: adherence to public interest principles; organisational culture; structure; processes; transparency; and staff experience. The WHO fails all six. 

I’ve often spoken about the corruption, cronyism and illegal behaviour of the World Health Organization; some of my WHO speeches are on my website. The WHO fails to hold staff accountable for misbehaviour, including rape and sexual assault. Its own investigators conclude the WHO is ‘rotten with rapists’—their words. It is a failure of organisational culture and of staffing quality. The WHO is a corrupt organisation whose decisions benefit its billionaire sponsors with substantial health interests. The scam is simple: take a disease that’s around for generations—firstly the flu, and more recently bird flu and now monkeypox; plant scary stories in a media desperate for clickbait articles; use the media driven fear to declare a pandemic; and then—payday!—mandate vaccines financially benefiting the billionaires that funded the media scare. This betrays the public interest. 

The WHO is a con, a fraud and a criminal enterprise designed to transfer wealth from taxpayers into the pockets of their billionaire donors and owners. It is an organisation to which Australian taxpayers gave $30 million last year despite them having $8 billion in financial assets; that donation was likely more about fealty than financing. Identifying the WHO’s donors is difficult since its annual accounts show 32 per cent of donations as ‘other’—another failure of transparency. One of the WHO’s major donors is Gavi, the globalist vaccine alliance of international academics, bureaucrats and pharmaceutical companies funded through corporate donations from companies whose share registers feature investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard. They feature on big pharma share registries; they own big pharma. If Australia had racketeering laws this arrangement would be illegal. This is a failure in structure. 

The monkeypox declaration came from the WHO director-general, Tedros Ghebreyesus, acting alone. The process for making such an important decision is not meaningfully regulated and gives Ghebreyesus too much power to direct a worldwide health response. This is a failure of process, and it’s deliberate. The proclamation is designed to create an international market for new monkeypox vaccines. The WHO already have four approved vaccines for monkeypox: cidofovir, distributed through Pfizer; brincidofovir, manufactured and distributed through Chimerix, whose controlling shareholders include Vanguard and predatory wealth fund cronies; TPOXX, from Siga Pharmaceuticals, with shareholders BlackRock and Vanguard; and ACAM2000 from Emergent Biosolutions, whose largest shareholders are—wait for it—BlackRock and Vanguard. With these drugs the world’s predatory billionaires have decided it’s time for another fundraiser. All four drugs are off-label use—so, any day now, expect a killer new vaccine for monkeypox to be given the hosanna palm frond parade through our disgraced regulators like Canberra’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. 

The WHO tested this scam a few years ago with a minor media fear campaign that discovered the public didn’t take something called monkeypox seriously. So they rebranded it as mpox. Amusingly, they claimed the name monkeypox was insulting to monkeys; monkeys have feelings too, you know! So mpox is monkeypox rebranded to sell more vaccines from vaccine companies who funnel the profits to the world’s predatory billionaires—those same billionaires who own the corporations that donate to Gavi and the WHO as well as fill the coffers of political parties around the world, including massive donations to both cheeks of the Liberal-Labor uniparty in this country. 

Last Tuesday, American congressional investigators revealed that, for nearly nine years, Anthony Fauci concealed plans to engineer a pandemic-capable mpox virus with high transmissibility and a case fatality rate of up to 15 per cent. That’s homicide. The gain-of-function project proposed through NIAID in America from virologist Bernard Moss was to splice genes conferring high pathogenicity from the clade I virus into the more transmissible clade II virus. The new chimeric virus or combined virus could have retained up to a 15 per cent fatality rate and a 2.4 reproductive rate—a measure of transmissibility—meaning, on average, every sick person could infect up to 2.4 other people, giving it pandemic potential. It’s marvellous, what it’s designed to do! 

We know gain-of-function research produced the COVID-19 virus. Is this monkeypox outbreak also man-made? 

Gain-of-function research serves no useful purpose and should be terminated immediately. It’s deeply troubling that Australia’s CSIRO admitted and bragged about its involvement in gain-of-function research that produced COVID-19. And now an online meme simply says: ‘They’re doing it again because you didn’t punish them last time.’ That’s truth indeed. 

The WHO fails all six elements of regulatory capture and so does Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. The TGA is not acting in public interest, which former New South Wales deputy ombudsman Chris Wheeler considers fundamental to representative democratic government. The TGA may claim that, during COVID, it was caught between the parliament, its direct employer, and the wider public. It chose to serve the government’s need for air cover for controls decided on political, not medical, grounds. The TGA should have read the findings of the 1990 WA Inc royal commission, which found: 

The institutions of government and the officials and agencies of government exist for the public, to serve the interests of the public. 

That’s clear. Yet, during COVID, the TGA chose a different path: to support their own agency, to the detriment of the public. What will the TGA do this time, with monkeypox? 

Monkeypox is transmitted through direct contact from sexual activity or intravenous drug use. A Philpot scientific study found 98.7 per cent of infections resulted from gay male sexual transmission. Transmission can occur through direct personal contact of the infected site. Infected animals can spread the disease. Asymptomatic spread, though, is, like COVID, an assertion with no evidence. The clade Ia variant of monkeypox can affect children. The clades currently circulating, though, clade Ib and II, have not been proven to infect children. 

Australia has two monkeypox vaccines approved for over-18s. Both are off-label repurposed drugs approved for smallpox. JYNNEOS from Bavarian Nordic uses cidofovir, which I mentioned earlier, as the active ingredient. Bavarian Nordic have an application in to America’s Food and Drug Administration to give this vaccine to children aged 12 to 18 and are in early testing to support their application to extend use to children aged two and above—two and above! Why does a child need a vaccine against a disease that’s predominately only transmitted through sexual contact or intravenous drug use? The case for a monkeypox vaccination program must be a very high bar for any person who does not engage in risky sexual activity. 

TGA’s website data from the 2022 monkeypox round of vaccinations in Australia shows 3,163 adverse events per 100,000 vaccinations—a staggeringly high three per cent. I note a study published in the journal Frontiers in Medicine, with authors from the University of New South Wales, entitled ‘Autoimmune blistering skin diseases triggered by COVID-19 vaccinations: an Australian case series’. This report found that COVID-19 vaccination either caused the recipient to develop autoimmune blistering disease or made the recipient’s existing condition worse. The cases are extremely rare, and, for once, I can agree with the TGA. I alert Australia to the chance that these outbreaks of a related disease could be mistaken for monkeypox. I note that autoimmune diseases and shingles—that is, herpes zoster—can intersect, and both are side effects of the COVID vaccines. If the Senate is going to be called on to support a monkeypox response, then it’s essential every case is verified through publicly disclosed laboratory testing. 

Page after page of redacted data was used to support COVID measures and the damage to public health is undeniable. It’s homicide. ‘Safe and effective’ was not one lie; it was two. People are not believing the UN World Health Organization mpox narrative. The time for blind trust is over. We’re now in the age of ‘prove it’. 

/by

Predatory Foreign Giants Control Our Banks and Supermarkets

,

We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.

BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.

Transcript

So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services. 

Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country.  The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses. 

/by

Reality Check Radio

,
/by

ACCC Needs More Power Against Foreign Predatory Billionaires

,

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts. 

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We want both. 

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We did. 

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes, we are. 

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

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

CHAIR: This is your last question. 

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

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

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

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

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

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/5 Comments/by