Posts

Fighting Back Against Climate Hysteria

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

America is leading the fight against Climate Change fraud.

That’s fitting, considering a collection of charlatans, politicians, and paid-off scientific bodies birthed doomsday climate propaganda was birthed within American shores.

July brought good news!

The Climate Working Group in the US Department of Energy produced the document A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate.

Since Donald Trump took office, the US Department of Energy has been waging war against all things dodgy and ‘green’.

Critically, his Administration has cut off billions of dollars incentivising Australian companies to pursue Net Zero instead of critical energy infrastructure.

Americans are now talking about ‘unleashing US energy’, creating a ‘nuclear renaissance’, and – yes – drill, baby, drill!

The Climate Working Group responsible for the paper carry familiar names, many of them reformed from their days in the climate movement: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick, and Roy Spencer.

The title of the Secretary of Energy’s forward sets the scene: Energy, integrity, and the power of human potential.

He goes on to say:

‘The rise of human flourishing over the past two centuries is a story worth celebrating. Yet we are told – relentlessly – that the very energy systems that enabled this progress now pose an existential threat. Hydrocarbon-based fuels, the argument goes, must be rapidly abandoned or else we risk planetary ruin.
That view demands scrutiny.’

The US Department of Energy is on a quest to prove (or disprove) one of the most costly ‘assumptions’ in modern politics.

The Secretary adds that ‘media coverage often distorts the science’ and ‘many people walk away with a view of climate change that is exaggerated or incomplete’.

He picked a competent collection of scientists and says ‘readers may be surprised’ by the report’s conclusions – some of which I’ll share here.

‘That’s a sign of how far the public conversation has drifted from the science itself’.’

I have pulled out some of key findings from this report that I believe are most interesting.

These comments appear under their chapter headings so that you might further explore them in the report.

Here is what the Department of Energy had to say.

Part 1: Direct Human Influence on Ecosystems and the Climate

Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and fails to meet the criteria set out in the Clean Air Act (1970).

It has no toxicological effects in humans, is naturally occurring in the atmosphere, and key for life. In this way, it is remarkably similar to water vapour. The report confirms that a rise in CO2 promotes plant growth and while it may play a role as a greenhouse gas, how the planet responds to this is a ‘complex question’. ‘Brimstone and fire’ are not among the options…

Part 2: Direct Impacts of CO2 on the Environment

CO2 as a Contributor to Global Greening

The report confirms that CO2 enhances plant growth and that a ‘global greening’ is well-established on all continents. They refer to this as the Leaf Area Index which is measured with satellites. Greening has naturally mitigated any warming. Using modern fertilisers has helped with this process.

When the basic structure of modern plants evolved, there was an enormous amount of CO2 in the air. In one of the many studies done concerning raised CO2 levels, plants respond positively – becoming more water efficient. This changes the calculations for crop production, which should benefit.

This is important, because it challenges the view that rising CO2 will ‘exacerbate water scarcity’. Odds are, it will have the reverse effect.

The IPCC admits to this in its Special Reports, yet rarely discusses it.

Acidic Oceans?

While oceans absorbing CO2 become less alkaline, this trend is well-within historical norms and most ocean life evolved when the oceans were more acidic than today. The report points out that ‘ocean acidification’ is a misnomer and should be called ‘ocean neutralisation’ instead.

Life evolved when oceans were mildly acidic (pH 6.5-7.0). Today they are around pH 8.04.

This is where much of the discussion regarding The Great Barrier Reef comes in – a topic which ‘climate experts’ like to view as the canary in their apocalyptic coal mine.

The report references Peter Ridd’s fine work which includes a body of evidence that strongly suggests the media frenzy regarding a temporary reduction in coral was due to tropical cyclones, not ocean temperature. The bounce-back in growth would seem to confirm this assumption.

It is within the topic of The Great Barrier Reef that the American report calls out political bias and publication bias in the published research. This is alarming. It speaks to the untrustworthiness of government funding and scientific bodies that may be feeding off the ‘climate change’ fear mongering.

Part 3. Human Influences on the Climate

Components of radiative forcing and their history

There is a long discussion here about how the United Nations’ climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, downplays the natural effects of solar radiation – long known to be the primary driver of climate. The UN IPCC’s disproportionate and incorrect thinking has then been imported into government and industry through UN-approved ideology and goals.

In other words, the IPCC’s many serious mistakes and assumptions have filtered through into the ‘global consensus’. This is very concerning.

While the report makes clear that humans, like all animals, are capable of changing the composition of the atmosphere, it does not follow that a catastrophe looms.

Something we very rarely hear our Minister for Climate Change and Energy discuss, for example, is the impact of aerosols which have a cooling effect.

‘Although the IPCC does not claim its emission scenarios are forecasts, they are often treated as such.’

The report notes something that the IPCC’s doomsday predictions often omit, and that is the changing nature of the Carbon Cycle.

Scientists already know that there is a ‘greening effect’ happening across the planet, and if this continues, the absorption of CO2 from the atmosphere will naturally accelerate thanks to hungry plants. This impacts the forecast for atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and yet it is almost always ignored.

Part 4. Climate Sensitivity to CO2 Forcing

Essentially, this is where the report attempts to ask the question our government should have tabled at the start: ‘How will the climate respond to CO2?’

Destroying capitalism, democracy, and the modern age doesn’t seem to be a recommendation of the report…

As the US Department of Energy X account wrote, ‘Energy is about more than fuel; it is about FREEDOM!’

Simply put, are the climate models that are being used to reshape our civilisation, actually any good?

It is an extremely long, detailed, and technical chapter and the short answer is: ‘No.’

Part 5. Discrepancies between Models and Instrumental Observations

This is a continuation of the above topic, with specific examples on where climate models have shown distinct ‘warming’ biases.

We’ve been told to ‘trust the science’ but what we’re actually being asked to ‘trust’ is an environment of failed modelling from unvalidated and erroneous computer models.

The detail of this is interesting, and the ramifications are frightening.

We are being led to believe that successive governments scuttled Australia’s future based upon climate models that have consistently proven themselves to be wrong. One would hope that the energy grid was torn up for better reasons…

‘Problems with climate models are not just in their disagreement over the future, but also in their ability to replicate the recent past.’

Part 6. Extreme Weather

This is the topic that keeps the Bureau of Meteorology alive. Every storm must be extreme – every weather event must be ‘unprecedented’. A fine perfect day such as today isn’t particularly useful for frightening voters into supporting ‘climate change’ and energy legislation. If Australians doubt the ‘global boiling’ narrative, they may start asking questions of the Treasurer such as, ‘Why am I giving you so much of my money for ugly and environmentally damaging wind turbines?’

The chapter’s beginning states that it is not whether extremes in weather conditions occur (as they always have done), it is if these are becoming more frequent and if the cause is human activity.

This last part matters, because if humans are not to blame, the solution is not to pour trillions of dollars into Net Zero.

The report did not find an increase in hurricanes or heat waves nor did it see a rise in hottest day records. Even severe tornados were decreasing. Their weather studies agree with Australia where the 1880-1945 period was the roughest.

Indeed what the report reveals is that the bias of our short-lived memory (dating back roughly 50 years) makes human beings a poor judge of climate trends which often operate on much larger time scales.

Part 7. Changes in Sea Level

This is the UN’s favourite topic. Who hasn’t seen the photoshoot of the UN Secretary-General wading out into surf in his expensive suit to ‘prove’ rising sea levels and thereby imply we need to free up hundreds of billions in ‘aid’ relief from countries such as Australia and given to Pacific Islands?

If the sea levels aren’t rising, there are a lot of taxpayers who might start demanding a refund.

There are two major problems with detecting small sea level rises.

The first is its dependency on geological activity on landmasses that may be themselves sinking or rising.

The second is the enormous historical variability of sea levels (up to 400 metres) which follow glacial periods. This modern era is an inter-glacial period in which we have been experiencing a rise in sea levels entirely unrelated to human activity.

20,000 years ago, the sea level was 130 metres lower. That’s how ancient people were able to walk across land bridges and why there are human civilisations across the world now drowned under water. Even between 14,000 years ago and 6,500 we have experienced a 110 metre sea level rise.

Was this ‘catastrophic climate change!’ or a natural cycle to which humans adapted?

What could we have done to stop this? Nothing. We didn’t cause it.

The glaciers which caused this enormous change in sea level started before the Industrial Age and continue to this day. So, when it is claimed that sea levels have risen 8 inches since 1900 – it is perfectly valid to assign that cause as natural.

This is the conclusion the report reaches – that there is no evidence that human activity has influenced sea levels.

Theoretically, to reverse sea level rise, we would almost have to manufacture an Ice Age. No one wants that. Certainly not the animals and plants.

Part 8. Uncertainties in Climate Change Attribution

This chapter critiques the way scientific reports assign the cause of data to anthropogenic activity instead of natural causes. (Anthropogenic is an adjective describing something that is related to or due to human activity.)

‘There are ongoing scientific debates around attribution methods, especially those for attributing extreme weather events to “climate change”. The IPCC has long cautioned that methods to establish causality in climate science are inherently uncertain and ultimately depend on expert judgement.’

In other words, most of the time you read an article or a report that says, ‘This flood is because of climate change!’ there is no proof, only an ideologically skewed assumption, possibly a lie.

The more incorrect the attributions in a report, the more difficult it becomes to untangle ordinary weather events from genuine outliers.

For those who are interested in how the IPCC decides if a weather event is due to ‘climate change’, they use several methods:

  • Optimal Fingerprinting (based around computer models)
  • Time Series Analysis (to pick outliers from data)
  • Process-Based Attribution (observations, computer models, and theoretical understanding)
  • Extreme Event Attribution (a guess about the likelihood of human impact)

The report is highly critical of the IPCC’s methods, especially given their reliance on computer modelling which is known to be mostly wrong.

Part 9. Climate Change and US Agriculture

This part of the report is geared toward the US market although the lesson for Australia is simple: while climate variance may slightly impact some crops, most crops are expected to increase their yields or demonstrate no change. Positive impacts are seen on corn, wheat, and soybeans.

If the world is to starve, it won’t be due to ‘climate change’. Instead, it will be due to the UN’s interference in fertiliser use which saw Sri Lanka collapse into anarchy almost overnight and their agricultural sector wiped off the map.

It is very likely that efforts to combat the non-existent threat of climate to agriculture will itself create a threat.

In Australia’s case, this can be seen in the tearing up of farmland for wind turbines, solar panels, and transmission lines.

Part 10. Managing Risks of Extreme Weather

It’s not the severity of weather events, it’s their proximity to increased populations… With more people in the world living in reclaimed areas and on artificially constructed land (for example China and its mega projects), it is inevitable that videos of floods running through cities will occur at a time when before these places were uninhabited.

Despite this, the report finds that technological advancements, particularly to building codes, has resulted in a significant decrease in mortality and property loss relative to storm severity.

Part 11. Climate Change, the Economy, and the Social Cost of Carbon

This is the most-quoted portion of the report because it handles the question facing Western economies: What is this whole carbon discussion going to cost the average taxpayer? Indeed, what will it cost our civilisation? Of what advancements will it rob us? Will it hold back our progress? Are we creating new classes of control with climate measures?

‘Economists have long considered climate a relatively unimportant factor in economic growth, a view echoed by the (UN) IPCC itself … mainstream climate economics has recognised that CO2-induced warming might have some negative economic effects, but they are too small to justify aggressive abatement policy and that trying to “stop” or cap global warming even at levels well above the Paris target would be worse than doing nothing.’

Of chief concern in this report is the ‘Social Cost of Carbon’ – a new concept. The report says, ‘Estimates are highly uncertain due to unknowns in future economic growth, socioeconomic pathways, discount rates, climate damages, and system responses.’

Key takeaways that defy conventional government narratives on climate include the observation that human societies do well in warm climates and poorly in cold climates. ‘This implies that warming will tend to be harmful in hot regions but beneficial in cool ones.’ Even the UN IPCC noted that climate was a minor consideration compared to population, technology, and other things such as conflict.

So far, any historical ‘warming’, if real, has led to the greatest period of human flourishing. It has not been a ‘catastrophe’.

Indeed, Earth’s past far warmer periods are scientifically classified as ‘climate optimums’ because during such warmer periods humans thrived, civilisations thrived, and the natural environment thrived.

‘Even as the globe warmed and the population quintupled, humanity has prospered as never before. For example, global average lifespan went from thirty-two years to seventy-two years, economic activity per capita grew by a factor of seven, and the death rate from extreme weather events plummeted by a factor of fifty.’

The takeaway?

‘Most climate economists thus recommend humanity to just wait-and-see.’

Following this is a list of serious reports into historic human economies which, when examined, display significant benefits to warmer climate on every metric.

What’s startling is the way in which economists measure the Social Cost of Carbon and, as with computer modelling of temperature, it is riddled with assumptions, bias, and dodgy data.

Here’s a sample:

‘Economists use IAMs to compute the SCC. Two of the best-known are the Climate Framework for Uncertainty, Negotiation and Distribution (“FUND”, Tol 1997) and Nordhaus’ DICE. EPA (2023) introduced new ones for its recent work. IAMs embed a “damage function” or set of functions relating ambient temperature to local economic conditions. The assumptions embedded in the damage function will largely determine the resulting SCC. IAMs also assume a long-term discount rate or, as in DICE, compute the optimal internal discount rate as part of the solution. One approach to developing a damage function is to begin with estimates of the costs (or benefits) of warming in specific sectors in countries around the world and aggregate up to a global amount.’

As I am sure you have worked out, and as the report goes on to state, there is no escaping the fact that most of this is guesswork.

‘Suppose we assume a relatively high Social Cost of Carbon of, say, $75 per tonne. Deflated by a MCPF value of 1.5 that would result in a carbon tax of $50 per tonne.’

It’s a nonsense accounting system for which we’re paying a fortune – in part to the UN to fund its operating budget.

In conclusion:

The closing chapters of the report address the reality about the oft-repeated mantra of ‘taking action on climate change’.

‘Even drastic local actions will have negligible local effects, and only with a long delay. The practice of referring to unilateral US reductions as “combatting climate change” or “taking action on climate” on the assumption we can stop climate change therefore reflects a profound misunderstanding of the scale of the issue.’

In particular, it calls out the ‘war against cars’ (one of Chris Bowen’s favourite topics) saying, ‘…emissions from US vehicles cannot be expected to remediate alleged climate dangers to the US public on any measurable scale.’ If that is the case for the US, imagine what that means for the tiny population of Australian car owners.

The report concludes with a call for sanity, reality, and a serious approach toward the energy system that encourages and ensures future prosperity.

Under the Biden and Obama regimes, energy and climate experts were forced to remain silent. Under Donald Trump, these same experts have finally been able to speak freely and lay the reality of energy generation on the table for the world to see.

The Australian Uniparty’s ambivalence to this report, to the Executive Energy Orders, and to the constant messaging of the US Energy Department indicate that our government remains in a state of denial. Being willfully dishonest.

Stealing from taxpayers and transferring wealth from we, the people to parasitic billionaires and multinational corporations sucking on subsidies.

While dishonest governments cede sovereignty to the UN, World Economic Forum, and supra-natural agencies including the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Governments fraudulently use concocted, unfounded climate alarm to cripple children’s mental health and impose unwarranted claims on every aspect of people’s lives from energy to food, to property, to money … to lifestyle. And to curtail basic freedom.

Fighting back against climate hysteria by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Energy is about more than fuel; it is about freedom!

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Nobel Prize Winner in Physics Says There Is No Climate Emergency

John F. Klauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum mechanics, went public last week with the following statement – “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the financial arm of the United Nations, cancelled his scheduled speaking engagements.

Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam though. Top US climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims that the Northern Hemisphere’s July was the hottest month on record.

In an article published in The Australian last month, Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, said the public is being “misinformed on a massive scale” and that there’s a “stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves”.

Forests that have been overgrown and not taken care of have a tendency, when a fire is started, to burn catastrophically. When we blame climate change for this rather than environmental mismanagement, we fail to deal with the real problems.

John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama, which runs the official NASA satellite temperature records, says heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as recent ones. In fact, the increase in temperature since 1978 is only 0.3°C in keeping with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Measuring mean temperatures is confounded by urban creep. The growth of cities has subjected existing weather stations to additional heat. “In central Houston, for example, it is now between 6 and 9°F warmer than the surrounding countryside, explained Prof Christy.” It’s worth noting here that large solar arrays create the same heat sink effect as creeping urbanisation.

Despite the concerted efforts of climate alarmists to control the narrative, there are growing numbers of scientists and experts who are distancing themselves from the climate pseudoscience promoted by government agencies and the media. Even Jim Skier, head of the UN climate body, says a 1.5° temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. There is no climate crisis.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I asked the question: Can you feel the winds of change? Leading climate alarmists are deserting their ship. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demonstrates just how out of touch climate carpetbaggers really are. The only thing boiling dry is Antonio Guterres’s credibility. Nobel science prize winner John Clauser last week publicly stated, ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.’ After saying that, the IMF cancelled his scheduled tour. Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam. An excellent article in The Australian reveals two of America’s top climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims July was the hottest month on record, deploring a ‘stunning amount of exaggeration and hype’.

Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington said the public was being quite ‘misinformed on a massive scale, with a massive amount of exaggeration. He goes on, ‘In Houston, for example, in the city centre it is between six and nine degrees centigrade higher than in the surrounding countryside.’ That isn’t global warming; that is the urban heat island effect, which, by the way, is easily countered—plant trees.

John Christy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those recent heatwaves. This is the university that runs the official NASA satellite temperature record, the umpire of datasets, which shows an increase in temperatures since 1978 of only 0.3 degrees centigrade, on trend with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Even the warmer-in-chief, Jim Skea at the head of the UN’s climate body says, ‘1.5 degrees temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. we will not die out.’

/1 Comment/by

Anti-Bail-in Law

Transcript

Thank you, Mr President.

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I proudly ask for the Senate’s support for the Banking Amendment Deposits Bill 2020.

Commonly called the NO bail-in bill.

Our purpose is to keep people’s money SAFE.

And to keep the banking system safe.

Let me first explain what is a bail-out and then a bail-in.

Bail-out’s have been used during financial crises when banks get into trouble and are a lifeline of money from taxpayers to banks to keep banks afloat. Govts act as a conduit from taxpayers to the corporate banks, even when the banks got into trouble due to their own greed or stupidity.

In times of profit banks are capitalists and in crises banks are socialist.

International Monetary Fund and G20 rules now though prevent taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank.

Instead requiring that rescue funds must come from shareholders and from depositors. A Bail-in.

Literally banks steal the money in retail deposit accounts and use that to save themselves. In exchange depositors get shares in the bank.

The shares are then suspended from trading – because the banks’ shares are worthless pieces of paper and will remain so for years.

‘Retail deposit accounts’ are the bank accounts of everyday Australians and small and medium-sized businesses.

This is money taken from these accounts, which people need to pay bills, buy stock, pay the rent and pay staff.

Gone.

This is money a couple is saving to buy their first home.

Gone.

This is money retirees cashed out of superannuation and is needed to live on, to buy food and clothing and pay bills.

Gone.

Gone. Overnight.

Reserve Bank figures show that 1 trillion dollars is available to be taken in a bail-in.

That’s what the Liberal, Nationals and Labor parties defend when opposing my bill.

Next, I’ll share a letter from a constituent, Peter Thompson, last week:

Quote: “As a self-funded retiree I shouldn’t be lying awake at night worrying how to safeguard my deposits from “bail in” by predatory and profligate banks, however I am!”

“I have Greek friends who lost most of their saving in the Greek bank bail in.”

“I don’t trust APRA nor the Treasury to protect my interests and certainly don’t trust any bank. We need a people’s bank… now.”

“What can I do to protect my bank deposits?”

Peter continues: “Withdraw cash, which by design is getting harder and harder to do, and take the risk it will be stolen by more obvious thieves?”

 “One can’t buy land or property with the Australian real estate market in radical downturn, I want my deposits in a bank.”

“Your Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill is a vote winner. It will give Australians, many of whom have no idea of what “bail in” entails, an opportunity to understand and take action to protect their savings and create confidence in the system. “

Thank you, Peter. Creating confidence is exactly why I have proposed this bill.

The public understands that the govt’s Cash Ban bill is designed to force everyday Australians to keep all their money in the banking system to make a bail-in much more effective.

Labor, Liberals and Nationals passed the Cash Ban bill through the House of Reps and are now terrified of the public and backbench backlash if it enters our senate.

The public understands our real estate prices are the third highest in the world.

The public understands that the govt’s COVID restrictions are destroying small and medium business and the ability of those business owners and their staff to service their mortgage, loans and credit card debt.

In fact, there is a sleight of hand going on here. A handful of large retail businesses, telcos and internet-based companies are doing better than ever.

While hundreds of thousands of small and medium businesses are doing much, much worse.

The effect on the economy of the govt’s COVID restrictions is much worse than the headline figures.

And yet State Governments recently doubled down with more lockdowns, more restrictions, more destruction of wealth, and more unemployment amongst small and medium businesses.

So the public are responding by removing cash from the banking system at an alarming rate – $20 billion in notes have gone missing in calendar 2020.

Cash is being stashed under beds.

My Bill is an opportunity to restore confidence in the banking sector.

It’s an opportunity to attract deposits from other countries where bank deposits are less secure than ours.

We could be a safe haven for legal investment in our banking sector – money that isn’t coming, for once, from the taxpayer.

Why shut that down and make banks even more reliant on the Government for funding?

What a missed opportunity that will be for our banks and for their customers.

The Liberal, National and Labor Parties now have a chance to stand up for everyday Australians.

To protect bank deposits from being bailed in.

The response from these tired old parties? Denial.

We’re told that this bill is not necessary. We’re told that the law does not allow for a bail-in.

I ask all Australians to listen more closely. Listen for their proof.

There is none.

No legal opinion, nothing but bland assurances from self-interested public servants hoping that constant repetition will fool the public.

Here’s MY argument. The Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures Act 2018, that was passed in the dead of night, with just 7 Senators present, uses weasel words to hide the reality.

The wording does allow for the banking regulator – APRA – to instruct the banks to bail-in retail deposit accounts.

The protections that the tired old parties rely on for the supposed opposite case are contained, not in the Crisis Resolution Powers Act, but in the Banking Act.

Their argument is a nonsense because the emergency provisions powers in the Crisis Resolution Powers Act over-ride the everyday protections in the Banking Act.

That’s why the govt has an emergency powers act. To provide extra powers in an emergency.

This is not just my opinion. It’s the International Monetary Fund’s opinion. Quote:

“The new ‘catch-all’ directions powers in the 2018 Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill provide APRA with the flexibility to make directions to the banks that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”

“[APRA’s] Direction powers are a key element in the resolution process for a distressed bank. APRA could order a bank to recapitalize…using the funds of unsecured creditors”

The IMF goes on to define ‘unsecured creditors’ as shareholders and retail depositors.

Liberal MP Tim Wilson, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics has admitted the Crisis Resolution Powers Act does allow for a bail-in.

Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker in a letter to a constituent admitted that legislation allows for a bail-in.

Yet their party bosses say the complete opposite.

Why would they do that?

Well, the answer is yet again because of our international obligations. The G20 and the IMF have dictated that taxpayers’ money can’t be used to rescue a bank.

The tired old parties know that letting unelected bureaucrats in New York and Brussels tell Australians what to do in a crisis does not pass the pub test.

So the tired old parties hide the facts and contradict reality using weasel words.

It‘s instructional to note that New Zealand’s response to the same IMF and G20 instruction is to do the opposite. The Kiwis dutifully wrote their bail-in laws and made them honest and transparent. If a bank fails the bank closes, pays off it’s debts using depositor funds and then re-opens the next day. Depositors can access what remains of their money. If there is any.

I’m not suggesting the New Zealand model is better. More honest yes, better no.

There’s a simple solution for bank failures.

When a bank fails, the Government could issue bonds. Currently we’re offering just 1% interest on bonds, so it’s not a costly option. We then use that money to buy new shares in the failing bank. That injects enough capital for the bank to survive.

Then vest those shares with the Future Fund, who pay that small interest payment on the bonds.

In a few years those shares will be worth money again and the Future Fund can sell them back into the market in an orderly fashion.

In this simple, ‘One Nation bank survival plan’, taxpayers’ money would not be used to save the bank, so our IMF and G20 masters should be pleased.

Nobody in our process loses money. Depositors keep their cash; banks keep trading, mum and dad shareholders retain the value of their shares over the medium term.

What’s the Labor and LNP track record on corporate bail-outs?

Both gave foreign car companies billions and then watched them shut up shop as soon as the money tap was turned off.

If we’d been asking for shares for that money, we would now own the car companies. We would still have a car manufacturing sector, we would still have all those wonderful breadwinner jobs for workers.

Prime Minister Gillard gave ABC Child Care $120m. Not in exchange for shares, it was another gift from taxpayers.

If we’d asked for shares in ABC Childcare in return for the bail-out those shares would be worth $250 million today.

Our response to a bank failure should not be “go and steal it from customers.“

Our response should be to use capitalism to fix crony-capitalism.

Labor are having a lot to say about their Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee (FCS).

The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee will advance up to $20 billion per bank, to protect deposits if a bank fails.

Let’s take a closer look at the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee.

The vast majority of the $1 trillion in retail deposit accounts is held by the big 4 banks. $20 billion times 4 though is only $80 billion. The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee will save less than 10% of bank deposits!!!!

The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is not active and is not funded. There’s no money sitting there ready to go. Not one cent.

Should a bank fail, the Treasurer must issue a notice to activate the scheme. Yet, the Labor scheme uses taxpayer’s money to bail-out banks so the Treasurer will not issue the notice because the notice would breach IMF orders.

In the unlikely event of the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee being activated, there’s a second problem that Labor never discusses: once the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is activated APRA must liquidate the bank to get taxpayers’ money back.

How much does anyone think will be available to retail depositors if the bank is liquidated? And how long will customers have to wait to get their money back from the liquidator?

The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is worse than a con job. It will make things worse.

Earlier I said that once a bank fails, whether that failure is public or only known to the regulator, the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee scheme can be activated if the Treasurer so chooses.

The whole point of a bail-in is to prevent a bank failing.

This means the bail-in can only come first. And will come first. Then if the bail-in doesn’t work the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee triggers, 10% of bank deposits are saved and the bank is liquidated.

This is what Liberals, Nationals and Labor are relying on to falsely tell everyday Australians ‘our money is safe?’ Yet the reality is that it’s not safe.

Following the dictates of unelected globalist masters is more important to them than looking out for the interests of everyday Australians.

The Government has advanced a criticism of my bill, that the definition of ‘retail deposit account’ introduces a different definition than is contained elsewhere in the Banking Act.

This argument fails because the only place the phrase ‘retail deposit account’ appears in the Banking Act is in my amendment. We did that deliberately so as to not interfere with the rest of the act.

Criticism dismissed.

In concluding Mr President, at no time has the Government, the Treasurer or APRA actually said they will not order a bail-in. These govt agencies duck the question and say “APRA doesn’t have the power”.

Well Mr President my bill clears that up. My bill adds one clause to the Banking Act that simply says APRA does not have the power to order a bail-in.

No other powers are affected.

Passing my bill ensures everyone will read it the same way.

Let Australians know that our money is safe in a bank. Let Australians know that there’s no need to stuff cash under the bed.

Even the Australian Bankers Association in its submission said if there is any confusion about what the law actually says then consider passing my bill.

What a great idea.

Let’s pass this bill, to keep people’s money safe.

/1 Comment/by

Stop banks stealing our money

,

Stop banks in financial trouble from stealing our savings is the message of Senator Roberts’ submission to the Bank Bail-in inquiry.

“The Australian people and small business owners need to know that their savings, whether for mortgages or quarterly tax payments, right now are not safe if a bank faces financial hardship,” said Senator Roberts.

The disappointing and inaccurate submissions from Treasury and APRA claim there is no provision for a bail-in of depositors’ money, in spite of Australia being signatories to international agreements that demand a bail-in strategy.

“This is a blatant lie. Australians need to know that our politicians have ratified the IMF (2008) operating agreement  and the G20 financial management guidance which both clearly state that if a bank fails, taxpayers’ money cannot be used to save it (a bail-out), and instead banks must use a bail-in, which steals depositors’ money.”

The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 that allows banks to take your deposited money and convert to devalued bank shares, was waved through with only nine senators present.

“That Bill legalises a bail-in that international agreements demand happens. My Bill, the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020, stops this happening.

“New Zealand has openly acknowledged the same international agreements that Australia has signed and has passed legislation that allows depositors’ money to be taken as a bail-in, so why are Treasury and APRA pretending this can’t happen here?” added Senator Roberts.

A bank bail-in has already occurred in Cyprus and Iceland and many countries now have these provisions as part of their banking system.

Only One Nation is prepared to stand against the international agreements that intrude into the lives of Australians and the banks taking our money to save themselves. “Government bonds issued for the purpose of saving a bank are a much better way to save that bank without costing taxpayers any money,” Senator Roberts stated.

Senator Roberts’ submission can be read in full here:

Senator Roberts makes submission to Bank Bail-In Inquiry
/1 Comment/by