Posts

The Cosy UniParty Agreement

, ,

The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 shifts defence review responsibilities to a new joint committee. Although it creates an odd dynamic for the remaining foreign affairs and trade committee, I agree that a dedicated committee is necessary.

The AUKUS alliance is the largest infrastructure spend in our nation’s history. Taxpayers deserve respect and absolute transparency, especially when everyday Australians are struggling.

Right now, there is a distinct public perception that this submarine deal is simply too expensive, particularly while the government concurrently executes a $3 billion fire sale of defence assets to fund its runaway spending.

I asked the Minister a direct question: Why wasn’t this asset sale run past the new committee? Minister McAllister gave a predictable answer, claiming you can’t refer current decisions to a committee that hasn’t been established yet. As it stands, membership on this new committee is subject to a cosy agreement between the Labor and Liberal party whips. This “uniparty” ticket effectively locks out the 50% of Australian voters who do not support either of these parties.

When I questioned why membership was restricted this way, the Minister claimed the Prime Minister would appoint non-government members in consultation with parliament. I must ask: Is this the same Prime Minister who gutted my staff while leaving compliant crossbenchers alone?

Too often, our committee system is a sham designed to protect the government’s narrative rather than find the truth. We saw this with the Select Committee on Information Integrity, which was nothing more than a Labor-Greens stitch-up designed to deplatform critics of net zero and control political speech like a totalitarian regime.

I moved an amendment to guarantee wider parliamentary representation, which would ensure automatic inclusion of Labor and Liberal parties and guaranteed seats for minor parties, including One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens.

With trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on the line for defence spending, we need deeper scrutiny, not a bipartisan shield to keep the public in the dark.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence.

I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential. There’s a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn’t it?

One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee. My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically. 

There’s a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government’s version of the truth. We’re seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That’s the purpose. It’s a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.

Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they’re just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It’s not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation’s many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers’ benefit and for the nation’s benefit. Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn’t that cosy? 

Senator Shoebridge: Doesn’t that make you feel safe? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You’re leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn’t vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips? 

Senator McALLISTER: That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community. 

Senator McALLISTER: The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee’s work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we’re having in the Senate right now. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, who selects the additional members?  

Senator McALLISTER: This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, as Senator David Pocock said, it’s a stitch-up.  

Senator McALLISTER: I think it’s an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.  

Senator ROBERTS: Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!  

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:  

(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:  

(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and  

(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and  

(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and  

(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and  

(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (3) In this section: minority party means a party that:  

(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and  

(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament. 

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to. The committee divided. [13:25] (The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)

/0 Comments/by

Protecting the Institution, or Protecting our Troops?

,

During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.

From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:

Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.

Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.

Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.

It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.

Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.

The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.

Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?  

Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.  

Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?  

Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.  

Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?  

Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.  

Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?  

Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.  

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.  

Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.  

Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.  

Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.  

Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?  

Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.  

Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?  

Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?  

Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership. 

Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.  

/by

Questioning the Commissioners

,
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.

Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.

At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.

What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.

‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.

Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?

Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.

Roberts: You can’t?

Cody: No, I can’t answer that.

Roberts: Wow. [headshake]

Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?

Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?

Roberts: What your position is.

Cody: On which issue?

Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?

Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?

Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?

Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.

Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?

Cody: No, I would not a agree.

Roberts: You don’t agree?

Cody: No.

Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?

Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.

Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.

Cody: Not always, Senator.

Roberts: No?

Cody: No.

Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?

Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.

Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?

Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.

Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?

Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.

Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.

The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.

Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?

Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.

Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?

Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-

Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?

Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.

Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?

Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.

Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.

Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.

In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.

The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.

Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.

Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.

I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.

If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.

In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.

For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.

Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.

Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

Labor’s Destruction of Democracy

,

The disrespect by Labor towards the Senate Estimates process is reprehensible, especially for a government elected on promises to be ‘transparent and accountable’.

As a representative of the people of Queensland and Australia, it’s my duty to uphold the sanctity of this Senate as the House of Review. The government’s audacity in cherry-picking what information it deems fit for our consumption reeks of contempt. This blatant obstructionism frustrates the very essence of our democratic institutions.

The culture of secrecy by Labor extends far beyond the Senate Chamber. Orders for document production are routinely disobeyed, undermining the integrity of our oversight mechanisms. It’s time we punish these acts with the sanctions they deserve.

/by