This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask questions in the Senate Committee on “Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire.”
I chose to ask my questions to Greg Mullins who is a Climate Councillor with the (Tim Flannery’s) Climate Council. Mr Mullins wasn’t too keen on answering my questions and took the name calling route rather than providing the evidence I asked for.
“I’m a retired person, I don’t have time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.” Mr Mullins is the person who the Greens rely on as their climate expert during the recent bushfires.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts]
Thank you chair, and thank you Mr. Mullins for attending today, and also thank you very much for your service over many years, in fact nearly half a century.
I’m very pleased that the opening sentence, in fact the opening line of your presentation, you used the word empirical, and when I first used that in the senate in 2016 and in the media a lot of journalists were running off getting their dictionaries and senators were giggling and carrying on. I am pleased to see that you have used that word empirical.
There is another part to that though that needs to be proven when it comes to cause and effect. It’s not just the word empirical, not just the empirical data, but also presenting that in a causal framework that establishes cause and effect, and you’re with me on that?
[Greg Mullins]
Uh, yes.
[Senator Roberts]
I’ve had to use data because I’ve had to manage people’s lives and make sure people stayed alive, so I always relied on empirical data and understood cause and effect especially investigating safety incidents to establish cause.
Now in your opening paragraph and in your recommendation one you state irrefutable empirical scientific data concerning warming climate proven to be caused by burning of coal, oil, and gas is resulting in worsening and more frequent extreme weather events that spawned the 2019 bush fires. Could you please tell me the specific source of your empirical scientific evidence within a logical structure proving cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate?
I’d like to know the specific title of the publication, I’d like to know the specific page numbers in which the data is presented, and in which the causal relationship is established.
Now I know you’ve used a lot of references from SBS, The Guardian, the Greens Party, The Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, the ABC, but I would like to know the specific location of the specific empirical data that scientifically proves cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Could you do that for me please either on notice or now?
[Greg Mullins]
Uh, senator or chair, do I have to answer this question? Senator, I’ve read your website, I’ve read, or tried to read, a lot of your stuff that you’ve published, and so I’ve read very widely for and against. I don’t think there would be any purpose served me trying to convince you of what thousands of scientists agreed on and the settled science, and it is settled science, and I’m at a loss to know how to deal with your assertion, I won’t call it a question.
[Chair]
Thanks Mr. Mullins, Senator Roberts.
[Senator Roberts]
Can you provide me with one title of empirical scientific evidence in a causal framework establishing cause and affect?. Not one?
[Greg Mullins]
Look I could provide many for you, but I’m a retired person.
[Senator Roberts]
One would do, just one.
[Greg Mullins]
I frankly don’t have the time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.
[Chair]
I think what I propose, thanks Senator Roberts.
[Greg Mullins]
That was not an admission, it was exasperation senator.
[Senator Roberts]
Now we have talked also about-
[Chair]
You’ve got one last question Senator Roberts if that’s okay, we are out of time.
[Senator Roberts]
Yeah one more question, that’d be fine. Are you aware, Mr. Mullins, that in my cross-examination of the CSIRO that the CSIRO’s acting head of climate change admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and that the CSIRO admitted to me in an earlier presentation in Sydney that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and they never will say it.
Are you aware that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented?
[Greg Mullins]
Senator, now that’s a very broad question. Are you talking about hundreds of millions of years when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth or when humans, and look I say again, I have read your material and the assertions made therein under the guise of being in scientific language, and I find it very concerning and quite muddled, and I’d be very surprised if the CSIRO said what you’ve just stated just as you said that I didn’t have any reference, it wasn’t true.
Senator Roberts calls on the government to lift the onerous restrictions on the fishing industry and increase fishing quotas within our waters as part of an economic stimulus package.
“Successive governments have destroyed our once profitable fishing industry with self-imposed fishing limits well below international sustainability levels and introduced vast net-free zones,” stated Senator Roberts.
The World Resource Institute’s research shows that a well-managed sustainable harvest from a coral reef is 15,000kg per square kilometre annually. The Great Barrier Reef harvest is set at an outrageously low 9kg per square kilometre, which is 0.06% of the recommended sustainable harvest.
Our fishing industry hamstrung with bureaucratic and unscientific green tape, means Australians have to import approximately 80% of our seafood.
“It is unbelievable that Australia, which has the world’s largest continental shelf fishing zone, imports so much of our seafood from Thailand and China.” The COVID19 crisis highlighted the unnecessary green tape that hobbles so many Australian industries. Rebuilding our fishing industry requires scientific-based quotas, revisiting current and future restrictions and reducing the net-free zones.
“Australia should have one of the world’s most profitable fishing industries and supply Australians with the majority of their seafood. Instead they are drowning in green tape and the industry is facing ruin.”
He added, “The Lib-Lab duopoly through unfair trade agreements and needlessly signing United Nations’ agreements has decimated our fishing industry.”
“The COVID19 crisis has sent us a stark reminder that unfettered globalisation has left Australia vulnerable and our sovereignty diluted”.
Senator Roberts has expressed deep concern that our national and state management of COVID-19 maybe responding to the exaggerated modelling predictions of Professor Ferguson.
Senator Roberts said, “Professor Ferguson’s assumptions that form the basis of his modelling have produced sensationally inaccurate predictions and this is not the first time Ferguson’s predictions have been wildly overstated.”
Professor Ferguson’s track record includes, but is not limited to, predicting 50,000 deaths from mad cow disease, reality was 177 deaths; 65,000 would die of swine flu, reality was 457 deaths and 200 million people may die from bird flu, reality was 282.
The Department of Health website cites the use of the Peter Doherty Institute Report, which references reliance on assumptions from the Imperial College COVID19 NPI Modelling Report, of which Professor Neil Ferguson is the first author.
“It is irrefutable that Professor Ferguson’s modelling predictions are exaggerated and his work has had far-reaching devastating impacts on national economies.”
Foot and mouth disease, which cost the British government £10 billion, was an extraordinary overreaction to an exaggerated claim made by Professor Ferguson.
The Australian Government has enacted a record $320 billion package, the economy is dismantling, the employment rate is rising and the nation’s mental health issues are starting to show themselves.
Senator Roberts has written to the Prime Minister and Queensland’s Premier asking whether these significant health and economic responses, which will affect future generations, are based on the Doherty Institute Report and by default, the assumptions in Ferguson’s Imperial College Report.
“No business, economy nor community can hibernate and then just return to normal. There will be devastating consequences from these decisions for some time to come,” Senator Roberts said.
“The people of Queensland and Australia deserve to have confidence that the Government’s serious and far-reaching decisions during this health crisis are based on credible and robust data and modelling,” Senator Roberts added.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Press-Release.png?fit=2300%2C1294&ssl=112942300Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-05-20 11:54:272020-05-20 11:54:41Senator Roberts Concerned about Australia’s reliance on Professor Ferguson’s exaggerated COVID-19 modelling
Three examples of Labor MP’s gutting jobs and workers and an expression of appreciation for three Labor MP’s who approach us face-to-face and honestly deal with issues. The Labor party as a whole no longer protects workers.
Today’s Labor party savages workers and families. Labor has lost relevance and instead of caring about workers and being honest many Labor MPs tell lies and omit facts.
What works with us and what we like is for MP’s to approach us openly, bring data and share it freely to back up their request, and above all, to be honest.
Transcript
Following last week’s parliamentary sessions in Canberra here’s a longer video with more facts on policies hurting workers and a compliment to one New South Wales senator who approached us openly and respectfully on an issue.
Let’s set the record straight on a recent change to federal regulations, to allow employers and employees to quickly amend an existing Enterprise Agreement to deal with the COVID-19 crisis and keep their business going and employing people.
For businesses that are struggling to survive due to COVID-19, this allows employers to ask employees to vote on changes to an existing EA more quickly, in as short as 24 hours, rather than the normal 7 days. Unprecedented times call for flexibility for employers and employees.
We agree that some businesses need this and workers in those businesses understand. It was One Nation though that negotiated with the government to add the 12-month sunset clause, so that if employees agree to amend their EA for COVID, all pay and conditions would return after 12 months.
That’s fair. Typically, Labour then spread the lie that these temporary changes with a shorter voting period would be permanent, when they’re not. Remember, the regulation does not force you to agree. If you lack adequate time to vote on it, you can vote no.
So, to Labor’s Tony Burke and Joel Fitzgibbon, you have been caught lying to the workers you claim to represent. Labour seems to hate that it was One Nation who negotiated with the government to improve the bill, and made amendments to protect workers and workers’ rights.
And I put on notice any employer that thinks of using COVID-19 to screw workers by taking advantage of new regulations when COVID-19 restrictions have not affected them. In places like mines with 24 hour shift-work, employers would be crazy to give only one day to vote because that would force some workers to come in to vote on their day off or after a long shift on night work.
And workers who are annoyed would likely vote against the amended EA anyway. Anyway, as far as we know from listening to miners, COVID-19 is not affecting most mines’ operations. Remember, the new regulation does not apply to voting on a new EA, only to changes to an existing EA.
The regulation that is part of the COVID-19 response package only improves the flexibility for those businesses where employers and employees need a quick change to deal with COVID. We all know that life is about making choices, especially in politics where we face so many different people’s competing needs. Quite often, we have to choose between two difficult choices.
On one hand the viability of employers to protect jobs, and on the other hand protecting workers and worker’s rights. To make sure workers are protected while giving employees and employers greater flexibility to negotiate changes quickly to keep people in work, One Nation added the 12 month sunset clause.
The government agreed and will change the regulation. That means that after 12 months an EA with COVID changes returns back to the original conditions. This was done by One Nation to protect workers from employers in case those employers later tried to make COVID changes continue forever.
We’re in unprecedented times, yet we will not let this pandemic be used as an excuse to drag this out any longer than it should. One Nation identifies real issues and protects workers’ rights. Let’s get the background facts on what happened.
Labour has been sidelined with two things, the focus on the government during COVID and a lame federal leader in Anthony Albanese after a distrusted leader in Bill Shorten. A few weeks ago a journalist asked me for comment on the possibility of voting on Labor’s disallowance of the regulation.
What disallowance? That was news to us. When there is a real issue though, Labour contacts us to get our support. Union delegates contact us. Yet we heard nothing from unions or Labour. It was not a serious issue and Labour did not make an argument for it.
Later, when we saw the disallowance motion on the senate agenda we contacted Labour and we contacted union delegates. Union delegates said they had no issue. We reviewed the regulation and realised that some employees and employers would want to negotiate changes quickly to keep people in work under COVID isolation rules, others would make no changes and others still would make minor changes slowly to remain viable.
The key though, is that we saw a loophole that needed to be closed. So we approached the government and explained it. The government agreed with us and is amending the regulation to protect workers’ rights. That change that One Nation senators proposed was to put a sunset clause on any changes to protect workers after the COVID crisis ends. To protect workers.
Now, desperate Labour MPs, like Tony Burke, Joel Fitzgibbon, Katy Gallagher, falsely and needlessly mislead and worry honest workers in an attempt for political gain. We though in One Nation got to the core issue and fixed it to protect workers’ rights.
By the way, let me remind you that Tony Burke, when he was Labor’s Environment Minister, pushed anti-coal measures that are still hurting our coal industry and therefore hurting coal miners. And raising electricity prices that are still hurting all workers and all family householders, and exporting manufacturing and processing jobs to China.
So let me remind everyone, that Tony Burke enacted drastic UN regulations that gutted our fishing industry and gave power over our country to faceless unelected UN bureaucrats. Now, he dares misleads people about the disallowance motion and forgets to tell people that One Nation negotiated changes in the regulations to ensure workers rights are protected.
As for Joel Fitzgibbon, after he was nearly tipped out as the rep for Hunter, last federal election, he started to talk more about coal. Yet his words remain hollow, because his Labour party bosses continue anti-coal policies.
Where the old and real Labour party protected miners and workers, today’s Labour party protects the UN and pushes UN policies. These days Labour does not care about Australian workers. Labour hurts Australian workers.
Labour tells lies to Australian workers and Labour hurts our democracy. Another example of Labour mismanagement of workers is immigration policies, immigration numbers. After One Nation alone for years called to cut immigration numbers, recently Labour senator Kristina Keneally wrote an article calling for immigration to not be the same after COVID as before.
Yet she and others had been viciously and falsely labelling our demands for immigration cuts as racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic. The reality is that we could see that huge immigration numbers suppress wages, raise house prices, put pressure on infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools and drive casualization of the workforce.
So last week in the senate I moved a matter of public importance motion that became a test of her commitment to her new words. You know what? She hid the whole day until after my motion had been debated.
Labour MPs refused to back her call for lower immigration numbers. Remember, the largest intake of temporary visa workers in any year occurred when Bill Shorten was minister for workplace relations under the Gillard Green’s government and authorised them.
Labour hurts Australian workers. Labour does not care about Australian workers. Labour tells lies. I take this opportunity though to express appreciation to Senator Tony Sheldon from New South Wales who approached us about getting Dnata employees in airline catering to be put on the government’s JobKeeper programme despite the government saying that welfare would not go to 100% foreign owned companies.
Dnata is 100% owned by a Middle Eastern country. We asked Senator Sheldon for data and gave us some. We asked the government for data and got plenty.
We then realised that these days domestic flights usually provide minimal food such as packaged peanuts, no big meals International flights though cater for solid meals yet most of those flights won’t start again until early next year, maybe mid next year and JobKeeper ends in late September this year. Plus, JobKeeper payments are taxed.
JobSeeker though is open to Australian workers, are not taxed and often come with additional payments such as family allowance and rental assistance. We checked the data and JobSeeker payments are comparable with JobKeeper after tax is removed from JobKeeper.
More importantly, JobSeeker continues beyond September and into next year so Dnata workers will be better protected on JobSeeker. We made a decision on the facts we gathered and in our view it is better to put the situation openly to Dnata people, many of whom will not have a job after September and need to sign up for JobSeeker as soon as possible.
Now we appreciate Tony Sheldon’s care and his open approach to us to consider his motion, we trust Tony because he’s honest. He’s a former TWU union delegate, like Senators Glenn Sterle and Alex Gallacher, who we find are excellent to deal with in the senate and are knowledgeable and caring.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Capture-2.png?fit=602%2C341&ssl=1341602Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-05-20 09:37:472020-05-20 10:07:04Further information on One Nation’s Enterprise Agreement Vote
Government votes to give the United Nations a blank check to fund 5 international bureaucratic organisations.
Transcript
Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland in Australia, I oppose this bill, One Nation opposes this bill. And we do so because we support and love our country, we support Australia. One Nation opposes any remuneration bill, that does not specify how much money is being spent. So do the taxpayers know right now, that this bill has no spending limit?
It’s an open check to the UN. Now I understand that the agreements we signed specify how total budgets are to be broken up amongst members, but not how much the total budget should be. How can we do this? There are five different UN organisations that are subject of this bill. The Global Environmental Facility, to take an example, has grown from $1 billion in the original agreement that we signed to $4 billion today.
The World Bank’s international Development Association, has gone from $24 billion to $35 billion in just the last two years, our money. This bill gives the United Nations a blank check, to waste taxpayers money and just hold their hand out for more. That is the UN hold its hand out for more. Mr. Acting Deputy President, I do not believe these organisations are good value for money.
In fact many are corrupt to the core. The World Bank’s International Development Association, spends 24% almost a quarter of its public funds, of its funds on public administration. A quarter blown out the door through administration, and 19% almost one fifth on subsidising renewable energy. That does not lift people out of poverty, because it’s too unreliable, it consigns people to poverty, that’s what it’s doing to this country.
What does the World Bank’s International Development Association spend on health, Mr. Acting Deputy President? Any idea? Just 8%, and on education? The one thing that does lift people out of poverty, also a measly 8%. Perhaps the International Development Association, could spend more lifting people out of poverty, if they were not spending $3.3 billion every year on administrative expenses, $3.3 million, including our cash.
The Asian Development banks, Asian Development Fund, has been providing low interest loans to lift people out of poverty since 1974, 1974. So in 46 years, their low interest loans, have not lifted the people of Asia out of poverty, but maybe the millions more we are about to give these Asian Development Fund will do the trick. Maybe the past 46 years, nothing much, but let’s see what happens.
Actually, Mr. Acting Deputy President, I’m not sure why we’re even funding the Asian Development Fund. They currently have $457 billion in outstanding loans, 457 billion. Now, I’m not suggesting that the scheme has been unsuccessful, the two largest recipients have done extremely well. India has $68 billion of those loans, and then now the world’s fifth largest economy.
Not because of the Asian Development Fund I might add. China has 62 billion of those loans, and is now the world’s second largest economy. I really wonder if they’re using that to buy up islands and make islands sorry, in the South China Sea. Perhaps if Australia can get some of these loans, we can stop Australia sliding out of the top 10 of world’s largest economies.
And I’ll remind everybody Australia, that early last century, in the early days of our federated nationhood, Australia led the world in per capita income. We were number one in the world. We now sliding out of the 10 heading to slide out of the 20. Oh, sorry, we’ve already slid out of the 10. The top 10 largest economies.
Australia should be grateful, that at least the Asian Development Bank is careful with its administrative expenses, only spending $1 billion last year on administration. I did note this though, the Asian Development Bank, Asian Development Fund, spent $25 million last year on salaries and expenses for the board of directors.
Their 12 member board of directors, $2 million per director seems a little high for unelected internationalist bureaucrats. Or as the prime minister said, unaccountable internationalist bureaucrats. When the Asian Development Fund, talk about lifting people out of poverty, I don’t think the Australian taxpayers would take that to mean, the Asian Development Funds Board of Directors being lifted out of poverty.
The Multilateral Fund for the implementation of the Montreal Protocol is another soak for taxpayer cash. Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, yeah, that’s another title. Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, was ratified in 1987. It requires countries to reduce levels of production and consumption of ozone depleting substances, according to an agreed schedule.
Now, I expect Australian taxpayers thought that the ban on CFCs in the 80s, was the end of the CFC crisis. I won’t even mention well I will mention, that the hole in the ozone layer stopped growing, before the CFC ban came in, and is better explained by natural variability, caused by variations in solar energy, than by world killer spray cans.
The UN though, has spent half a billion dollars a year, half a billion dollars a year, including our money on the Multilateral Fund for the last 25 years for nothing. In true Yes Minister style the Multilateral Fund has kept itself in line for taxpayer handouts by moving on to other substances that also have nothing to do with the ozone layer, and they’re in general use in situations where they’re very hard to replace.
And that includes refrigeration. At this rate, refrigeration will be relegated to the footnote of history. This won’t be a problem Mr. Acting Deputy President, because with renewable power, everyday Australians won’t be able to afford to run our refrigerators. Except perhaps for those UN Development officials with the $2 million a year price tag.
They should be kept, they should be keeping them more way nice and cold. Now let’s turn to the Global Environment Facility Trust. Mr. Acting Deputy President, the Global Environment Facility Trust, I saved the best to last. The Global Environment Facility Trust, was founded at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to fund developing countries and countries with economies in transition to meet the objectives of the International Environmental Conventions and Agreements.
The $1.5 billion a year to keep the global climate warming con going, to enable the UN parasites to continue sucking our blood through deceit and lies. I noticed that a generous federal government, as increased their contribution, to the Global Environment Fund, Global Environment Facility from $23.5 million, just two years ago to $38 million last year.
That’s an increase of about 60% in one year. So in the World Wildlife Fund, is used as a source for global warming proof, remember, they funded by the Global Environment Fund. Funded, Mr. Acting Deputy President to keep the greatest scientific swindle in history alive. I’m going to discuss the bigger picture for a minute.
And don’t take my word for it. Mr. Richard Court, the Premier at the time of Western Australia, a Liberal premier Rebuilding the Federation. In this book on page eight, he details the process that the international is used to usurp our sovereignty, take over our governance and put in place UN regulations. And he deals with the UN or other unelected international body.
Our Constitution has been pushed aside, bypassed, by these criminals in the UN and other slick gangsters. And Mr. Richard Court, remember was the Liberal premier, he details that and he did so 26 years ago. I’ll now read from UN Agenda 21 booklet, the opening page of the introduction. This came about at the UN Rio Declaration, UN Rio Convention in 1992, which Paul Keating’s Labour Government signed on our behalf.
Quote, Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally, from now into the 21st century, Agenda 21, by governments United Nations organisation, development agencies, nongovernmental organisations, and independent sector groups, in every area in which human activity impacts on the environment.
In every area in which human activity impacts on the environment. That is every area of our civilization. Continuing the quote, the agenda should be studied in conjunction with both the Rio Declaration, which provides a context for its specific proposals. Specific proposals, that’s where the nitty gritty is, and the statement of first principles.
It is hoped, it is hoped that the first principles will form the basis for a future international level agreement. And that is how they put in place global governance, and that is how according to Richard Court who was absolutely correct, that governance then takes over ours. We have the UN’s Lima Declaration signed In 1975 by the Whitlam Labour Government ratified the following year in 1976 by the Fraser Liberal National Party Government.
Destroyed our industry deliberately made it clear that they were transferring it. By the way, the United States didn’t sign it. Several major European countries didn’t sign it, and I don’t think Japan did. China did it was a beneficiary. The UN’s Rio Declaration in 1992, brought about the Agenda 21, which I’ve just discussed, which is now killing land use for all of our farmers, it’s killing employment, due to its so called sustainability.
And it’s killing governance, through the climate change commitments. Which are not commitments until it legislated through here or bypassed through here. The UN’s Kyoto Protocol in 1996, the UN’s Paris Agreement which is now decimating our industry and exporting jobs in 2015. Red type strangling our country, green type strangling a country, blue type strangling our country.
Blue type is UN type, oh, where does UN blue type work? Fishing industry, we now have 36% of the world’s marine parks in this country alone 36% more than one third. Where do we where do we import, we import now three quarters of our seafood from China. Sorry, three quarters of our seafood is imported, the greatest biggest exporter is China, which has a tiny coastline and 53 times the population.
So the UN doesn’t touch China, but strangles our industry, and we happily pushing jobs off overseas closing down industry, fishing included. Oh, and we can’t get permission to lift the damn level at war again but damn, because the UN doesn’t like it. Oh, and World Heritage Sites, there’s another way the UN controls us. And then we have the globalist mantra of interdependency.
And that’s what these bills push. Interdependency means we are dependent on another country, it means we are dependent not independent anymore. Australia used to be number one in the world, in terms of per capita income.
And then we started shoving all of our jobs offshore, and now we are dependent on other nations. To speak nothing of the corruption, that the UN has nothing of the accountability that it doesn’t have. As I said in my first speech in the Senate, in 2016, we need exit, Australia exit the UN. The best thing we can do for people in poor countries, is to kill the UN.
Get back to accountability and create the business environment not an environment for parasites. The best thing we can do for our country, is to restore our sovereignty, restore our governance and restore our independence. We need to not fund entities like the UN.
Instead look after ourselves, make yourself strong again, so that we can help neighbours as they need. Thank you Mr. Deputy President.
Last week in the Senate Pauline and I negotiated with the Government to change new COVID regulations to protect workers rights .Yet when some MPs feel like they are losing relevance, they panic and spread misinformation to score cheap political points. These MP’s show they do not care about workers and are not honest. See for yourself. One Nation will always protect workers and workers’ rights
Transcript
Let’s set the record straight on a recent change to federal regulations to allow employers and employees to quickly amend an existing Enterprise Agreement to deal with the COVID-19 crisis and keep their business going and employing people. For businesses that are struggling to survive due to COVID-19, this allows employers to ask employees to vote on changes to an existing EA more quickly, in as short as 24 hours, rather than the normal seven days.
Unprecedented times call for flexibility for employers and employees. Now, we agree that some businesses need this and workers in those businesses understand. It was One Nation, though, that negotiated with the government to add the 12-month sunset clause, so that if employees agreed to amend their EA for COVID, all pay and conditions would return after 12 months. That’s fair.
Typically, Labor then spread the lie that these temporary changes with a shorter voting period would be permanent, when they’re not. Remember, the regulation does not force you to agree. If you lack adequate time to vote on it, you can vote no. So, to Labor’s Tony Burke and Joel Fitzgibbon, you have been caught lying to the workers you claim to represent.
Labor seems to hate that it was One Nation who negotiated with the government to improve the bill and made amendments to protect workers and workers’ rights. And I put on notice any employer that thinks of using COVID-19 to screw workers by taking advantage of new regulations when COVID-19 restrictions have not affected them.
In places like mines with 24-hour shift work, employers would be crazy to give only one day to vote because that would force some workers to come in to vote on their day off or after a long shift or night work. And workers who are annoyed would likely vote against the amended EA anyway. Anyway, as far as we know from listening to miners, COVID-19 is not affecting most mines’ operations.
Remember, the new regulation does not apply to voting on a new EA, only to changes to an existing EA. The regulation that is part of the COVID-19 response package only improves the flexibility for those businesses where employers and employees need a quick change to deal with COVID. We all know that life is about making choices, especially in politics where we face so many different people’s competing needs.
Quite often we have to choose between two difficult choices. On the one hand, the viability of employers to protect jobs, and on the other hand, protecting workers and workers’ rights. To make sure workers are protected, while giving employees and employers greater flexibility to negotiate changes quickly to keep people in work, One Nation added the 12-month sunset clause.
The government agreed and will change the regulation. That means that after 12 months, an EA with COVID changes returns back to the original conditions. This was done by One Nation to protect workers from employers, in case those employers later tried to make COVID changes continue forever. We are in unprecedented times, yet we will not let this pandemic be used as an excuse to drag this out any longer than it should.
One Nation identifies real issues and protects workers’ rights.
This morning I asked a number of questions of the Foreign Minister about the COVIDSafe App, its performance so far and necessary improvements.
Disturbingly, she claimed not to know how many times a COVIDSafe App user had tested positive with COVID19 and their tracing data uploaded. “We do not have access to that information nor should we.”
This afternoon I spoke on the governments COVIDSafe App and why I won’t be downloading it. I understand this Government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.
I would ask the Government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of Government use of private data.
Transcript
Senator Roberts.
Thank you Madam Acting Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I have pleasure in saying that One Nation will be supporting this bill. That doesn’t mean that I will be downloading the app as I’ll explain.
But firstly, I would like to compliment the attorney general for the work that went into this bill. When Minister Hunt’s regulations came out to accompany that app launch, my office had a number of reservations about the level of security provided on the data.
This bill is needed to clear up those issues and it has done so. I will mention these in passing for the benefit of our constituents. Then I’ll move on to the security risk that the app itself still represents. I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.
So there are two aspects to this Madam Acting Deputy President, there’s the app itself and then there’s the uploading of data to the server and the storing of that data and the use of that data. So I did have a concern that the government was giving bad players an opportunity to access data on the server without detection.
The decision to ask the Office of the National Data Commissioner, the commissioner, to overview data storage and access is a wise choice that addresses this concern. We are pleased with that. I was also worried about Amazon having access to both the client file, which is needed, to identify app users and the data file for COVID positive users.
This in effect gave Amazon access to significant personal information of app users. So let me explain a bit more. The separation now of the key file and the data access, the data file itself, under the supervision of the commissioner is the best way of making sure Amazon and the government keep each other honest, well done.
So in other words, we’ve got the government storing the data, we’ve got Amazon storing the data and the government having the keys. Both are needed. It can’t be separate. There is one reason not one party can have control. There is one issue here to do with the cryptography on the unique user IDs.
The open-source app that the COVID-safe app took as a starting point only requires 32 bit encryption. I would have hoped the app developers have taken that up to 128 bit and we’d ask the commissioner to consider that. Now let me turn to a number of security issues in the app itself that need to be addressed.
My office has put out a detailed sheet on this, so let me quickly mention them here and move on. The user ID can stick in the phone case causing a phone to broadcast multiple different user IDs over extended periods of time, which increases the chances of a phone being tracked.
Secondly, the COVID-safe app overrides phone security settings to use the same handshake address for a phone over the life of the app instead of changing every few minutes. This is a major security issue in the app. Thirdly, the COVID-safe app stores the make and model of the other phones it has matched within plain text where it can be easily read.
This approach is not necessary since this data could easily be trapped when the app is registered instead of storing it in the phone. Fourthly, if someone has named their phone such as, in my case Malcolm’s iPhone under some circumstances, this real name is what the other phone stores, app users who have named their phone with their real name may be exposing themselves to danger.
This results from the app using different ways of broadcasting data to maximise the chance of a match. This tells us that the developers have taken a deliberate decision to compromise safety to achieve the most number of matches. Fifth, data stored to the cloud is not deleted.
If a cloud service is used to backup or sync a phone, the COVID-safe app contact blog gets backed up to the cloud. This can be viewed by anyone with a sign in without the phone user’s knowledge. So I acknowledge that this bill makes the behaviour illegal, but not storing some of the data in plain English would have been a far better choice.
Sixth, an app running in the background will not match with another app running in the background on an iPhone. The app does not meet the government’s, number seven the app does not meet the government’s own standard for app accessibility.
WCAG 2.0 A. It fails accessibility tests on font size and field width and people with a disability the first people that need to get this app. So that was sloppy. Eight errors that were detected early in the release of the app have still not been fixed. Registration fails over WiFi, which is used in poor reception areas.
Bluetooth conflicts with external devices. Power management on an iPhone interferes with the app. 3% of older phones cannot use the app an alert message advising users that they have tested positive for COVID was being accidentally triggered. This was fixed by deleting the message.
So currently the app can’t be used to alert users when they actually do test positive. I must however compliment the government for the sudden concern about security. Where was the concern about people’s privacy in this government’s capture and use of the metadata of every Australian?
This government is storing texts, telephone call details, social media posts, websites visited and website comments for every Australian. At Senate estimates, we discovered that in 2019 there were 297,000 accesses of the metadata records of everyday Australians by 22 different government agencies.
How many of these accesses were accompanied by a warrant? Madam Acting Deputy President? None. Not one warrant. Now I understand this government feels the need to get this app in wide use and is prepared to write good data protection rules to achieve that.
So I’d ask the government to show it really cares about the privacy of everyday Australians by revisiting the wider issue of government use of private private data. Because the government’s track record on security is poor.
So as I’ve explained Madam Acting Deputy President, the shortfalls initially in our assessment of the app were to do with the data storage and access of that. That has now been resolved or will be resolved once this bill, Privacy Bill passes. However, the reverse is the case for the app.
We were originally happy with the app. We now see a number of flaws in it. So that leaves security issues in regard to people being able to track the phone owner, the phone user and that is not acceptable. I also wanna make a comment about the blackmail that’s being used by the government to push this app.
Minister Hunt said, “you wanna go to the 40?” “Download the app.” We’ve just heard here Senator Bragg saying, “this is that ticket to freedom.” No it’s not. There are far more effective tickets to freedom.
The Australian people have already shown a highly responsible approach to managing this COVID virus and we need to extend that. We need to stop the blackmail stop the control that is pushed over us. We need to get back to the freedoms that are inherent and being everyday Australians.
That is part of our birthright, part of our citizenry that we have, are entitled to rights and freedom. When we have permission from something to do something from a government that is not a freedom, that is the reverse because there is being withheld until the permission is granted.
So we need to rely upon the trustworthiness and the competence and a sense of responsibility of everyday Australians right around the country. So Madam Acting Deputy President, let me summarise by saying that this bill is necessary, and that is why One Nation will be supporting it. It is welcome.
Secondly, the app is not up to scratch and that’s why I won’t be downloading it. And thirdly, we need to get back to freedom properly.
Pauline and I spoke on our ‘Matter of Public Importance’ in the Senate: “When Australia restarts our migration program, we do not want migrants to return to Australia in the same number and in the same composition as before the crisis.”
Thank you, Mr. President. As a servant to the people of Queensland in Australia, I recognise that for 230 years, migrants of many races and religions, amazing people from all over the world, have joined us to build our beautiful country into something greater than when they arrived.
Now, though, we may be ending 2020 with 1.2 million Australians out of work, and 1.2 million temporary visas. For 20 years, Senator Hanson has warned that this day would come. In 2016, the Productivity Commission issued its 700 page warning on the imbalance in our immigration policy. Their report questioned our high immigration intakes strain on infrastructure, the environment, and quality of life in our capital cities.
The government ignored the Productivity Commission, why? To keep the flood of cut price workers coming in and to hide the data showing a per capita recession. That led to a long-term pain on infrastructure, housing, wages, state budgets.
The inevitable result of that is high unemployment, and more underemployment. Many of these unemployed Australians are migrants who came to contribute their labour, yet now languish on job seeker benefits they don’t want instead of going to the job they do want.
I congratulate one of my Labour colleagues, on finally seeing the light and joining us in speaking up on the issue of excessive migration and foreign workers. People might not be aware that on the 3rd of May in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece, Senator Keneally asked, “Do we want migrants to return to Australia “in the same numbers and in the same composition “as before the crisis?”
Senator Keneally’s answer was, no. The question now is, will Senator Keneally stand by her words, and will the Labour Party stand by their Shadow Immigration Minister?
[Sen. Hanson]
Very much Mr. Acting Deputy President. Well, One Nation submitted today a matter of public importance. And that wording was, “When Australia restarts our immigration programme, “we do not want migrants to return to Australia “in the same numbers and in the same composition “as before the crisis.”
Well, I have to admit they are not my words that was Senator Keneally’s words that she actually said in her statement. So it’s quite interesting that I’ve always said, there should be a debate on this. And I’m pleased to see that we actually got the call on this debate.
Now, forcing the debate on immigration and foreign workers is often a thankless task. No one knows this more than me. When you bring up facts, like more than half the nation’s population growth since 2005 has come from overseas migration, you get called a racist.
When you explain that, instead of flooding Australia with migrants to drive economic growth, we should be increasing productivity or investing in skills and training, people call you xenophobic. When you make common sense statements like Australian should get a fair go and a first go at jobs, people call you a white supremacist.
When you argue like Senator Keneally did the other day through you chair, that once Australia starts its immigration programme, migrants must not return to Australia in the same numbers and in the same composition as before the coronavirus crisis.
People even might accuse you of stealing One Nation policy. This is why today I want to say thank you to Labour’s Shadow Immigration Minister, Kristina Keneally, because I know she will not be getting much support from her Labour colleagues.
Reading through some of the recent comments made by Senator Keneally, I can only assume she has spent much of her time in quarantine, reading through my speeches from 1996, and taking copious notes. And because so much of what she said could have been taken from comments and arguments I’ve made over the past 24 years, perhaps Senator Keneally might want to make an admission here today that she’s a closet One Nation supporter.
I know it took Mark Latham a couple of decades to come out of the One Nation closet, but look how great he’s doing. He’s a new man, and loving it, so are these Australian people. Today I want to reassure the Senate that if Senator Keneally wants to cross the floor in support of her own comments, and finds herself thrown out of the Labour Party for breaking ranks, I will always have a position in my office for talented immigration speech writers such as herself.
I know I don’t often get a chance to congratulate my Labour Senate colleagues, but I always give credit where credit is due. And credit is due because by revealing herself as a covert to One Nation position on immigration, Senator Keneally has proven what I have long said is true.
So powerful are my arguments on immigration that even a staunch opponent of One Nation like Senator Keneally, will eventually be dragged to kicking and screaming to supporting cuts to immigration, cuts to foreign workers.
And I know there are many in the Labour Party and even more among Labour’s allies in the unions, who will agree with my position on immigration and foreign workers behind closed doors, but refused to speak the truth publicly out of fear of being called racist, or some other meaningless insult.
Right now due to the coronavirus, there are millions of Australians unemployed or underemployed. These are the people we need to look after, not foreign workers. This is the debate we need to have. We can’t go back to our old immigration programme.
Australians have a right to a job and a way of life that is not tied to welfare handouts. For decades, the coalition Labour Parties have used mass migration and foreign workers to artificially pump up economic growth. For decades, they have cynically used insults and slurs to try and shut down this debate.
For decades, they have refused to admit that this is creating problems with increased demand on our limited services, housing affordability, unemployment, and underemployment, wage stagnation, and congestion in our cities.
Senator Keneally and I have now warned each and every one of you that if we continue down the same path of the mass immigration and foreign workers, our economy will come crashing down. I moved a notice of motion today in floor of parliament.
And I’ll just read out some of the comments in this notice of motion. And it’s relying on high levels of immigration to boost population to fuel economic growth is arguably a lazy approach. Letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth rather than increasing productivity or investing in skills and training is a lazy approach.
Instead of letting lots of migrants come to Australia to drive economic growth, we should be increasing productivity, or investing in skills and training. As at June 2019, there were 2.1 million temporary visa holders in Australia.
Australia hosts the second largest migrant workforce in the OECD, second in total number only to the US. One in five chefs, one in four cooks, one in six hospitality workers, and one in 10 nursing support and personal care workers in Australia hold a temporary visa.
Another one, when Australia restarts its migration programme, we must understand that migration is a key economic policy lever that can help or harm Australian workers during the economic recovery and beyond. And when Senator David talks about regional areas, it says here, we must also ensure that regional areas don’t only get transient people but community members who will settle down, buy houses, start businesses, and send the kids to the local school.
The whole fact is that the Labour said I was pulling a stunt no, all those words were from Senator Keneally, her article, that was Labour’s Shadow Minister for Immigration. And yet they said I was pulling a political stunt. No, I wasn’t pulling a political stunt.
The fact is that I called Labour out for what they are, nothing but pulled political stunt themselves, and Keneally was the one that actually made those comments. But Labour clearly does not stand by them, because they did not support them notice of motion today.
So who’s really pulled the political stunt? They use it when it suits them. As I said, high immigration props up our economy, has been used by both major political parties. And I will have my comment about Senator Faruqi today, and her comments said that One Nation stands by white supremacy.
At no point have we ever. And I’m sick of the lies put across in this chamber with regards to One Nation, and I’m going to call it out for what it is. And I encourage people to go to One Nation’s website, look at our immigration policy, which is non-discriminatory.
So that is purely lies. And to talk about immigration policy, we need the debate, Australians want the debate.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Screen-Shot-2020-05-14-at-9.32.57-am.jpeg?fit=1998%2C1124&ssl=111241998Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-05-14 09:32:002020-05-14 09:52:45Matter of Public Importance: Immigration Program
Today I supported a Motion to keep the Collins Class submarine extensive maintenance and upgrade refit program in South Australia rather than have it moved to Western Australia. I also took time to condemn the new contract signed to build 12 new submarines.
This order will cost $200 billions. These submarines will be obsolete before they even get delivered. This money would be better spent supporting our economy as we recover from the COVID19 economic crisis.
Transcript
– Mr. President thank you, I’ll seek leave to make a short statement one minute.
– Leave is granted for one minute.
– Thank you, we supported the original motion, the current sustainment model that supports the Collins class submarines works well in South Australia and it is not warranted to move this to Western Australia.
Of greater significance is the absurdly expensive contract, that the government signed to purchase 12 new submarines over the next 20 years. The current cost of building them with all peripherals is now around $200,000,000,000, $200,000,000,000, has this government gone mad?
In the middle of this pandemic we cannot afford to proceed with this contract. This money will be far better spent to support the Australian recovery from the economic pit, that is caused by this pandemic. By the time these submarines are delivered, they will be obsolete.
A complete waste of money that would be far better spent elsewhere. The cost of $400,000,000 to cancel this contract is a pittance compared with proceeding.
