Senator Roberts makes submission to Bank Bail-In Inquiry

,

The following is Senator Roberts’ submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the Senator’s Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020. See the media release in relation to this submission here.

Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020

I would like to thank the almost 200 submissions in support of the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 (the Bill). Opposition from the financial establishment has been to maintain the ambiguous wording in the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 (the Act).

I would advise the Committee as follows.

Summary by section

  1. The $250,000 FCS guarantee triggers once a bank fails.  A bail-in is designed to save a bank from failing, meaning the FCS does not prevent a bail-in because the bail-in comes first.
  2. APRA’s submission requires the phrase “any other instrument” to remain to meet future developments in financial products. I agree, this bill retains that wording and adds a single modifier – ‘except retail deposits’.  APRA’s objection is moot.
  3. Some submissions suggest a bail-in conflicts with Section 2A of the Banking Act which protects deposits.  This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to save the bank.  In turn this action protects some deposits immediately and the rest are restored years hence.  The wording of 2A does not preclude a bail-in, it precludes an unsuccessful one.  
  4. The IMF are on record as indicating the Crisis Resolution Powers of the 2018 Act have primacy over the general banking directions (S2A) provided in the Banking Act. These crisis powers allow APRA to order a bail-in before the FCS guarantee would start.
  5. Some submissions relied on the absence of a provision in account Terms & Conditions as the explanation for why bail-in provisions do not apply to retail deposits. As banks are adding this clause to their Terms & Conditions, I would consider this objection moot.
  6. APRA have indemnified bank executives for actions they may take in the implementation of emergency powers, including a bail-in.
  7. Bail-in involves banks issuing new shares in exchange for the funds they take out of depositors’ accounts. This double hit – reduced goodwill towards the brand and dilution of share prices – will comprise a massive hit to our Super Funds, self-managed retirees and the more than one million Australians with bank shares.
  8. Australia is obligated by membership in international banking and financial agreements to have in place a deposit bail-in capability that specifically prevents taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank. It is likely that this clause will prohibit the Treasurer from activating the FCS guarantee should a bail-in fail, simply because that is taxpayers’ money as well.

There is no doubt that the existing legislation allows for a bank bail-in. My bill asks all Senators a simple question – is this what you want? Millions of super fund members and bank shareholders await your answer.

1. The $250,000 FCS Deposit Guarantee

The Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) deposit protection was an excellent initiative from the Rudd Labor Government back in 2008.  However, things have changed since then.

The FCS is not active, and therefore “The Scheme is activated at the discretion of the Australian Treasurer”.[1] As confirmation, in 2018 APRA Chair Mr Wayne Byres addressed the Economics Legislation Committee, regarding the FCS: “Well, it’s not currently activated in the sense that it’s only activated when a bank fails…the FCS is there to make sure that particularly retail depositors but also depositors with amounts up to $250,000 are not at risk of losing their money, should a bank fail.”

The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017, EM states: “In the unlikely event that a bank fails the Treasurer may activate the FCS…these specific depositor protections would generally only apply as a last resort, once an ADI* cannot be resolved.”

The ABC in their article on this bill raised the spectre of a run on the banks if, for instance the real estate market melts down.[2] The Government seems to have considered the impact of a bank run on the effectiveness of a bail-in, and recently added secrecy provisions to the Act so that the public would not be alerted prior to a bail-in.

Melissa Harrison’s submission 60 used the IMF’s 2019 assessment of the FCS: “The Banking Act does not compel APRA to make the appointment of a statutory manager public… As the authorities are well aware, the statutory management power should be used very cautiously as the appointment of a statutory manager could destabilize the bank by triggering or exacerbating funding runs”.[3]

A bail-in would occur prior to the FCS guarantee being authorised, with the new secrecy provisions leaving customers in the dark until their money disappears from their bank account.

A few other issues with the $250,000 guarantee are:

  1. It is organised by bank by account holder. This means accounts owned by foreign citizens or entities would be bailed-in using Australian taxpayers’ funds;
  2. The FCS is unfunded;
  3. The FCS is limited to $20bn per bank. The Commonwealth Bank, for example, has 16 million account holders. $20bn will only cover 80,000 of those to the full $250,000. Alternatively, cover could be extended to all 16 million account holders but only for the first $1250.  

2. APRA: We need ‘any other instrument’ in the Act

From APRA’s submission 197: “We agree that if the intention of the Act was to only cover Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, an addition of ‘any other instrument’ would have been unnecessary. However… ‘any other instrument’ was included in contemplation of further classes of capital which may be added in the future.…the reference to ‘any other instrument’ was neither intended to, nor does it in fact extend to, deposits.”

*ADI = Authorised Deposit Taking Institution. For accessibility this submission uses “bank” wherever possible.

I agree with APRA that this reference is needed for future developments. This is why the wording of the bill does not remove the phrase “any other instrument”. It simply applies a single modifier “not including a deposit account” and then defines what a deposit account is.

As this clause still operates in the manner requested by APRA, their argument is moot.

Treasury have also objected to including this definition in the Act because it introduces a definition not in use elsewhere in the Act. While I feel this is clutching at straws, Treasury are free to introduce an amendment to prevent our definition being used more widely.

3. Bail-in is inconsistent with depositor protection (S2A)

From APRA’s submission 197: “APRA has broad directions powers, all of which must be used consistent with the objects of the Banking Act (particularly the paramount objective of protecting depositors). As such, APRA could not direct the insertion of a conversion or write-off provision into customer deposit accounts given such a direction would be inconsistent with the objective of depositor protection. Such a direction would be found to be invalid.”

This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to PROTECT depositors’ funds by:

  1. Converting some part of depositors’ funds to a security (forced purchase of shares in the bank) that can be converted back to funds upon sale at a future time; 
  2. This saves the bank from failure and in turn, protects the remaining depositor funds;
  3. 2A does not prevent a bail-in, it prevents a failed bail-in.

This bill is necessary because of the loss of amenity in the period between the funds being seized and many years down the road, when the share price recovers and the shares redeemed.  Small business, retirees, low income earners will lose homes and businesses in a bail-in.

4. IMF statements conflict with Treasury and APRA submissions

The IMF disagrees with APRA on the strength of S2A protections. An IMF report states:[4]

“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 ADIs that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”

In a February 2019 assessment of Australia’s bank resolution and crisis management, the International Monetary Fund noted:[5]

“[APRA’s] Direction powers are also a key element in the resolution process for a distressed ADI; directions can be used to implement a range of resolution options, including facilitating recapitalization. Hence, the framework allows for the possibility that a problem bank could be resolved while under private control as APRA could order an ADI to recapitalize.”

The IMF are saying that the 2018 Crisis Resolution Powers have primacy over the general directions statements in the Banking Act. These allow APRA to ‘facilitate recapitalisation’ which is the definition of a bail-in and “under private control” means before it goes bust and the $250,000 guarantee starts.

If APRA and Treasury’s submissions are correct, then the IMF is wrong.

5. Banks can’t change their Terms & Conditions to allow a bail-in

APRA submission: “While an ADI may unilaterally change terms and conditions for customer deposits, it may not do so where the change is to facilitate a conversion or write-off of customer deposits. This is because to do so would be inconsistent with unfair contract terms legislation under the ASIC Act. A term allowing an ADI to write off or convert a retail deposit would amount to an unfair contract term. Moreover, even if an ADI was not prohibited from changing its terms in this way by unfair contract terms legislation, APRA would use its powers under the Banking Act to protect depositors and prohibit an ADI from changing these terms to insert write-off provisions.”

Treasury’s submission contained the same argument.The legislation referenced actually states: “Only a court can decide whether or not a term is unfair.  “ So the legislation does NOT prevent bail-in provisions being added to Terms & Conditions. The protection comes from:

  1. APRA using their oversight powers to unwind such an attempt; or
  2. Affected depositors taking the might of the Australian banks to Court to get a ruling that this was indeed an unfair contract term.

Neither of these has happened. APRA has however had an opportunity to intervene when our banks started adding bail-in provisions to their Terms & Conditions. Please view submission 166 from Adams Economics, Annexe C for more.

APRA and Treasury are relying on a protection provided by APRA’s regulation powers that only exists if those powers are used.

6. APRA indemnifies bank executives who carry out a bail-in

In its 2019 assessment the International Monetary Fund noted:[6]

“Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill, provides for clearer immunity for an institution, its directors, management, employees and agents when taking reasonable steps to comply with an APRA direction…the Bill provides that a person is not liable in an action, suit or proceeding (whether criminal or civil) in relation to anything done, or omitted to be done, in good faith by the person if it is done for the purposes of complying with a direction given by APRA.”

This indemnity protects bank executives from legal action over their decision to conduct a bail-in.

7. Super Funds and self-funded retirees will be devastated

Our banks are some of the most valuable, even beloved brands in Australia. The financial damage to their share price from the loss of goodwill from a bail-in will be in the billions.

A greater loss though will come from the issuing of new shares to depositors in exchange for their savings. This dilutes the share price for existing shareholders. This is the reason for a bail-in given by the IMF – the cost of the bail-in must be worn by shareholders, not taxpayers.

Who are these shareholders if not taxpayers? Fourteen million Australians have superannuation accounts which contain a significant exposure to bank shares. There are more than a million everyday Australians who own bank shares directly.

Australia privatised our State Bank (The Commonwealth Bank) by giving everyday Australians discounted shares. Bank share ownership in Australia is the highest in the world, and our compulsory super ranks third in the world for number of people covered in percentage terms.

The IMF/G20 can champion a bail-in over a bail-out to protect taxpayers all they like. In Australia our taxpayers and our bank shareholders are one and the same.

The Government has looked the other way while banks have lent to the real estate market at the cost of compromising their loan book diversity. If it all melts down that is on the Government, not shareholders.

Government intervention by recapitalisation financed with Government bonds transferred over to the banks over time will, in the long run, not cost taxpayers money but it will avoid millions of everyday Australians getting done over by the IMF.

8. Further notes on our international obligations

Depositors are considered ‘unsecured creditors’ to a bank. This is apparent in the RBA publication ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’, which comments on “…other unsecured creditors, including depositors”.[7]

The Australian government’s 2014 ‘Financial System Inquiry Final Report’ acknowledged:[8]

“Inevitably, failures can and will occur, the system will be exposed to crises and, at times, unsecured bank creditors will be exposed to loss.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. The Board includes all G20 major economies. Australia is a member and participates in the process.

The Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Key Attributes recommend that a resolution regime should “allocate losses to firm owners (shareholders) and unsecured and uninsured creditors (depositors)”.[9]

Australia is represented on the FSB by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Treasury and we have endorsed the FSB’s ‘key attributes’.

A further look at the ‘key attributes” reveals this provision:[10]

“The TLAC standard has been designed so that failing G-SIBs [banks] will have sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity available in resolution for authorities to implement an orderly resolution that minimises impacts on financial stability, maintains the continuity of critical functions, and avoids exposing public funds to loss”.

From submission 166 from Adams Economics: At the 2010 G20 Seoul Meeting, the Australian Government committed Australia to the Summit Document13, which included paragraph 30: 

“We reaffirmed our view that no firm should be too big or too complicated to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution.”

9. Conclusion

If I may give the last word to Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker. On the 5th November 2018, Senator Stoker explained in a letter to a constituent her view of the Act: 

“The legislation facilitates bail-in as a type of resolution power which is available for dealing with financial institution distress. This was done after the G20 leaders endorsed a new Financial Stability Board standard for Total Loss-absorbing Capacity.”

I thank the Senator for that clarity. Clearly the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was in fact an implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s requirements for member nations to have legislation that allows a bank bail-in as a way of preventing public funds being used to bail out a bank.

Could it be that as our international agreements require bail-in rather than taxpayer funded bail-out and the Government, The Treasury and APRA have spent two years hoping nobody notices? I wonder because New Zealand have enacted their bail-in laws in the open, based on the same agreements we are signatory to.

The Government has a simple choice:

Either: Oppose our bill and admit the wording of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was indeed to give APRA the power, and the banks the right, to bail-in depositor funds. Then be honest with the electorate that banks have been given bail-in powers under a smoke screen of ambiguous wording.

Or: Pass the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 to give depositors confidence in their bank deposits and provide clarity for stakeholders.

[1] Grant Turner, ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’ [2011] (December) Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin 45-55, 51.

[2] Nassim Khadem, ‘Coronavirus crisis heightens fears bank deposits could be wiped out under ‘ambiguous’ laws’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (online, 16 July 2020) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/coronavirus-crisis-heightens-fears-bank-deposits-could-be-wiped/12458462.

[3] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[4] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[5] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[6] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[7] Grant Turner, ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’ [2011] (December) Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin 45-55.

[8] The Australian Government the Treasury, Financial System Inquiry(Final Report, 7 December 2014).

[9] Ulf Lewrick, José María Serena Garralda and Grant Turner, ‘Believing in bail-in? Market discipline and the pricing of bail-in bonds’ (Working Paper No. 831, Bank for International Settlements, December 2019).

[10] Financial Stability Board, ‘FSB issues final Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity standard for global systemically important banks’ (Press Release 74/2015, 9 November 2015).

/2 Comments/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

Workers left in the dirt by Labor and Union Bosses – 2SM with Marcus Paul

Transcript

[Paul Marcus]

Right now though, as we do each and every Thursday, we have a chat with the wonderful One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good day Marcus, how are you?

[Paul Marcus]

Look I’m okay. This icare scandal has deepened in New South Wales. And Senator it reminded me a couple of weeks ago, when you raised the issue about Simon, a coal miner in the hunter valley.

You recently went to the Hunter and you released a video introducing key points. Now I’ve had a look at it. It is a massive issue. I can’t tolerate abuse of people, I really can’t. You say the mine owner and employer are acting unlawfully, immorally, and unethically. Can you tell us a little bit about Simon’s story again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Simon Turner is the human face of a crisis in this nation’s broken industrial relations laws. The people in agencies who are supposed to protect workers have turned their back on him. That’s unions, employers, industry groups, state, government departments, state ministers, federal government departments, federal agencies.

They’ve turned their backs on hundreds of the workers at New South Wales largest coal mine, BHPs Mount Arthur North mine, Mount Arthur mine I’m sorry. They’re not protected. And they’ve turned their back on thousands of workers across Australia, including my state Queensland and in New South Wales who have lost some basic entitlements that everyone has taken for granted.

The people in agencies, Marcus, who are meant to be protecting workers have enabled the exploitation and abuse of these people. The state and federal government departments, employers, industry groups, unions, safety inspectors, political parties, representatives in parliament have all failed their workers.

[Paul Marcus]

What happened to Simon? I mean, you say that he’s been failed and we’ll get to that, but what exactly happened to him? What were his injuries?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Simon was driving a truck while he was employed by the Chandler MacLeod labour hire firm. BHB runs the mine. They’ve got permanent workers there. They’ve also got around 400 or so, what they call casuals, but they’re on the permanent roster. And they’ve been working there for years. The truck that Simon was driving was being loaded.

The coal digger operator, didn’t see Simon’s truck because of the dusty conditions. The whole mine had being shut down apparently, except for this one unit and the coal digger smashed his truck. The massive collision directly injured Simon causing swollen L three, L four, and L five discs in Simon’s back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinch cranial nerve, and a lateral tear in one of the discs.

The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg, leaving him permanently in pain. I’ve watched this man. It is remarkable what he puts up with. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with this ongoing posttraumatic stress disorder and depression from that day 2014. So Simon’s injuries have left him totally and permanently disabled, and he cannot return to work.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, this is a debilitating injury that doesn’t allow this man to work and has ruined his future livelihood. Now, I guess the BHP management, I mean, they would have looked into this incident. Now, what’s been said by them?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s amazing. This is where it gets even worse.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A BHP manager, even though BHP wasn’t the employer, the BHP manager turned up at hospital and another BHP manager tells Simon to his face that if Simon reported the injury, he would not have a job.

[Paul Marcus]

What!

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s breaking the law. You must report injuries. So Simon returned to the mine and was told to sit out the shift on a cold steel bench. Imagine that, hip and spinal damage and you’re sitting on a cold steel bench. And what we’ve done, we’ve been to the Hunter, even though I’m a Senator for Queensland, because we were so concerned and no one’s taking any action on these people.

We met with other miners who have been traumatised in 2014, ’15, ’16. And yet, if you go to the New South Wales government report for labour hire miners in those years, they reported no injuries for labour hire miners, none.

[Paul Marcus]

That’s rubbish. I mean, why would the management, why would the supervisor in this case, perhaps not report the injury? What is it? Is it in their best interests not to, or what’s the situation here?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, you’re quite perceptive. The managers at Mount Arthur had a safety bonus that encourages not reporting injuries. If they had injuries, then their safety bonus would drop.

So they would cop it in their wallet. So Simon wasn’t actually getting workers’ compensation or accident pay. Now that’ll shock many miners. It’ll shock many workers around the country. So, you know, desperate for cash. Six months later, Simon tried to access his coal long service leave. They told him he’d been sacked just weeks after his injury.

Simon had not even been told by his labour hire employer Chandler MacLeod nor by BHP, Simon went on to lose his home and he then started living in his parents’ garage, sleeping in his car and three times this man considered ending his life, three times.

[Paul Marcus]

All right. I mean, I don’t understand this, why this has been able to flourish? I mean, Chandler MacLeod pay rates are apparently 40% less than permanent BHP workers on the same 12 month roster as the permanents.

And they’re basically doing the same kind of work, but they’re doing it with no basic work entitlements, like sick leave, annual leave. Look this bloke he’s not even entitled to anything really. I mean, what are you saying about this in Senate estimates?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, he is entitled to it, but that’s just it, he’s not getting any of these things.

[Paul Marcus]

Right, I see.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But I applaud your use of data again. You’re right, Chandler McLeod pay rates for these so-called casuals who are really permanent on a permanent roster when working there for years, in some cases, are 40% less than permanent BHB rosters, then BHP employees, sorry.

And Chandler McLeod people have no basic work entitlements, like sick leave and annual leave. And what’s more is that the fair work commission have authorised the Chandler McLeod Enterprise Agreement and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, authorised it and approved it. They’ve signed off on it.

[Paul Marcus]

So the unions endorsed it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s not looking after members, and that’s certainly not looking after miners in the Hunter.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, it’s not. And then it goes even further, as you alluded to, or as I said, a little while ago, that Simon approached the long service leave to see if he could get an advance on his long service leave entitlements, just get some cash.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And so bear this in mind. That long service leave contributions for Simon were underpaid and not audited. So my questions in senate estimates started finding these chinks and the Senate estimates said, “No, no, no, they’d be correct.” Sorry, the coal long service leave in senate estimates said their records are correct.

“Have you audited them?” “No”, but they’ve, since after my pressure was applied, they’ve since audited to them and found Simon was correct. Note this though Marcus, Coal long service leaves board has a mixture of directors from the CFMMEU and the minerals council or the mine owners.

And then we have other conflicts of interests. I certainly think they’re conflicts of interests, coal mines insurance, the workers compensation for the coal miners is 50, 50 owned by the New South Wales Minerals Council, the mine owners and the CFMMEU. AUSCoal super is 50, 50 CFMMEU and the State Minerals Councils, the mine owners.

AUSCoal controls the money for coal, long service leave and collects money on behalf of the government and its board is made up as I said, a minute ago, 50, 50 minerals council and the CFMMU. But here’s where it gets interesting for Icare. And I hope people in New South Wales are listening.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

‘Cause your Icare has been underfunded, because it’s paying out workers’ compensation to coal miners, because Simon’s employer Chandler McLeods policy said they only had 22 office workers doing administrative jobs, not coal miners.

They had hundreds of coal miners on a far greater wage than an admin worker and with much greater risk. Now, what that means is that Simon, because he’s not covered by that policy, has been funded by basically iCare.

So the moms and dads who own small businesses and even medium sized businesses in New South Wales, if you wonder why your premiums are going up, it’s because iCare money is going to these unfunded people because a multinational Chandler MacLeod is owned by Recruit Holdings, a huge Japanese recruitment agency that works around the world.

This Japanese firm, recruit holdings, some of its subsidiaries in Australia have been receiving $2.4 billion in the last four years from federal government contracts for labour hire people in our own federal government agencies, and they are not paying for the proper workers’ compensation. That’s why Simon missed out. Instead, they’re being paid by iCare. That’s why iCare is broke, one reason why iCare is broke.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, look this is very big, the attorney general is now proposing to review IR laws, to help the recovery from COVID. It’s a bit difficult to support it, given what is going on with the laws being bypassed and broken anyway, is that right? I mean, everything, the system is broken, it obviously needs to be fixed first.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Completely correct. You’re right onto it. Now, what we’re seeing is the attorney general wants to change the IR laws to help people recover from COVID. That means what he wants to do is condone what’s happening.

What I’ve just outlined. What we need to do is to get compliance, get these laws enforced. The system is broken. You don’t change the system and bring in more breakages, you fix the system first, ensure compliance, ensure the compliance with the law. And then let’s look at fixing it. Otherwise Marcus people like Simon are the ones who we will be paying for this abuse. It’ll never be fixed.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The attorney general has his way and working for these large companies it seems, it’ll never be fixed and the workers will shoulder the burden because the union has abandoned them in the Hunter Valley, the employers and the employer industry and associations have abandoned them.

And the state government and federal government departments have abandoned them. We’re the only ones chasing this.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, well, Simon obviously needs to be a priority. I mean, I’d love to see him get his lawful and certainly moral entitlements and compensation for the trauma and suffering over the last, what, six or so years.

And also, I mean, we need to continue, I guess to apply pressure, to bring maybe some justice on those who exploited Simon, or at least enabled it, whether it’s BHP, Chandler MacLeod, the Hunter, or New South Wales division of the CFMMEU. I mean, something needs to be done, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, definitely Marcus. And it’s really significant that if people watch the video that I’ve put out in the last three minutes, what you’ll see is the connections because the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley started the employment of casuals. The CFMMEU’s predecessor, the Miner’s Federation, initiated casuals for a good reason because of unemployment in the late ’80s.

But the CFMMEU, then became the employer and the union representing the employees. And so that’s a conflict of interest, but the CFMMEU now endorses enterprise agreements. We’ve seen cases of enterprise agreements being sold to labour hire companies. And so the union actually started use of casuals, continued the use of casuals, enabled the use of casuals. And this has exploited workers. And some of these people are members of the union.

[Paul Marcus]

Where’s labor on this Malcolm? I mean aren’t they supposed to be looking after the worker, where are they on this? I mean, when you’re highlighting this, which you obviously are doing in Senate estimates, and you’re talking to me and in the media and you’re on social media and one nation and trying to push some changes, to IR our laws, where are labor on this. Are you getting any support at all from Anthony Albanese and the like.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I’ve written to Anthony Albanese, no response. I’ve written to the local federal member, no response. Simon Turner, the injured miner-

[Paul Marcus]

What about Joel Fitzgibbon?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes. And Simon Turner, the injured miner himself has written to Joel six times and has never been, never got a response.

[Paul Marcus]

Well I’ll talk to Joel because Joel and I get on very well but I’ll have to leave it there, ‘Cause I’ve got the deputy premier waiting on the line, but you and I will talk further on this

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you talk Joel, remind him the issue is not casuals. That is one part of it. The issue that I’m raising goes well beyond that, into the abuse of these casuals and what the union, the employer and the labour hire firms are doing and what the state and federal governments are abandoning workers on. That’s the issue.

/by

One Nation Condamine Candidate – Greg Priebe

A few weeks ago I met up with One Nation’s Condamine candidate for the upcoming Queensland election Greg Priebe. It’s time for a new start and to get rid of the Liberal/National/Labor monopoly in Queensland politics.

Greg will put the residents of Condamine and Queensland first.Greg’s family history in Condamine can be traced back to his great-great-grandfather and family arriving in 1864. Since those beginnings, each generation has worked and committed to this great country and electorate.

A proud family history of serving in the Australian Defence Force, local business, and grain and cattle production on prime agricultural land in the Moola district, the Priebe history is rich and relevant to the drive behind Greg’s commitment to Condamine and this election.

Just like his forebears, Greg shows the same hard work ethic, tenacity and resilience that have made him successful today. Happily married with 3 children, Greg and his wife Tracy have the family home in the outskirts of Oakey and are proud to be part of the community.

Greg has the high-level education and multi-industry experience that allows him to connect with a wide range of people in the region. From his rural background, agribusiness and education expertise, Greg is keen to listen and work hard for people to make this region a showpiece for Queensland.

Greg is all too aware of the growing hardships facing everyday Australians – insecurity in business and employment, profits and assets going overseas, soaring costs of living and much more – all making life harder for you. Meanwhile the major political parties continue to put you last.

Runs the learning and development consultancy business ‘Effective Strategies’———————-Greg’s aims if elected.Strong advocate for the approval of New Acland Mine stage 3.

Building Australian Manufacturing and Business! Greater support for local business to do what they do best.

Better Roads and Transport! Providing the infrastructure that allow people to travel safely and business to shift product.

Better Education! Improving education quality and building better outcomes and pathways for youth.Better

Social Services! Greater police numbers and resourcing, building better health and wellbeing facilities.

Cracking Down on Crime! Tougher sentencing and tackling the factors that cause youth re-offending.

Support for Seniors! Making Condamine a supportive, safe and attractive place for retirees.

Work and More Play! Encouraging greater state funding towards tourist activities, well-facilitated park land/adventure playgrounds, recreation opportunities and community events in our region.

Transcript

Okay, I’m here in Oakey with Greg Priebe, who’s our Condamine state electorate candidate for One Nation. Tell us, mate, tell us a little bit about yourself.

Well, I’m local, I’m from this Condamine region, I grew up on a property north of here and I’ve spent all my life with agriculture, with a property. I decided to sort of stick my hand up for One Nation

Good!

Because I think there’s lots of different issues here that simply aren’t being touched.

What are some of the issues locally that affect people?

I think the big issues here are the lack of support for agriculture is one, and that’s a real big one.

That’s both LNP and labor.

Yeah, definitely.

Both learning agriculture.

Yeah, dropped the ball there. Around water in Queensland.

Yep.

Also there’s been, you know, a lot of problems here around the Acland mine, with support with that, dropping conditions in healthcare, lack of resourcing for policing. There’s huge issues within education. And basically I think people have just absolutely had enough and are looking for a good conservative alternative.

You were in the LNP, you’re actually a member of the LNP.

Yeah, I was.

And you left in disgust. Why One Nation?

Well because they seem to be the true conservative voice for Australia. We listened every week to what is happening in Canberra, you know, and in Brisbane. And we see the LNP every time dropping the ball. Right now is the time to step up.

Okay, thank you.

We’re at the juncture, we we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to stop this, this lack of power or this lack of voice that we have out here.

The way I put it, Greg, is that it’s very simple. The tired old parties, the labour party and the liberal party, believe that people work for government.

Yeah.

You listen to people, you watch people’s actions more than what they say, and that’s what they’re saying. That’s what they’re actually meaning, people work for the government. We think it’s government works for the people. Governments serve the people.

Yeah.

So what we’d expect, if you’re elected, is for you to listen a lot. That’s what Pauline and I do a hell of a lot of.

Yeah.

Listen to understand the issues. You obviously are aware of the issues locally, but keep listening and then also stand up and speak out on behalf of the people. Cause that’s what you’re there for. You’re their representative, you’re there to do their will. So Greg Priebe from Condamine. Let’s give him number one preference, and number one vote in the coming state election.

Right, thank you.

/by

Australia must master COVID-19

State and federal politicians need an urgent plan for Australia to master COVID-19, rather than being held captive in fear of the next wave of infections.

Senator Roberts said, “The ad-hoc opening and closing of our economy and politicians praying for an elusive and unlikely vaccine needs to transition to a longer-term plan of how to master COVID-19.”

The rolling debate of suppression versus elimination strategies are short-term and unsustainable and we cannot continue as we are.  At current infection rates it could take until 2040 for Australia to achieve herd immunity.

Taiwan, with a population similar to Australia, has had just seven deaths despite great exposure to COVID-19, yet unlike Australia it did not destroy its economy.

“There is a deafening absence of political leadership that has the courage to look beyond the immediate waves of COVID-19 infections to the horizon of how to live with COVID-19 in our community,” stated Senator Roberts.

Queensland’s state 2019-2020 mid-year Fiscal and Economic Review, pre COVID-19, states “An increased capital program of $51.8 billion over the forward estimates, supporting 41,500 jobs in 2010-20”.

Part of Queensland’s Economy Recovery Strategy Stage 2 for COVID-19 also states “$51.8 billion state infrastructure program over the next four years to give the building and construction industry certainty and confidence.”

“This is duplicitous and untrustworthy leadership that pretends this is new money for recovery, when it is in fact an existing capital works program re-branded as a recovery capital works program.

Senator Roberts said, “Clearly the Queensland government’s exceedingly poor financial management has left Queensland on the back foot with no additional resources to bolster economic recovery.”

“With no vaccine in sight, no money in the bank and no confidence in the Premier’s leadership to look beyond the advice of the Chief Medical Officer, then Queenslanders need to get back to work.”

“The Premier needs an urgent plan, based on data, on how we master COVID-19 so we can return the economy and our community back to prosperity.”

/2 Comments/by

Rosemary Moulden, Candidate for Southern Downs

,

Transcript

[Sen. Roberts]

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, representing the state of Queensland in Federal Parliament, and I’m with Rosemary Moulden, our candidate for the state election in October, for the Southern Downs electorate in Queensland, Rosemary, tell us a bit about yourself please.

[Rosemary]

My name is Rosemary Moulden, I am the state endorsed candidate for One Nation for the electorate of the Southern Downs, I was a registered nurse and a registered homoeopath, I’ve run small business, and I’m running a beef production farm with my husband at the moment.

[Sen. Roberts]

Tell us why you’re running as a candidate representing people of Southern Downs in the State Parliament.

[Rosemary]

Well, my idea for running for a candidate for this Southern Downs regional electorate, is that I feel that farmers need a lot of support, small businesses need a lot of support, they need less government interference, they need a much more manageable cost of living, costs power is going up which prevents people from running the businesses that they want to run, and are able to run, and the water supply is the big issue, we’ve been through bushfires, droughts, and now the Coronavirus, and this is impacting on everybody’s life.

[Sen. Roberts]

So it’s basically water, Its electricity costs, cost of living and over regulation, you wanna get government out of people’s lives and get back to government serving the people instead of having the people serve the government.

[Rosemary]

Oh, that’s totally correct, you’ve said it well, the regulations that are imposed constantly on the people who are actually producing goods and food and in this district is very, very difficult for all these people to implement, and that’s the thing everyone needs to be able to fulfil their own destiny, and do their own thing with minimal government interference.

[Sen. Roberts]

So why one nation? Why are you standing in One Nation?

[Rosemary]

Well, One Nation as a party has had a very constant leadership, very sensible policies, there’s almost none of them that you could really argue against, they’re common sense, fundamental, and they encourage the independence of Australians and most Australians want to work, and most Australians are happy to pay tax when they’re earning a decent income.

[Sen. Roberts]

We hate getting ripped off though, and One Nation is the only party that speaks up, and has the guts to say what people are thinking.

[Rosemary]

Oh, exactly and people will tell me what they’re thinking, and they’re happy for me to believe them and understand them, and most people now seem to be very receptive to the policies, the common sense policies that One Nation promotes.

[Sen. Roberts]

Right, and being a representative in Parliament means, being a representative of the people, speaking for the people, and pushing their issues for the people, not for the global agenda, like the LNP and the Labor Party has been doing, so, why now?

[Rosemary]

For me, it’s a perfect time, I’ve had a lot of experience with the government regulation farming and even with nursing and all those things that you have to implement in those areas, I just feel like people can listen to me, I can approach people and chat to them and get information from them and actually listen to what they’re saying.

[Sen. Roberts]

And because we’re very free to say and do what we think we need to do, when we listen, we really listen because we take that message into parliament, unlike the other parties, the failed old parties, are told to do what the backroom people do, so when Rosemary says she listens, she listens.

/by

Trust in Politicians at rock bottom | BNAP Today

,

This week I appeared on BUSINESS NOW ASIA PACIFIC to discuss the different approaches to COVID19 and how Australia needs to change course.

Transcript

[Mike

Senator Malcolm Roberts from Pauline Hanson’s One nation believes the lockdown in Victoria will succeed. However testing needs to be quicker. He also believes that government needs to be more truthful. Now, Victoria has serious problems with infection control will a harder breakdown be effective if they don’t know the source of so many infections.

[Malcolm]

Well, I think there are two things I need to say in response to that Mike. And that is that first of all, this is a very difficult issue. We said that right from the start on the single day sittings on 23rd of March and eighth of April, when we said, there’s no manual for this, it’s entirely new.

We’ve gotta give the government lots of room. We voted in favour that we supported them on their packages and away we went, but we said, you’ve got to get the data. And you’ve got to look elsewhere and start to manage this in accordance with the best practise around the world.

So we might come back to that more later, but what we’ve learned is that quite often, the places where people have prolonged contact in close quarters is where the virus is transmission is highest and that’s the family unit and workplaces. So the family unit in Melbourne is older than in any other city.

And that’s significant because I also saw these figures on one of the radio stations. I heard the figures rather than one of the radio stations. The other thing about Melbourne is that it’s flat and people travel very easily and they travelled to watch football matches, sporting events, games, social venues, et cetera.

So I think that it is difficult. And number one priority is life, securing life, making sure people are healthy and secure and safe. And so a lockdown is essential because they’ve lost control of their borders. They’ve let it go and sorry, lost control of the virus within, in I think multi, foreign, where people are speaking foreign languages.

So they’ve lost control of that because people have not been able to understand the messages about the virus. So that’s where the outbreaks have been. And so I think the lockdown will be effective because it’ll stop families The extended family visits and it’ll stop work obviously.

And so I think the lock downs will be successful in Melbourne. The other thing is that they need to get testing done more quickly because some people are basically having a test and not getting the result back for about 10 days. Now they’re not gonna stay cooped up for 10 days if they don’t believe they’re sick.

And many of these cases that they’re asymptomatic. So I think that while it will work, the government has got to do its bit and getting testing to be more responsive and get results back in two or three days rather than 10. So yeah, there’s potential.

[Mike]

It’s interesting. In South Korea, the testing, from the testing to getting the results back now 12 hours and that’s what it should be when I was talking to professor Justin Fendos in South Korea last week, and he was saying that 12 hours and I mentioned that we have at times up to 10 days and I could hear his jaw hit the table. That’s just atrocious. What should the authorities be doing though?

[Malcolm]

Well, let’s come back to Taiwan if you don’t mind, because South Korea has done a marvellous job. They actually, do you mind if we talk about that?

[Mike]

Yeah, for sure.

[Malcolm]

Okay, South Korea has done a marvellous job. They actually let go let it go. And they had to recover. So given that, and by the way, I’ve watched your interview with professor Fendos. Fabulous interview, very well spoken man knows his facts. And he has been on the same track we’ve been from the right from the start on Monday, March 23rd and April the eighth, in the Senate single day hearings.

We also said, make sure that you get the data to the federal government when we gave them our support. And we said, make sure you looked at Taiwan and Southeast Asia. The Southeast Asian nations, Taiwan, especially South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, have done a marvellous job.

Singapore with the exception of Singapore, all the other three and Israel, which had also done a good job, Mike, they have eternal vigilance and they’re ready to do respond quickly to threats because they’re constantly under threat. So that is something we don’t have.

But the, in Taiwan, their population is about the same as Australia. They have 24 million we have 25. The population density in Taiwan is far, far higher than us because their 24 are crammed into a small Island. And they also had an earlier and stronger exchange with China because they’re Chinese themselves.

And so they had a lot more travelling between Taiwan and mainland China. And so they had a much greater problem. Now what the Taiwanese did, and we need to recognise that Australia has had 130 deaths and that’s good, but the Taiwanese have had seven, even despite they had an earlier virus, earlier contact with the virus, seven.

And the other significant point with the Taiwanese is that they didn’t lock down their economy. They actually kept their economy going and they gave responsibility to the people. Now, there are three things that they have done really well. First of all, their basic strategy was to isolate the sick and isolate the vulnerable.

That’s what real quarantine is. Quarantine is not isolating everyone into lockdown. Quarantine is isolating the sick and the vulnerable and separating them out. The second thing they did was that they implemented massive testing and they have a screening process for the testing. And I think South Korea is the same.

They test for high temperature knowing that that’s not always reliable, but they test for high temperature. If someone has a high temperature, then they go and get tested for COVID. And if they test negative, but they still have, for COVID, but still have a high temperature, then they’re allowed to go to work.

So they put responsibility on the workplaces, and what we’ve got in those countries is the responsibility on the individual citizens. And when you have that responsibility, there’s a far greater sense of accountability rather than when it’s imposed.

And the other thing that they’ve done, and I’ve only learned about this recently is they’ve got a much stricter tracing regime, but the tracing apparently doesn’t go right into people’s whereabouts it goes into their localities, and that helps the authorities then get one step in front.

So what I think the, what I think now with those lessons from Taiwan, and we encourage the government to look at Taiwan and South Korea. What I think that we should be doing now is we should be in Australia revising and reviewing our current work. How effective have we been? Where have we not been effective?

We need to recover and plan for recovery in two areas. First of all, to get our economy back to pre COVID, which is February, but then we need to aim far, far higher Mike, we need to get our economy back to, so to the point where we have our sovereignty, restored, our economic sovereignty and economic security and our independence.

We’ve been following this nonsense from the United nations now for almost 70 years. And it’s destroying our sovereignty and our economic independence. And so what the UN has been preaching and our governments have been preaching is interdependence, which means that we are dependent on other countries.

And so what we need to do is to get back at productive capacity, especially for manufacturing and agriculture. And then the third thing we need to do is to plan for future viruses, because this won’t be the last one. And so the biggest thing of all Mike, that we’ve learned is that the Taiwanese, the South Koreans, the Israelis, the Singaporeans, they trust their government.

They don’t give them carte blanche, but they do trust their government. And the government’s lead. In this country governments are too busy, fabricating policies and making and misrepresenting the circumstances.

We haven’t seen the truth on this from the prime minister. We haven’t seen the truth on this from Daniel Andrews, nor Annastacia Palaszczuk. We wrote to Annastacia Palaszczuk and said, “where’s your data. “We want to have a look at it.” She said, it’s in two locations, we went to both locations.

There’s no data. So Scott Morrison right up front. He was saying, six months hibernation, six months hibernation, six months hibernation. We knew there was no plan. And now we know there’s no data driving that plan. These governments are not trusted in this country on a range of issues, electricity, agriculture, stealing farmers property rights.

I mean, you could go on forever, selling ourselves out through international agreements, selling ourselves out the free trade agreements that are giving the other parties the power, we have got to establish trust in our government. And that can only become, can only come with reliance on data and reliance on telling the truth its time Australia got back to that.

[Mike]

Just wondering about the data to have the data we need all the input. We actually have that at our fingertips with credit cards and with Apple, for example, and the other Android devices. And we can, we can actually find out where people have been. The problem we have at the moment, according to professor Fendos, was that it’s reliant on us being honourable or telling the truth. So by having all that data available, it’s going to impact on inverted commas ‘civil liberties.’

[Malcolm]

Well, I get, I go back to my experience when I graduated from university with a mining engineering degree, I thought I’d better go out and start learning something that really mattered. So I worked as a miner for about three years, various mines around the country. And then I went overseas and worked in mines overseas.

So I’ve worked at the coalface and I developed a very healthy respect for miners for all people. And then when I became a mine manager, I would go underground a lot, not to do people’s work, but just to have, listen, and to look so that I can understand what they were going through and what their needs were.

And I can remember turning up at one mine brand new and the workforce detested the mine management because the mine management told lies and it took me a few months, but people started to trust me and that’s extremely important. And then what I was able to do was also to hand over responsibility and authority to the people doing the job.

I mean, not everything we can’t expect the miner to make every decision for the business, but their own jobs. And when people are given that responsibility and that authority they usually come good. And so what’s happening here is government tries to impose things in a crisis.

And we think we’re, a lot of Australians then distrust that, but in, Southeast Asia they’re already practising those things. And we’ve gotta give those governments credit because they’ve had SARS before. So we understand that that’s made it easier, but they’ve learned from that.

And they put it into practise and people are now trusting the government. So if the government tells the truth, if the government hands over responsibility to business owners, venue managers, then they’ll see the people respond because then people take accountability.

But when it’s shoved on them under threat and under control, it’s not taken that accountability is taken when there’s freedom for people to make decisions that autonomy is really important. And we’ve gotta keep giving trust back to people in this country and get the government the hell out of people’s lives.

[Mike]

What about state government? When we have this, where, we’re all Australians, but we have, the new country of Queensland, the new country of Victoria, the new country, new South Wales, South Australia, blah, blah, blah, blah. And each state has its own, not agenda, but it its own approach.

And maybe an agenda also it becomes a little bit political because where the Joan of arc of WA, with a Joan of arc of Victoria, Tasmania. So how do we get all the States working as one country instead of being a number of different countries within this terrible state of Australia?

[Malcolm]

Well, first of all, the thing that unites strategies is data. When everyone’s got the correct data, you’ll end up seeing strategies similar, but across every state, but they will be fine tuned for each state because Queensland is the only state in the country. Yes, that’s correct.

It’s the only state in the country where there are more people outside the capital city than inside the capital city, we’re more decentralised. We’re more spread up the coast with the sparse population inland. And so that’s different from Victoria. That’s different from Tassie.

That’s different from new South Wales and then Western Australia is different again. So I’m very much a believer in our constitution, federal constitution, which is based on competitive federalism, giving a huge amount of sovereignty to the independent States.

Only on national issues should we come together that’s defence, border security, foreign affairs, those kinds of things. And so I’m in favour of letting the state run, but the States themselves also need to get the data so that they can manage effectively. And they need to manage trust in a trustworthy way.

The fundamental thing that we did wrong in this country, I believe with COVID was that we looked automatically to Britain and to a man called Neil Ferguson. And that was a mistake. This Neil Ferguson has done I’ve forgotten the name of the school in medical school, medical college in Britain, but he’s in there and they’ve done a lot of modelling and his models have been proven to be completely wacky.

They have exaggerated the consequences of just about every virus they’ve cared to model every disease they’ve cared to model. Foot and mouth disease they cost the British government way back then when a billion was worth a billion, $10 billion, they cost the British farm economy. They have completely exaggerated.

They forecast millions of deaths, when out of the virus out of the disease in Britain when there were only 120 deaths. I mean, it’s completely ridiculous. We looked to them went straight to lockdown. We didn’t look to Asia. We should’ve looked at Taiwan as well as Britain and worked out where the reality is.

Donald Trump himself started calling out the British. And I don’t think he named Ferguson, but he that’s what he was implying. And we should be coming up with our own strategy, but looking at Taiwan, looking at everywhere in the world and then developing our own. So it’s up to the state governments.

I believe they should be independent. They should be working independently. That’s what gives us greater accountability. It worked up until about 1923, and then that’s been smashed and we’ve centralised more and more. So we need to get back to that competitive federalism, independent States working together. And when they’ve got data, they will have a solid plan. We’ve got to get back to truthful government that relies upon objective data.

[Mike]

Very interesting times we must continue more discussions. There’s so many questions or conversation pieces such as border control, the forthcoming Queensland elections in Australia, the economy and even football. So we can do that next time.

[Malcolm]

I look forward to it Mike. Happy to contact me anytime.

[Mike]

Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you very much.

[Malcolm]

Thank you, Mike. All the best.

/by

Why I support the Acland Mine Extension

, ,

Transcript

[SEN. ROBERTS] Let’s clear up some recent confusion about One Nation’s position on Acland mine continuing to operate and to reinstate three hundred vital local jobs and 2300 indirect regional jobs. We’ve criticised how a third party representative of Acland approached One Nation in the past.

Pauline reminded everyone of this recently and now that Acland has been willing to give us facts and data and the courts have fixed an injustice I’m pleased to support the mine. Affordable energy and export income is good for our country and Acland will be good for the local area.

I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland’s Stage 3. Let’s have a look at the timeline of the extension of the operating mine. The Bligh govt gazetted the Stage 3 extension in 2007, thirteen years ago. There was some local opposition.

The project then went to the Land Court where the adjudicator, whose official title is Member, rejected the mine’s application in 2016. One Nation accepted that decision. It then went on appeal to the Supreme Court, where Acland was successful. After that it went to on to the Court of Appeal which included the highly respected Justice Sofronoff and two other judges. Acland won that.

The Court of Appeal, our highest court in Queensland, ruled that the decision by the Land Court Member was affected by “apprehended bias” and was unsound. That means one Land Court Member showing apprehended bias ruled against the mine and hundreds of jobs AND four Supreme court Judges overruled him.

The courts have corrected an injustice within their own system.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the current appeal?

[SEN. ROBERTS] This decision is now on appeal to the High Court thanks to the Labor government continuing to give taxpayer money to The Environmental Defenders Office to interrupt development and jobs.

The Independent Expert Scientific Committee on Coal Seam Gas and Large Coal Mining Development issued three advices in relation to Acland’s impact on groundwater over 2014, 2015 and 2016. The 2014 and 2015 reports criticised Acland. It’s 2016 report was positive and said that all matters raised had been addressed.

This report won Acland Federal environmental approval.We want to encourage businesses who are told they have a problem and fix it. This is what Acland did and got sign off from an independent, statutory scientific body that the courts said had access to the same information as any objector.

[INTERVIEWER] What about the evidence given in the Land Court?

[SEN. ROBERTS] Several witnesses on both sides gave evidence that had the appearance of being first-hand but was later shown to be based on hearsay. The Land Court Member in the first decision made no criticism of the objectors who gave such evidence yet was highly critical of one of Acland’s witnesses who did exactly the same [1].

The Land Court Member said that Acland had deliberately distorted the facts and eroded the confidence of the court. The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis to impute this [2]. The Court of Appeal found that at a certain point the Land Court Member was, quote: “animated by an extreme and irrational animus against Acland” [3].

Essentially, he the Member, had taken a negative attitude towards Acland. The court of appeal said at times the Member was combative, argumentative and sarcastic to Acland [4]. In the Supreme Court, it was found that there was no evidence to support the claim that Acland had engaged in pressure tactics [5].

The Court of Appeal found there was no basis for the Land Court Member’s conclusion that Acland had sought to portray objectors as bigoted individuals who were only interested in spreading misinformation [6]. The Land Court Member himself concluded that some of the objectors were ready to make assertions without evidence, make submissions that were scandalous and unsupported by any evidence and as to one witness, having an anti-Acland fixation that overflowed into her evidence [6].

The Court of Appeal found that the Land Court Member’s imputation that Acland had tried to hide relevant information in relation to groundwater impacts was “irrational” [7]. While the original Land Court Member’s decision rejected Acland, it’s obvious that was not sound.

[INTERVIEWER] There was a comment that Acland tried to influence a One Nation candidate?

[SEN. ROBERTS] There was an accusation, since retracted, that our local, grassroots candidate had been wined and dined by the mine. None of these are true. I want to acknowledge Alan Jones’ strength of character in correcting and apologising for the assertion about that candidate. I thank him for that.

[INTERVIEWER] What has led to your support for Acland?

[SEN. ROBERTS] I visited Acland 3 weeks ago and worked through my extensive checklist of things I think needed to be considered.

These include: Safety & health; Water underground; water overland; water usage & supply; land use rights; constitution; aboriginal land (none at Acland); rural land quality & use; farm produce type; environment – air quality, vibrations, reclamation, noise, past performance; town services & rates; jobs and local/regional economy; infrastructure impacts; social impact; bank support; owner’s flexibility and consideration of others’ needs; government fiscal responsibility/debt;

Acland meets all of them. In fact, Acland has extensively changed its mining plan at high cost to itself to meet locals’ needs. I listened to a small group of opponents to Acland.I listened to the local community, business owners and farmers who strongly support this project.

Coal is good for this country and Acland will be good for the local area. I support the decision of the Court of Appeal and the four judges. I support Acland.Let’s get government green tape, red tape and blue tape out of the way, and get shovels in the ground and dump trucks on the road.

In a state with $100 billion of debt thanks to the Liberal-Labor duopoly we need export income and affordable domestic energy for our economic recovery and to secure our state’s future.

References

  1. Oakey Coal Action Alliance Inc v New Acland Coal Pty Ltd & Ors [2019] QCA 184, [82].
  2. Ibid [70].
  3. Ibid [73].
  4. Ibid [74].
  5. Ibid [81].
  6. Ibid [85].
  7. Ibid [90].

/by