What is the Digital Identity Bill?

,

The ‘Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021’ is a piece of legislation designed to act as the framework for a permanent and expansive ‘digital identity’ for all Australian citizens.

‘Digital Identity’ acts as a master ID, joining together previously disconnected government databases containing confidential personal information.

Where the myGov app links things like a driver’s licence, passport, Medicare card, and vaccination record – the Digital Identity sets out to link ALL government data related to a person. Future iterations of the Digital Identity propose to pair this data against private sector information, such as purchasing records, to create a rich digital view of a citizen.

While Australia lacks the corresponding technological infrastructure to utilise a Digital Identity to its sinister potential (such as China’s spying street lights and billboards), this Bill – whether intentional or accidental – acts as the foundation for a China-style Social Credit System.

Governments do not create large citizen data collection points for no reason. This information is valuable, not only for research purposes, but for political strategies and future policies (such as ‘incentivising’ green initiatives). Once this information starts being collated by the government against a citizen, it will become like a browser history session that cannot be cleared. While the Bill does not specifically lay out applications for Digital Identity, accompanying documents and industry articles (from banking and insurance sectors) have already begun discussing its potential.

The Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021 cannot be read or understood as a stand-alone policy. It forms part of an extensive policy framework under the government’s 2030 digital goals laid out in the Digital Economy Strategy 2030. According to this strategy (worth $1.2 billion in the 2021-2022 Budget), Australia’s Digital Identity is intended to connect into a global digital identity economy.

In other words, the problem is not so much with the technical setup/certifications of the Digital Identity as laid out in the Bill – the issue is with the intention of the Digital Identity and that catastrophic change to both privacy and the existing separation between the economy and the government.

What is also of concern is the heightened level of control that the government seeks to wield over the direction of the economy once it transforms into largely digital entity – as stated in its goals – and therefore its motivation for the establishment of a Trusted Digital Identity. The strategy stresses that Digital Identity is aimed at keeping us ‘safe’ and recovering from a ‘Covid economy’, but as we have learned, government is poorly equipped to carry out these tasks.

Australians have to ask themselves, do they really want the government acting as an omnipresent policeman standing guard over every commercial transaction?

Should the government be able to prevent a citizen from being ‘certified’ to purchase items from a private seller (something that is not possible with cash)?

Further, do Australians want to give the government power over the economy to micromanage its future by monitoring, punishing, and rewarding transactions in the same way they have started to interfere in the ‘green’ energy market?

Also of chief concern is the reason Digital Identity has been created in the first place. The government did not come up with the Trusted Digital Identity on their own to solve the issue of outdated government databases. As stated by the policymakers in their accompanying documentation, the Trusted Digital Identity is the brainchild of the World Economic Forum and their global digital identity roadmap.

The Trusted Digital Identity is required for the Digital Economy Strategy. The following is the intention of the government strategy:

‘The digital economy is key to securing our economic future and recovery from COVID-19. The Digital Economy Strategy targets investments that will underpin improvements in jobs, productivity and make Australia’s economy more resilient.’

Then, from the Digital Identity Consultation Regulation Impact Statement, the government quotes  Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation directly from the World Economic Forum.

‘Further, research conducted by the WEF suggests that digital identity is essential for the growth of the digital economy more broadly encouraging digital, as well as physical engagement with public and private sector services, it has a pivotal role to play in rebooting the global economy in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond. Digital Identity uniquely positions businesses, the research concluded, to gain and maintain user trust and remain competitive, ‘…guarantee[ing] the realisation of greater economic potential…and advancing an economy that is more inclusive, equitable and stable for all’.’

And from the linked article:

‘The Platform on Digital Economy and New Value Creation helps companies leverage technology to be agile in the face of disruption and to create the new digitally enabled business models for a new normal – post-COVID, purpose driven, sustainable and inclusive. […] An estimated 70% of new value created in the economy over the next decade will be based on digitally enabled platform business models. However, 47% of the world’s population remain unconnected to the internet.’ – Shaping the Future of Digital Economy and New Value Creation and the Davos Agenda Digital identity Frameworks.

In How digital identity can improve lives in a post-COVID-19 world, the WEF states that, ‘To re-boot the global economy and re-connect society physically and virtually in a new reality, people will need to engage physically and digitally with public authorities and businesses.’

The World Economic Forum is encouraging domestic policymakers to ‘move quickly’ and build ‘trust’ with citizens around the secure usage of personal data, which allows extensive third parties to create digital frameworks previously forbidden by privacy laws.

‘But the potential is bigger: the possibility to safely claim who we are will impact how we live and how fast the world economy can recover – alleviating key risks highlighted in World Economic Forum’s COVID-19 Risk Outlooks Report.’

The linked Outlooks Report (tied to the Global Risks Report) seeks to keep the changes made during Covid rather than encouraging business and society to return to its in-person, normal operation. This is no doubt because the biggest winners under Covid were digital services and banks who profited off an unsustainable economic model almost entirely propped up with public money. To encourage this system would be a catastrophic error.

This report includes the header ‘An opportunity to build back better’,directly connecting the Liberal Party’s Australian Digital Identity to the hated ‘build back better’ global mantra. It also forms part of the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals and, littered through the supplementary data, are references and intentions to eventually incorporate the global Digital Identity into Climate Change policy.

‘Despite the grim economic outlook, the solidarity created by the Covid-19 pandemic offers the possibility of investing in building more cohesive, inclusive and equal societies. When it comes to the environmental agenda, the implementation of green stimulus programmes holds the potential to fundamentally change the way economies and industries operate, especially as societal behaviour change may spur more sustainable consumption and mobility habits. For businesses, the opportunity exists to accelerate a transformation towards more sustainable and digital operating models, while enhancing productivity. When it comes to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, technology has demonstrably helped societies manage crisis and provided a window into the benefits of more technology-enhanced ways of learning, working and producing – from telemedicine to logistics to the knowledge economy. There is a potential for a new era of innovation, growth and enhanced technology governance in the service of societal and environmental goals.’

To be clear, the WEF is the backbone from which the Australian government is drafting Digital Identity policy and the assumptions made by the WEF to justify their recommendations are, frankly, wrong – both historically and logically. To give one example, the need for swift digitisation is based on a prediction that nationalistic tendencies driven by competition for pandemic resources will see countries isolate themselves from the global market and sink into recession. We know from history that nations do the reverse – they expand into trade after traumatic events and the less intervention from global authorities, the better as countries find their economic niches mores quickly.

The Australian government do not challenge any of these assumptions, but rather assumed them as fact with the WEF’s recommendations littered throughout the Bill.

Part of this framework is a concept called ‘Human-centric digital identities’ – which is essentially what the Australian government is attempting to create as a form of ‘alleviation from global health risks’. The description of Trusted Digital Identity in the linked WEF policy is nearly identical to the Australian legislation.

The other WEF reference made is to Reimagining Digital Identity: A Strategic Imperative, which is more of the same except it summarises the other nations creating their own Digital Identities and includes a few worrying insights.

‘Businesses must understand that they will be required to redesign and rethink their relationships with their customers to remain competitive in a changing business landscape. As user expectations change regarding how digital identity is managed, organisations must reposition themselves regarding how they interact with their customers. And the time to act is now. The digital identity revolution has already begun.’

At which point we can point to the Australian government’s Digital Economy roadmap which says:

‘We’ll be succeeding when:

  • The significant majority of Australians over 19 are registered for myGovID or other trusted digital identity.
  • By 2030 all businesses will be digital businesses. To be a leading digital economy and society in 2030, every business needs to become a digital business.
  • Businesses can verify the digital identity of customers and suppliers with absolute confidence.
  • All transaction are electronic, integrated and secure – from registration through to employment, reporting, marketing, banking, accounting and security.

Which, if you read carefully, attempts to end anonymous cash transactions within the economy under the excuse of ‘progress, efficiency and safety’, removing the essential liberty of customers and businesses to purchase goods and services without heavy-handed oversight.

The recurring theme throughout these documents is that in order to be ‘safe’ and expand after Covid, the government must forge a new digital economy. In reality, a heavily regulated economy is less resilient and slower to recover than an old fashioned chaotic one. This is probably why a black economy in Australia is on the rise (suggested by the staggering increase in physical cash circulation) as individuals seek to recover their jobs outside the inflexible layers of cost and regulation ill-suited to a disaster. The government puts the cash increase down to pandemic hoarding, but it is far more likely that those individuals ‘locked out of the economy’ by state governments are having to find ways to survive. Instead of fixing the environment that has caused this behaviour, the government seeks further regulation to prevent it.

What’s in the Trusted Digital Identity Bill:

The Bill simply introduces itself as, ‘A Bill for an Act to establish the ‘trusted’ Digital Identity system and to provide for the accreditation of entities in relation to digital identity systems generally, and for related purposes.’

In order words, it creates a Digital Identity, sets out how other digital entities can interact with it, creates code of conduct guidelines, and puts forward some general (but by no means exhaustive) application processes, and lists penalties for failing to comply. The word ‘trusted’ is in the title to represent the ‘trusted’ accreditation process that the Bill sets out for third parties to access citizen data. Finally, the Bill sets out an Oversight Authority to monitor the system.

The vast majority of this Bill deals with the technical nature of accrediting digital businesses to interact with your data. Instead, we wish to ask if the Bill should exist as a concept.

Forgetting the more serious consequences of the Bill, does it actually achieve what it sets out to do? The answer is, ‘no’. Based solely on its primary aims, the Bill is a failure of concept.

There are two stated purposes for the Bill’s existence.

  1. Simplify access to clunky government databases for individuals and businesses.
  2. Create, stimulate, and shape a ‘Covid-safe’ economy.

Instead of fixing the government’s disjoined, outdated, and woefully error-laden databases, Digital Identity acts as a band-aid.

It creates a brand new central identity and collects information from the same broken databases. Third party applications then talk to the Digital Identity, where all the information is nicely ordered for modern systems. The Digital Identity did not fix the problem – those databases are stilling heading toward failure. Why not simply spend the billions of dollars allocated to this project to fix the master databases? Or at least fix the databases before using the mess as the foundation for Australia’s largest digital environment…

A good Bill would simplify and reduce government databases, this Bill vastly extends government-held private data into a wide range of accredited domestic and international corporations who can, upon exemption, host data on foreign servers.

This data – crucial to the safety and identity of an individual – is now collated under the Digital Identity where it is shared, used, and hosted by corporate entities for a range of unspecified reasons related to government services, research, and economic practices. The Bill even lists the potential for these services to charge citizens an access fee for their data.

The main selling point on the Digital Identity website is the time people will save.

These promises are unlikely, given the experience and difficulty with both myGovID (created by the same company given the contract for Digital Identity) and the service trouble experienced with vaccine passport certification – the Trusted Digital Identity will probably take people longer to set up and fix than the total time saved by its existence. The government’s time-saving problems do not factor in any difficulties in service which are not part of the current system.Once passed, Digital Identity will be used as a way to validate transactions in the same way that a Vaccine Passport unlocks access to previously unregulated areas.

The Bill is careful to insist that its use will remain voluntary, but the accompanying documentation implies that Digital Identity is a mandatory condition of service in the economy in the same way that vaccine passports are ‘implied’ as mandatory if you wish to continue trading.

‘Digital Identity will give Australian people and businesses a single, secure way to use government services online. Creating a Digital Identity is like doing a 100-point identification check. It removes the need to visit a shopfront with your identity documents. Digital Identity is already being used by over 2.3 million Australians and 1.2 million businesses to access over 75 government services. Digital Identity ensures personal information is securely encrypted and stored in Australia and no personal information is presented through a double blind system. The proposed new legislation for the Digital Identity system will extend these protections and standards to businesses and state and territory governments who will use the digital identity.’

And then it sets out this Digital Identity as a government-controlled protection for fraud against private digital transactions:

‘The Trusted Digital Identity Framework sets out the rules for the national digital identity scheme. This Framework will make it easier and safer for people to access online services and provide additional protections against identity crime, which is estimated to cost the economy over  $3.1 billion a year. The Government will progress legislation to enable the rollout of the Framework to the private sector and other governments. The legislation will embed privacy, security and fraud prevention mechanisms to build trust and confidence by those who choose to participate.’

And finally, from the Digital Economy Strategy:

A digital economy is characterised by online transactions and engagement – a virtual, paperless and cashless world […] This means that by 2030:

  • All businesses are digital businesses, using e-Commerce tools and new technologies to improve productivity, innovate and generate high-paying jobs.
  • All transactions are electronic, integrated and secure – from registration through to employment, reporting, marketing, banking, accounting and security.
  • Government services will all be easily and safely accessible online, saving people and businesses time and money. Government service delivery will by supported by better public data availability and sharing that is used by a highly-skilled public service to deliver more targeted policy and programs.

And for individuals:


• The significant majority of Australians over 18 are registered for myGovID or another trusted digital identity.

While not explicitly stated in the Bill, if the government’s Digital Economy Strategy by 2030 is aiming for all business transactions to be digital (no cash), and those transactions require the integrated and secure Digital Identification check to validate them – then those who do not partake in the Digital Identity scheme will be effectively locked out of the economy.

The Digital Economy Strategy also states: ‘To be a leading digital economy and society in 2030, every business needs to become a digital business.’

/1 Comment/by

How many Aussie businesses are on the verge of collapse? 

, ,

The amount of business tax debt that is overdue with the Australian Tax Office has skyrocketed by 14% in 12 months to $40 billion. This is a very worrying sign. A business which is struggling to keep afloat will try and delay their payments for as long as possible, hopefully to keep some liquidity and survive another day.  

Eventually however, many businesses can’t keep going like this and collapse. This blowout in overdue debt is a worrying sign of how many businesses in Australia are on the edge. The Government’s response to COVID has wrecked our economy and country and the full effects of lockdowns and restrictions are still to be fully felt. 

Transcript

Around. Thank you.

Okay. Senator Roberts.

Thank you chair, and thank you all for attending. Minister, When all the COVID protections, when are all the COVID protections ending for businesses? You know, for example, the Australian taxation office pause on debt collection activities, and what have you provided to ensure businesses are supported and not thrown to the wolves?

Well, Senator, to answer the second part of your question, types of measures that we outlined in the last couple of budgets, such as, the lost carryback arrangements, the small business loans programmes, they’re the types of support that have been embedded for businesses to help with the economic recovery coming out of COVID. In terms of the dates of when, in some cases already have occurred, or to occur in the future. Certain protections around solvency arrangements, or ATO debt recovery practises, coming to end. I’ll let agencies, where they can speak to any of the details of those. Probably not the right person for that though.

So Senator, there’s a range of support measures that have been provided. The minister referred to the loss. Carryback there’s also obviously the temporary full expensing measures that go to June 2023. They’re the support measures, stimulus measures that I’m aware of in the tax space. I will pass to the ATO who can talk about the administrative actions that they’ve been taking to support business. And I think some of your question or some of the aspects of that support in the space of insolvency or, you know, market front features is probably best put to markets group later this evening. But I don’t know if the ATO want to add anything on the administrative actions.

Yes, Senator. We have recommenced the very measured approach to debt collection. We are concerned that the longer businesses sort of stay out of engagement with us. The more problematic those collection of debts are. I mean, the fact of the matter is that our total collectible debt has, as at 31 December, 2021, has increased by nearly $5 billion. That is collectable debt which is largely, I understand undisputed debt. So they’ve put in a bad statement. They’ve said, they’ve earned this amount. They’ve withheld pay as you go, they’ve collected GST, and for one reason or not, they haven’t remitted amounts they’ve acknowledged they’re responsible for. We are instituting a process of contacting businesses individually to make sure they’re aware of the debt and trying to come to an acceptable payment arrangement at least. But it is something we just cannot ignore because of the debt stock has gone up about 14% from the same time last year, and it’s now around $40 billion. So we have to focus in as empathetic way as we can. But it’s something we just have to get on with without jumping out there too quickly. It’s very well known in the advisory community that we are doing this now. And in some cases they’re saying, well, you should because the longer we leave it the more likely some of these amounts just won’t be paid. But if our Chief Service Delivery Officer wants to add anything to that, I’ll pass over to Melinda Smith.

I thank you. Commissioner Melinda Smith. Chief Service Delivery Officer. I just echo the commissioner’s comments. Last year, we actually had over 8 million engagement activities that we put in place to help small business and individuals. And the growth tends to be in the small business debt to actually help them and assist them to understand what’s their liability and how do we help them to actually get back on their feet. And we’re seeing some positive signs payment plans are being set up. We have very high kept rate in terms of those effectiveness of those payment plans. And as the Commissioner commented, we’re getting some terrific feedback from the community about the balance we’re having to take very empathetically based on quite unique circumstances.

Thank you. So it it’s fairly, and this is not a criticism of you. It’s a comment about the situation. It’s fairly vague. And I understand that. So what does your research indicate will be the likely business insolvency rates for the next two years and across what industries and regions

Senator, I don’t know that the ATO, and they can obviously speak for themselves. We don’t know the ATO undertakes its own modelling or research in relation to business insolvency rates. And again, revenue group of treasury wouldn’t be the right agency to provide analysis in that regard. To just add to at least answer to your first question. I just wanted to check but the relief for directors against personal liability for insolvent trading, that was part of the initial package of measures has also expired. So, in that sense some of those initial early extreme COVID protection measures that were put in place at the depths of uncertainty have come to an end as the ATO indicated from their perspective, they now manage debt recovery in their cautious and targeted ways that they’ve indicated and are very conscious in terms of, in terms of the impact of their activities and seeking to maintain business viability while doing so. The government did outline some other insolvency reforms which I can get some information tabled if you like. I’d note that insolvency rates have been down quite significantly as a result of both some of those temporary measures, but also the additional financial support government has provided to businesses during the pandemic. I’m not aware of there being any spike in those insolvency rates since any of these measures have come to an end. But we would expect to see at least a normalisation of those rates.

Minister. Thank you. The early on. And in fact, the first and second day of sitting single day sessions on this coronavirus issue were on Monday, March 23rd, 2020, and then Wednesday the April 8th, 2020. And I pointed the government to Taiwan. Which has had a far superior performance to ours. They, despite having a population similar to ours, have had one quarter that casualties per million population that we’ve had. They did it without locking down. In the previous Senate estimate sessions, I confirmed with the Chief Medical Officer and the Federal Department of Health Secretary, the seven components that would be suitable for seven strategies for managing a virus comprehensively and properly. And the Federal Government has missed the two key ones. Never even looked at it even though they were mentioned months ago. And as I said on the first single day sessions back in 2020. I believe the Federal Government has mismanaged COVID. Now you probably won’t agree, but,

No I won’t Senator.

But you know, the facts are there. So, What’s happening is that the Federal Government has not protected people. And at the same time has decimated their economy and we are losing a lot of revenue.

Senator Roberts. Have you got a crisp question-

Yes. I’d like to know when the government is gonna come up with a proper comprehensive plan.

Well, as, you noted on the way through Senator Roberts, I don’t agree with your assessment there. Australia has some of the lowest fatality rates in the world and some of the strongest economic outcomes, a jobs market that is booming and is seeing levels of participation that are at record points for Australia and are above the performance of other developed economies. So Senator Roberts, I think we have a very strong record there as Prime Minister’s indicated. Has every decision that we have managed to, that we have made right throughout the course of the pandemic and being the one that we would make with the benefit of hindsight. No, of course not. If we’d been able to foresee every potential twist and turn along the way, we would navigate the route differently. But we’ve been dealing with the global pandemic with different variants that have come along to the COVID 19 virus and we’ve responded accordingly. We have applied through the last two budgets in economic recovery plan that has stimulated business investment that has seen the jobs market recover very strongly in Australia, that has seen the budget improve in ways beyond what had been forecast. And we’re obviously committed to continuing to implement that plan.

Thank you for that minister. I just quote some figures here from Adam Creighton. He’s a well respected, clear thinking economist who relies on data. And he’s pointed out, Australia overtakes Japan in COVID deaths, a densely populated nation with many old people that never once lockdown, never mandated vaccines and barely tested anyone. No riots, no tear gas. The lockdown argument has become a sad joke. You didn’t implement lockdowns, but you enabled the states to. Taiwan with a similar population to ours. We have 4.4 times higher death rate per million population. Taiwan never locked down. They properly tested, traced in quarantine. So my question was, when will you, I’ve checked with this Chief Medical Officer. There are seven strategies that he confirms. I’ve omitted none. I’ve got none that are in there that shouldn’t be there. Seven strategies. The government is not doing the two most important ones. When will you come together with plan

Senator Roberts? We have applied a plan right throughout the pandemic, responded to circumstances and have the clear economic recovery plan as I said before. I’d also just make the point in terms of your comparisons there, that lockdown is used as a single word or phrase to encompass what different people have in mind. There have been, in the countries you referenced, some very tight restrictions on human movement and activity in response to what, COVID 19 and limitations in terms of areas of activity that have had in terms of economic impacts and impacts on different businesses. Very significant impacts in parts of their economy. There are circumstances that every country’s grappled with. I don’t say that as in any way as a criticism. We have indeed engaged quite closely at different times with Japan and with Taiwan during the pandemic in terms of sharing information, in terms of assistance between between one another where possible for things like PPE or the like, so. There is much that we admire and respect about their responses, but I think to sort of characterise as you have that makes it sound like they’ve managed in a way where there haven’t been some very tight restrictions that are analogous in parts to the way some of the states have applied lockdowns or ongoing restrictions is not accurate in terms of what they have actually done in those countries or in the country of Japan and of course the economy of Taiwan.

Of Taiwan, which is way in front of us in terms of performance on COVID has not locked down. Their economy and their economy has basically suffered just a minor blip. I think 0.6 of-

Senator Roberts. I need to share the call.

Thank you chair. I’m finished.

Excellent.

/by

Are our Navy Frigates going the same way as cancelled submarines? 

,

It has been revealed that our Navy frigate program is facing big problems, with fears they will be underpowered, unable to run propulsion and radar at the same time and have serious flooding design flaws. 

One Nation led calls with other Senators to ditch the expensive French submarine duds. Defence acquisitions doesn’t have a great track record, will these frigates follow the same path as the submarines? 

Transcript

[Chair] Please Senator Roberts, you have the call.

[Roberts] Thank you chair, and thank you for appearing today. We’re pleased that the government has at last listened to and cancelled the submarine contract. What was the cost to Australia as a result of cancellation of the French submarine contract?

[Dalton]Senator Roberts expenditure to date on the attack class submarine programme was $2.4 billion. We’re in a process of negotiating with the two prime contracts, Naval group and Lockheed Martin Australia, the transition out of those contracts, that they’re sensitive negotiations, you’ll understand,

[Roberts] Yeah, I can. that we don’t want to talk about how that might play out in terms of dollar figures.

[Roberts] Sometimes I might argue, but not then. What progress has been made in determining the future of Naval defence procurement of submarines and other hardware options?

[Dalton] In what sense?

[Roberts] How can we make sure this doesn’t happen again?

[Mead] Senator, Vice Admiral, Jonathan Mead, I’m the chief of the nuclear power submarine task force. And I’ve been empowered to deliver a nuclear powered submarine capability for the Australian government, for Australia. So since the 16th of September, 2021 the task force working with other government departments and working with our US and UK partners, have made excellent progress in order to get to an important milestone, in beginning of 2023 so that we can identify the optimal pathway for Australia to acquire these nuclear powered submarines. I would just like to sort of emphasise that the pathway is more than just the actual platform. The platform is something that we can readily identify

[Roberts] Excuse me, platform being the boat itself?

[Mead] Correct, the actual submarine itself there Senator. But first and foremost, we need to satisfy a number of prerequisites. I can’t emphasise this enough, the safety and the security aspects associated with anything nuclear, but particularly nuclear powered submarines, need to be recognised with every aspect of the programme. And we, you Senator, the Australian public would absolutely expect that the department and the government would keep safety and security at the top of our requirements. So we’re working with our US and UK partners. There is a very significant series of delegations in Australia right now, combined US and UK teams. There are three specific delegations that are in Australia, two right now, they’ve been in Canberra talking to defence officials, obviously talking to the task force, talking to other government departments. They have gone down to Melbourne. They’ve gone down to Adelaide and had significant discussions with ASC, ANI, they’ve looked at the shipyards. They’re talking to workers down there. There is an another delegation, from the US and UK, that have just arrived. And late next week, there’ll be an even more senior delegation where I will take them down to Adelaide, and I will host, what’s called a joint steering group. That is a key decision body, a recommending body, that assesses the risks and the progress of what we are working on. This will be the third such steering group, I went to Washington in December of last year, where we had the first joint steering group. We did a virtual one in January of this year, and I’ll host the third one in late February. We are making very good progress. There are a number of key areas that we are working on right now. I’ll put the platform aside. But these absolutely support the platform itself. We are working on strategy and legal aspects and we are working on education, training, opportunities, the workforce. So you’ll know we’ve identified a scholarship programme, 300 scholarships over the next five years. We’re sending people as I speak, Australian Navy officers, to University of New South Wales to do nuclear engineering degrees, nuclear science degrees. We’re sending people overseas to do degrees at MIT. We’ve got a scholarship programme within the department of defence. We are a scholarship programme with STEM for cadets.

[Roberts] All right, what aren’t you doing?

[Roberts] So I welcome your comments about safety. As far as I know, the nuclear powered submarines have been around for decades. So, and coming from the Americans and the British.

[Mead] That’s correct. So US, UK have been operating nuclear powered submarines for about 60 years. We intend to leverage off their impeccable safety record, but I do want to emphasise that safety and security, when you’re dealing with nuclear, nuclear power, nuclear powered submarines must be afforded absolute priority, Senator.

[Roberts] We’re pleased to hear that. Senator Hanson and I support the nuclear decision, it seems very sensible to us, so that’s not a concern, but it is something new to Australia, so that’s obviously a risk. Has Australia done it again, this is in general to defence again, has Australia done it again by entering into the $45 billion contract for the hunter class frigates, already described as expensive duds by some, that will be slower than called for and underpowered, in terms of running its radar systems at the same time as operational propulsion systems?

Senator Roberts I’ll invite Mr. Dalton, seeing as he’s still at the table to respond, at least at a high level to that commentary, noting that quite a bit of detail has been covered already this morning on that project.

[Dalton] Senator, I think we’ve spent the last hour and a half discussing in quite some detail, some of those issues that we’re managing around the hunter class frigate. I would say that the projected total acquisition cost of the programme is $45 billion. That is not the contract value, and that is not the current approved value. So we’re taking much smaller bites as we go along, but

[Roberts] Depending upon success?

[Dalton] Yeah, that’s part of it. But I think you know, the discussion that we’ve had today demonstrates that we’re on a process, a design process, that is structured to manage risks and we, and the chief of Navy, has already testified this morning that he is confident that the hunter class frigate will fulfil the needs that the Navy has for a modern, state of the art frigate, optimised for anti-submarine warfare.

[Roberts] Okay. So I’ll keep my questions short out of respect for everyone here. Is it true that there are risks to the crew in the event of flooding or fires?

[Dalton] Again, Senator we don’t think that’s a likely outcome in the final design. We’re working through some risks that have come up, in the design process and looking at what’s happened.

[Roberts] So there are some risks, but you’re hoping to manage them?

[Dalton] There’s always risk. These are war ships, they go in harm’s way. And what we’re looking at is how do we mitigate best those risks and what happens when the ship is damaged. So we are making sure that when the ship is damaged, that the risks are absolutely mitigated as much as we possibly can. But we should not be fooled. These ships are designed to go into combat and combat can create damage.

[Roberts] I accept that, but if there are inherent flaws, before they even reach combat, that make them even more vulnerable, that’s my concern.

[Dalton] Senator what we’ve canvased this morning, at some length is in terms of those media reports being informed off of some documentation, which was work done by defence, seeking to identify extensively the potential risks faced in relation to the Type 26 and the hunter class that will be built across the type 26. Importantly, as officials have outlined, that report didn’t go into the detail of the type of mitigations and other work that is equally being done to manage and address those risks, which importantly is being done on the type 26 platform and of course on the hunter class platform.

[Roberts] So thank you, minister, it seems then that these problems were foreseen before the contracts were entered into, in review?

[Woman] No.

Senator Roberts, as a few people have addressed already this morning, these are always highly complicated procurement activities, design and build activities, that all come with risk. Nobody should think that there is a risk-free proposition in relation to building a highly sophisticated war ship.

[Roberts] We’ve just come off several, and the submarines we’ve been talking about this morning, several damaging processes in defence, so will the frigates go the same way as the sub’s, what’s your level of confidence?

[Birmingham] No Senator, they won’t, we do have a level of confidence there and the systems in terms of design finalisation and moving into the build stages, are systems that are built having learnt lessons from previous procurement decisions. The fact that defence is clearly undertaking the type of risk assessment work that has been discussed this morning is a plus. We should all be pleased for the fact that they are identifying those risks and working through them at these early stages, while we are still in design stages, where such mitigations can be pursued. These are some of – it’s similar in the sense that, you know this is a project, where right now the work that is being undertaken in Australia, is prototyping work. That’s a lesson learnt from the past, in terms of ensuring that we test those build systems before we get to a point where you have actually created a bigger problem in the build undertaking that could have been rectified if you’d learnt those lessons before through activities such as prototyping.

[Roberts] So these are my last questions on this topic. Are these fresh designs or are they rebuilding or modifying an established design?

[Birmingham] Perhaps I’ll let Mr. Dalton explain that again.

[Dalton] So the frigate, the hunter class frigate is based on the United Kingdom’s type 26 reference ship design. That is different from what we were doing in the attack class submarine programme, where the attack class submarine was a new design submarine. It evolves from previous ones, but it was a new design for Australia. And I would say Senator, that the attack class submarine programme, you know the government has made, you know, a very brave decision in light of changing strategic circumstances and that revolves around how we could employ conventionally powered submarines in high risk environments, high threat environments in the 2040’s, in 2050’s. The decision to move away from the attack class submarine programme was not based on the performance of the attack class submarine project, it’s based on the changing strategic circumstances that Australia finds itself in. So I don’t think you can compare those, you know to say that the programmes are broken because we’ve moved on from the attack class submarine programme.

[Roberts] The changing strategic circumstances we find ourselves in and the changing availability of capability to Australia.

[Dalton] Exactly.

[Roberts] Yeah. The last question.

I’ll come back. Do you want me to do it now?

[Ross] You have the changing security control requirements getting worse, but a delivery date.

[Chair] Tells me about another five minutes so we might just sit over time for a short while.

[Roberts] Last question on submarines. Has a live torpedo ever been fired from a Collins class sub?

[Dalton] Yes.

[Roberts] Have all the torpedo’s been unarmed dummies?

[Dalton] We can show you pictures Senator.

[Roberts] Sorry?

[Dalton] Yes.

/by

Companies illegally back filling risk assessments to justify jab mandates 

,

Workplaces jumped the gun and implemented jab mandates for employees without doing their legally obligated risk assessment. When caught out, some have tried to ‘backfill’ their risk assessment, to make it look like they had done the process properly in the first place.  

As the Fair Work Ombudsman has told me, on the face of it this would be fraudulent under Workplace Health and Safety laws.  

If you suspect a workplace has backfilled or retrospectively made a risk assessment for a jab mandate after implementing it, you should immediately report them to the Work Health and Safety Regulator in your State. 

Transcript

Thank you.

Oh! Senator Roberts. Sorry. Sorry, It’s the lights.

That’s all right. I don’t mind. Ms. Parker, I’m not aware of the details of the Fair Work Act. Immense as it is. I’m concerned with companies employers including universities, backfilling risk assessments. It’s a topic Senator Matt Canavan touched on earlier, backfilling risk assessments to justify the decisions on mandating injections. Is that part of your remit to explore that?

Look, it’s a work health and safety matter. So, if they are undertaking a health and safety risk assessment, as you say, they’re doing it afterwards to make it look like,

Well, when I meant by back filling is exactly that, to make it look like they do it up front but it’s rubbish.

Yeah, I understand. Yeah.

Yeah. You know what I mean.

It’s a work health and safety issue and they would need, I would encourage them, whoever you’re talking about, particularly to contact their Work Health and Safety Regulator in the state that it’s occurring in.

Unfortunately that’s a state government.

Yes, that’s correct.

Which is quite often putting the pressure on the mandate injection.

It depends on, there’s a difference between mandating and actually coming up with a risk assessment after the fact. I think that’s a different issue.

What I’m talking about is the risk assessment is done supposedly upfront.

Yes.

But it’s rubbish.

Yes. I still think they could contact the work health safety regulator because that seems to me a breach of the requirements but it’s on the face of it, but it would have to see it in.

Rather than the breach of due process in negotiating something.

Speaking in the general,

Appears that way, yes.

Speaking in the general, to reverse engineer a risk assessment rather than genuinely taking into account that the risks and benefits and,

Consultation.

And the genuine matters for consideration would without giving you legal advice, be something that’s fraudulent under Workplace health and safety laws. And so I would suggest people in that situation take a good look at that and consider the safety regulator that’s relevant to their workplace.

The only thing I’d add to that Senator is, the Work Health and Safety Authorities are independent statutory authorities. So they operate independent from government and it’s not unusual for Work Health and Safety authorities to take departments to court, etc for where they feel they’ve failing their duties. So, people should have confidence in going to their regulators.

Thank you. One final question, just getting a gut feel from you. The massively thick, Fair Work Act has got a hell of a lot of, I can see you smiling before you broke burst into laughter, got a lot of complexity in it. And it works for the members of the IR club, HR consultants, legal lawyers, large union bosses, employer associations that are kept in work by having problems to fix. The employer-employee relationship, which should be the fundamental and primacy of that relationship at work has been ignored, shoved aside, and too often vested interests get involved. Do you see any sense of that?

So, what I would say is that, it’s our job to try to cut through that. So, we’ve been established to try to educate and help people with that. So, absolutely agree there’s complexity, there’s individual arrangements, they’re all different, people have case by case issues. It’s complex system, but so is work, so is life, so is going, you know, everyone with different jobs has a different arrangement. That’s the nature of the business we operate in. Our job is to try to cut through that and help people to determine what’s the right thing to do. So if an employer rings us then we will talk them through what it is they’re concerned about and we will help them to make it right. We can provide them with outsourced legal advice. We can give them written advice. We have very good education products, very good websites. We try to make them simple. We consult on them. We get feedback on them. We have a small business hotline. We work very hard to try to simplify the system as much as possible. So they don’t have to feel overwhelmed, which is what I think you’re talking about.

I am .

Sorry. In fairness to Ms. Parker, she only gets to work with what we parliamentarians give her.

Exactly.

And it is a very large and it is a very complex act. But as you and I know, Senator Roberts, it’s the kind of sensitive area that requires all the different parties in this parliament to work together in order to get it through. And as we saw recently with the last Industrial Relations Bill to come before the parliament, some in this parliament would stand in the way of the kind of simplicity and transparency that makes it fairer for everybody, and that generates the kind of economic opportunity that works best for the people who need it most in our community.

Can I just highlight, hang on, Senator Roberts. Can I just highlight, we are 20 minutes over our supper break. Is it? What do they call it? Late break. I like supper better Still Late for smoke senators Roberts. But, do you want to continue or-

Yeah, just very briefly in response to the minister.

Be very brief. Thanks

The complexities make it impossible for some small businesses and especially for some workers, including those represented, by so-called, big unions. because the union bosses are part of the club.

They are.

And so what we need, and Ms. Parker alluded to it, the primacy of the workplace relationship between employer-employee needs to be brought back with unions, If the workers want representatives. Got no problem with that. But I’ve already got Dave Nunan, Michael Ravbar, the BCA, other groups, interested in exploring that issue, because the CFMEU legal counsel, the ETU legal counsel had both said we’ve got too many damn lawyers in this mess. They’re lawyers.

Well look, I don’t disagree fundamentally with what you’ve got to say there but the barrier doesn’t lie with government. The barrier lies over that side of the room.

I would say the barrier lies with a lot of people in this room and other rooms.

Okay. Well without getting into a debate. Thank you Senator…

/2 Comments/by

Reserve Bank wants a Central Bank Digital Currency in Australia 

, , ,

A Central Bank Digital Currency goes hand in hand with the idea of a Digital Identity. With all of your information and money stored online, central banks or governments could turn off your access to money and society in the blink of an eye.

The last time I asked the Reserve Bank about a Central Bank Digital Currency, there seemed to be no real plans. Conveniently they are now considering it, just as the feared Digital Identity Bill proposal is being pushed by Government.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

Thank you. Thank you for appearing again. I’m gonna start with a sincere compliment, Mr Debelle. I’ve been impressed with your frankness and your directness and your succinctness. You convey a lot of confidence and I would also like to start by complimenting the Reserve Bank for the answers I received in the last estimates, which after examination were complete and factual. So question one, Chair: the Reserve Bank has now signed on to the International Central Bank Digital Currency Platform, Project Dunbar, and I quote, “aims to develop prototype shared platforms for cross border transactions which will allow financial institutions to transact directly with each other in the digital currencies issued by participating central banks.” Now, as I understand it, Mr Debelle, Australia will be testing this platform, along with Malaysia, Singapore, and South Africa, which suggests we have a digital currency to use, to test the platform. Where is the Reserve Bank on the development process for the Reserve Bank Digital Currency and what’s the timeframe here for testing and implementation?

Hello, pass that one to Ms Bullock, please, Senator, she’s the expert in this space. Well, has carriage of this, at least.

Thank you, Senator. So, the first thing to note is that Project Dunbar is a proof of concept, so I’d distinguish it from a pilot. Pilot is where you actually have actual real money. This isn’t a pilot, it’s actually a proof of concept. So really, what it’s about is going through the technical infrastructure you might need, the legal arrangements you might need, to patent requirements you might need to set this sort of multicurrency approach up. So there is no Central Bank Digital Currency, we don’t have one, the other central banks don’t have one, it’s purely a proof of concept, if you like, It’s a little bit of a desktop exercise with a little bit of experimentation with technical approaches to do it, so there’s no actual Central Bank Digital Currencies involved.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, sorry.

I was just gonna go on to your second question, if that’s all right.

Okay.

So, your second question was about where we are at with Central Bank Digital Currency. So, we’ve had a multiyear process in this. We’ve done some small experiments. We’ve experimented internally with the concept of a wholesale Central Bank Digital Currency. Again, it’s not real, it’s just sort of a mock-up if you like, and we’ve done that internally to see whether or not individual banks could perhaps use it for settlement between them. We’ve also expanded that fairly recently. There was a report in December, Project Atom, which was an experiment again with Commonwealth Bank, National Australia Bank, Perpetual and Consensus and ourselves. And the concept here was, again, a proof of concept. It wasn’t a pilot; a proof of concept to see whether or not a Central Bank Digital Currency, paired with tokenized syndicated loans, would actually make a more efficient way of having syndicated loans transacted through the economy. We released the report on that in December and I think it proved that there were some efficiencies in this area, but –

Excuse me, did you say there were inefficiencies?

Efficiencies.

[Roberts] Efficiencies.

Efficiencies. So, syndicated loans is a very manual process, and quite lengthy, and what the project proved was if you tokenized the syndicated loans, you had a Central Bank Digital Currency to transact amongst the various players in the syndicated loan, that actually that made that a much more efficient process. Whether or not you can do it with normal payment systems as well is another question, but we didn’t test that, so there’s that. We’re also participating, as you mentioned, in Project Dunbar with the Bank for International Settlements Innovation Hub and those three other countries, and we’ve recently formed ourselves a Central Bank Digital Currency Group in the Payments Policy Department, and we’re going to be engaging with the Digital Finance Cooperative Research Centre, which is looking at all sorts of things digital. We’re going to be engaging with them on looking at Central Bank Digital Currencies as well, so that’s a little bit of a potted history of where we’re at with our work on this.

Okay. Thank you. If a new digital currency is to be created out of electronic ledger entries, will existing amounts of cash be converted into digital dollars? The public may be confused about how this is going to work. Can the Reserve Bank please provide a simple overview of what happens after the project gets the green light? Where’s the value coming from? So when we have a cash?

What we’re assessing, Senator, really, is exactly that: their value, given we have a pretty decent payment system as it is, which includes cash, clearly, but also electronic settlement, and you sort of nailed the question, really, which is: is there value in this? Is it worth the investment at this stage or not? Michelle, I don’t know if you wanna add anything to that.

The only thing I’d add, Senator, is that there is no suggestion in which we are getting rid of cash. This concept is not to replace cash and it hasn’t even been decided that we would do it. This would be a decision not for the Reserve Bank, but for, in fact, the Government, and it wouldn’t be replacing cash, so that’s very clear.

When I was talking about the value, I wasn’t talking about the value of the process. Is it gonna be more efficient? Is it worth doing, so I appreciate your answer and that quite clearly, that’s one valid interpretation of my question, but what I was getting at was, if someone’s got so much value in Australian dollars, how will that be converted into digital currency dollars or whatever the currency is? Will they still have that purchasing value?

Sure. So the way that most central banks are looking at this around the world is that the central bank itself won’t be providing people with digital money. It will work like cash does. So at the moment, if you want cash, you go to your ATM or your bank and you withdraw some cash from your bank account. A digital currency, if we had one, would work in a very similar way. You would go into your bank and your bank would have presumably a digital wallet, or you’d have a digital wallet, and you would take some money out of your bank account and you would put it into Central Bank Digital Currency, just like cash. So you can think about it in a very parallel way.

Yes, but if someone’s got $2,000 in cash today in their bank account, will that give them the equivalent purchasing power if there’s a conversion into digital currency?

Yes. Correct. It would be exactly the same as if it was a $100 bill or $100 on your mobile wallet.

Okay. Thank you. Now the BIS is involved. So, one specific case: our foreign exchange reserves are used to settle international transactions. These will now be replaced with the Reserve Bank Digital Dollars, if it goes ahead. Is the process to simply replace the US dollars we have in reserve with US Government-issued crypto dollars or a similar value-basis digital currency?

[Debelle And Bullock] No.

[Bullock] Do you wanna take this?

Straight to the chase: no, Senator, we would still continue to hold $USD reserves in the instruments we currently hold them at, which is primarily US Treasuries.

Okay. That’s pleasing to hear. What are the risks in doing this, for example, if this was handled badly, not necessarily from the Reserve Bank, but for the people you’re dealing with overseas, if the system wasn’t tight? What are the various risks that you can foresee that need to be managed?

This is why I think there’s a lot of water to flow under the bridge before any advanced economies really have launched into this. There are obviously cyber issues. You need to make sure that the system is secure. Overseas consultations demonstrate that people are very concerned about privacy, which is a very valid concern, but by the same token you’re also concerned about a use of digital currency for criminal purposes, so there’s a balance there. Another concern, that is one that most central banks identify, is concerns about the banking system and whether or not there might be a flight of deposits, if you like, to the Central Bank Digital Currency, which would have implications for banks’ balance sheets, potentially make it easy to run on banks, if people were concerned about banks, so there’s a whole lot of financial stability risks and issues associated with it. That’s just a sample of some of the issues that need to be considered if we were going to go in this direction and have some sort of what I would call “retail” Central Bank Digital Currency.

Thank you. Two more questions, Chair. Digital or cryptocurrency is not backed by any asset. It’s literally an exercise in trust that the government can protect the value of someone’s currency. Is this the time now to start talking about getting an asset backing behind this new currency, such as gold?

Senator, just like cash at the moment, it would be a feat currency, which is to say it isn’t backed by anything. And you’re right. It’s all about trust in the institutions of the country, in the government, in the Reserve Bank, so in that sense, it would be just like cash, if we were going down this route, it would be an unbacked currency.

But it’s backed by the government’s capacity to raise revenue from its citizens, basically.

Backed by the government’s capacity to raise revenue, did you say?

Yep.

Thank you. Last question. During COVID, there’s been a hell of a lot of money spent on non-productive outcomes. As much as food and rent can be considered non-productive, they’re essential, but they’re non-productive, the outcome of long-term borrowing for short-term gain is inflation. Is spending on productive capacity: roads, railways, bridges, dams and irrigation in this recovery phase, likely to produce a lower inflation outcome across forward estimates than continuing to spend on what can only be described as economic sherbet?

I don’t know, I mean, that’s an an interesting question, Senator. I mean, I’m not sure I would draw that distinction, I think food I would regard as a pretty productive and essential service, an essential thing for people to consume, so, I mean, we build roads for a purpose, not just because, which is to satisfy people wanting to use them, and the same with food and same with shelter, so not quite sure how we can draw such a clean line between what’s productive and unproductive.

Well, perhaps, well food is essential, as I said, perhaps spending on non-productive assets: entertainment, instead of travelling overseas, people are buying new cars, that kind of thing. What I’m talking about is spending on such items that may be essential, but not producing increased wealth, could lead to inflation. That’s the risk. On the other hand, spending on something that increases productive capacity, like a dam with irrigation systems to supply increased food productivity and lower the cost of food, leaves people better off and wealthier overall. That’s what I was getting at: a productive capacity, rather than just consumption.

There is a reasonable amount of dollars investment in infrastructure at the moment, that’s increased quite a bit, both from the Commonwealth and the State Governments, so that sort of spending is absolutely happening. Again, I’m still not quite sure I would draw such a clean distinction. In the end, people consume what they want to consume and I’m not sure it’s up to us too much to tell them what’s good and bad about that, within reason.

Well, that’s a wonderful statement to hear coming into my ears now. I love that, but yeah, sorry?

I said, “I thought you’d like that.”

So what we’ve got, though, is an acknowledgement that there is money being spent on infrastructure. You’ve answered my question. I just personally believe, Chair, that we need to spend more on improving our productive capacity. Thank you very much. Again, Chair, I’d like to put on record that the Reserve Bank always answers quickly, succinctly and factually. So thank you. It’s really appreciated.

[Chair] Dr Debelle, you’ve got a fan there.

[Roberts] Yep. He has.

[Debelle] Thank you.

/by

One Nation introduces Equal pay for Equal work Labour hire bill

Companies have been using labour hire contracts to cut wages and benefits for workers. Our One Nation ‘Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022’ will put an end to this unfair abuse.

Transcript

In the last Senate week I introduced my bill to make sure workers employed under labour hire contracts are paid the same rate of pay as workers who are employed directly in certain awards, including the black coal Mining Industry Award and the Aircraft cabin crew award. You know, breadwinner jobs used to be able to provide for a family on one wage and still buy a home, a car and have holidays.

Labour hire contracts are one of the devices that large corporations are now using to drive down wages in industries that have traditionally provided breadwinner jobs. My bill, this bill, will help to bring a better life for Australian workers. Coal mining is in my blood. I started work as a coalface minor for three years underground, including in the Hunter, before progressing to mine management.

The exploitation I have seen lately in the coal mining industry is an absolute disgrace. This bill is the product of work I’ve been doing for years with Hunter Valley coal miners and Queensland coal miners.

One Nation was instrumental in achieving positive change to the Fair Work Act in 2021, including protections for casual workers and casual conversion rights for workers: casual to permanent, improvements to work health and safety incident reporting, proper payment of workers compensation, proper payment of accident pay, proper leave and freedom of speech for casuals who are threatened with the sack if they speak up about saefty.

Labour hire contracts have been exploiting workers for years and the CMFEU Union bosses, the mine owners and the Labor Party and the liberal national governments in New South Wales and Canberra have done nothing about it, and they don’t want to do anything about it. Union bosses do very well, very nicely out of these labour hire contracts.

The One Nation, Fair Work Amendment (Equal Pay for Equal Work) Bill 2022, will put an end to this unfair abuse. With our previous work and this Bill, One Nation is now the party of the workers.

And stay tuned we’ve got a lot more coming.

/by

MEDIA RELEASE: No justice for injured Grosvenor coal miners is a disgrace

It is a disgrace that the QLD Workplace Health and Safety prosecutor did not charge and make accountable the Grosvenor Mine operators for the badly injured casual coal miners in the mine explosion in May 2020.

Senator Roberts said, “Anglo American have a duty of care to its workforce, and it is inexplicable that an explosion can occur, five miners get badly injured and almost die, and there is no accountability back to the operator.

“Anglo American are treating its casual coal miners as literally being expendable with no serious consequences of their neglect to the keep the mine safe for workers now and in the future.”

Senator Roberts has listened with casual coal miners in NSW and QLD and some of the serious mining incidents can be traced to the culture of disrespect and exploitation of coal mine workers.  The culture of penny-pinching, fear and intimidation is especially prevalent in the growing casual / labour hire segment

Senator Roberts said, “It is a gross injustice that casual miners are discouraged from reporting safety issues for fear of losing their jobs.

Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Advisory Committee consists of majority membership of mine owners / operators and unions, and neither group represent nor have any interaction with casual coal miners.

Senator Roberts said, “The casual coal miner does not have a place at the table, nor any representation, on key committees that determine safety standards and address safety concerns. “The Labor Palaszczuk government has no integrity when it comes to keeping casual coal miners safe.”

/by

Coal LSL – Caught Out

,

After an independent report vindicated One Nation and casual coal miner’s accusations of unscrupulous malpractice, the pressure has been on the Coal Long Service Leave Scheme to give workers a fair go and on Government to clean up their agency. Coal LSL initially tried to refuse coming to Senate Estimates and over the course of many more sessions repeatedly denied anything was wrong. We now know that was a lie.

Transcript

Chair.

Okay, thank you. I will go to Senator Roberts.

Thank you chair, and thank you for attending again. And, my first question is going to the to the minister, and I note that the KPMG review of Coal LSL report came out today.

Yes.

I haven’t seen it, but it came out.

Yes, it’s out.

So we’re looking forward to reading that. Thank you very much for arranging that.

Thank you for working so constructively with government on it.

Well, it’s a big concern as you know, for us, the coal miners in Queensland and New South Wales. Now, I note that KPMG was engaged to undertake the review of Coal LSL, in relation to the underpayment and abuse of casual coal miners. KPMG has also conducted the audit of Coal LSL. Doesn’t that create a conflict of interest? And what did you do to manage this conflict? Because the audit could have influenced the review and the review could have influenced the audit.

Look, I don’t regard that as giving rise to a conflict of interest. There was no direct financial interest for KPMG to do anything other than act consistently, with its duties as an independent examiner there.

Senator, I’m aware there was an audit,

and commissioned by the corporations, it’s conducted by PWC.

During procurement processor. When we selected an independent review and a KPMG, we looked at any consultant and at the time with engaged to buy. The corporations may causing a perception of a conflict interest, we have exclude them. So at the time we engaged KPMG and the KPMG wasn’t working with the collective corporations or any other projects, but Miss Pearl Kumar may have given updates on. Are they been engaging KPMG on the consult?

You welcome, thank Senator. Thank you, Senator.

I can confirm that KPMG has not been engaged by Coal LSL to conduct any work. They’ve not been involved in our internal audit programmes. They’re not engaged by the ANAO to do our external audit. So, from, yeah, I think we’re confident to say that any conflict of interest certainly wouldn’t exist with KPMG conducting that work on us.

Now I’m going to leave out my second question because the report may, the review report may address that. So I’ll just go straight to my third. When will Coal LSL fix its broken system that disadvantages coal miners, casual coal miners everywhere? And when would you remove the biassed and conflicted members from the board, so workers get a fair go? I’m talking here specifically about what I see and what we’ve talked about for a long time now. The conflicts of interest with having significant, well 50/50 minerals council in New South Wales and CFMEU from New South Wales involved. When will that be addressed?

Senator Roberts, without wanting to spoil your reading, because you know, spoiler alerts are sometimes needed on these things. One of the recommendations in the report is that there’d be independent directors added to the board and the expectation that that would assist with dealing with the problem you raise.

Okay. Thank you. We’re pleased to hear that. Last question, Chair. The one key resources case where many casual coal miners missed out on their fair pay back pay conditions, seems to have been blatant phoenixing to us. Yet, this rip-off of workers was accepted by your government, the courts, labour and the CFMEU and Hunter Valley. More needs to be done to protect casual coal workers to get equal pay and entitlements and safety. One nation has proposed the equal pay for equal work bill to protect casual coal workers. What are you doing to make sure that this doesn’t happen again people have lost there.

The KPMG report and I’ll paraphrase somewhat here, acknowledges that there has been difficulties and confusion associated with a lack of clarity on what constitutes a black coal worker and also the changing environment and timetables on which people work. It plans out our ways in which that can be dealt with so that we don’t face that problem in future. It also provides some good recommendations for how to resolve those concerns as they have arisen in the past. I’m optimistic that as we implement the government’s response to those recommendations, we will have that in a more satisfactory place for everyone involved.

Because this is affecting tens of thousands of families who are significantly underpaid compared with permanent workers doing the same job. But it’s just one of a suite of issues. This is just, it’s very important to coal miners. And we’ve been relentless in this, and we’re pleased to see what you’re doing, but it’s a one tiny aspect of the bigger picture, which we can.

Look, I share your sincere concern for making sure that this works for everybody. And that’s why I’m really optimistic that what’s come to us through the KPMG report, and all the recommendations to government have been accepted, in, you know one form or another. And I’m really pleased to say that we’ll be working to do what’s necessary to make all of that much more functional for the future.

I look forward to reading the report and thank you chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/by

Government approach to Industrial Relations disastrous

,

Australians have had their workplaces wrecked by the Government’s COVID mismanagement. Casual Coal miners have also been let down for years. I asked the Attorney General about this and more at Senate Estimates.

Transcript

Thank you, chair. And thank you all for attending today.

Nice to see you again, Mr. Hehir, it’s always a pleasure. I mean that sincerely. Minister, I’ll just read 11 points from my additional comments to the job insecurity inquiry report. These are the things that we see in addition to exploitation of casual coal miners which we’re gonna have a further discussion about tomorrow.

[Michaelia] Yes, you and I, yes we are.

Yes. And which we’ve been trying to make progress for a couple of years now, in addition to the exploitation of casual coal minors, Australians are suffering right now from what I consider to be COVID mismanagement both federal and state, due to capricious lockdowns and mandates. People are uncertain. The second thing is the phasing out of the coal industry and jobs under the part under the policies of all four major parties, the erosion of people’s rights and freedoms, especially workplace rights and freedoms in this context. Increasing energy prices which are decimating manufacturing and hurting agriculture. The killing of manufacturing as a consequence. The lack of much needed tax reform. The lack of much needed economic reform. Increasing debt. Workplace health and safety systems being bypassed. Australia’s productive capacity being destroyed. And this is the one I want to ask questions about, the failure around industrial relations systems and more. There’s a lot that’s hanging over workers heads. And small business in particular.

Okay.

Would you agree? And I think the solution in many cases is to come back to the basics of employer-employee relationship, the fundamental workplace relationship. So with regard to the coal miners in Queensland and especially the Hunter Valley, we’ve seen workplace safety and health jeopardised, bypassed, people threatened with firing, being fired if they raise safety issues, made a submission to the Grosvenor mining inquiry. The issue of Simon Turner, no worker’s compensation, no accident pay for injury, sacked while being injured, injuries and incidents not being reported, pay rates for casuals being 40% less than people on permanent employed by the mine owner, right next to them doing the same job and the same roster. Coal LSL, which I commend you for the report that’s come down today.

Thank you. And I think they’re coming later on to-

Yeah, we’ll be there.

Yeah, no, that’s what I thought. Yeah, you’ll be asking the questions, yes.

Yes. As we have been in every session for the last two years. The loss of coal miners, basic leave and other entitlements and the threats of dismissal. So these remain outstanding and still to be addressed. And we’ll be talking more about that tomorrow.

Yes.

What I see, minister… I’ll let you finish.

[Michaelia] No, I’m just having a look at something you’ve written, just to make sure I’m all over it. Yep.

My question is basically the exploitation of casuals, is I believe a symptom of a highly complex, needlessly complex industrial relations system that is not serving workers, not serving small business, and not serving some employees, and families and workers are getting jammed in the middle.

[Man] Does the report correctly address?

We see large companies, multinationals in particular, using casuals to bypass industrial relations systems instead of sitting down and negotiating with their workers and with the union we just see a bypassing through casuals. So what I’m asking you is, is there any understanding in your department that the exploitation of casuals is a signal or a symptom of the fractures in the industrial relation system?

Okay, there was a lot of commentary there but what I might do is hand over to Mr. Hehir, who obviously has looked at the job security report, and get him to take that question.

Thank you, Senator, for the question. In terms of the the casuals, it’s probably just worthwhile clarifying. So where casuals are employed by the company themselves they are still subject to the same industrial instruments that the company has either negotiated or the Fair Work Commission has made. So in terms of where the company itself is the employer, there is the negotiation and discussion process that you talked around the company having with its employee, where there’s an EA, should have occurred. So certainly there should be clear processes within any enterprise agreement around how the various employees will be treated and what they’re entitled to. I think in part, you are referring to the combination of casuals and labour hire?

[Roberts] Yep, thank you for picking that up.

So that does make for a more complex situation recognising that labour high would regard as less than 2% of the workforce traditionally, but it is an important mechanism that is used by both host employers for short term work when they need it. And as part of when the need arises. So recognising that it’s an important and valuable part of the economy. It’s clear that when it leads to different rates of pay it does cause some level of confusion. In terms of-

And beyond that it causes some kind of angst as well, and is not very helpful for safety.

I accept that. And I know that there’s been a number of comments within the report itself around that broad issue. It’s certainly something that the department will look at very carefully. It has been raised both within the main body of the report, as well as within your comments, in terms of how does that work? The reality is The Fair Work Act and the framework upon which it sits was designed around an employer being the legal entity that actually employs the person rather than necessarily the location where they work. So that’s the nature. And the Fair Work Act is clear that we have minimum rates of pay. But what we actually wanna see is higher rates of pay than the minimum, being negotiated by employers and employees. So that’s, I think one of the very clear principles within the bargaining provisions within the Fair Work Act, that we actually want to do that. The only mechanism that… and the mechanism is focused on the individual businesses. And in this case where you’ve got two businesses working, or the employees of two businesses working in the one location. I agree that can cause angst and confusion but it’s certainly something that we need to have a look at in response to the work. And that’s something that we’ll provide advice to the government on once we’ve had the opportunity to finalise our analysis of the report. But I having said that, the very important focus within the Fair Work Act is that we do want people to bargain. We do want businesses and employees to get together and to think about how they can increase productivity and then share that productivity in the form of increased profits and in increase wages. So, and the clearest mechanism to do that we feel at this point is on an individual business basis.

Thank you. You gave us a comprehensive understanding of, and I know you’ve got that, of the casual work situation and the abuse of that. And I’m certainly validating that some casuals want casual work, and I’m not just talking about the coal industry here, but even in the coal industry some casuals do want casual work. They prefer to have that option but there has been some abuse of that. And I believe that the complexities of the industrial relations system in this country right now make it as such that some employers, rather than facing up to negotiation they will bypass that and establish a labour hire relationship. Some labour hire companies are good employers, some are not and some rely upon basically cutting wages so that they can make a profit by getting the margin and still leaving the business owner with superior profits. So that’s definitely a strategy that we can see. So my question that I don’t feel was answered was that do you consider that the complexities… And the Act is what, this high? 600 odd pages? the complexities of that Act lead to workers, small businesses in particular, and even some big businesses, not having clear understanding of the employer-employee relationship. And so we dive into all kinds of other arrangements.

Senator, the Fair Work Act is a substantial piece of legislation. It does have a number of parts. But we’ve certainly heard commentary in the past that it’s complex and difficult, and we acknowledge that commentary. At the same time, and we do understand the importance of this as well. There are important workers protection, in terms of the bargaining process and other things in terms of making sure that the bargaining is done fairly. And certainly there is some concern that those procedures inhibit the bargaining but they’re also really important in terms of the principle of making sure that the bargain is fair. So getting that balance right is something that we continue to think about. We as a department, we honestly really engage in the discussion around productivity growth. We think it’s a significant issue for Australia and large parts of the Western world that productivity growth is low. And we would certainly encourage parties to bargain. But the reality is that the Act is based on both providing the opportunity to bargain but also making sure that those bargains are fair. And I think that’s sometimes where we see the complaints about complexity always happy to have a look and say, how can we attain that fairness in a more simplified fashion? And that’s where we-

And Senator Roberts, I mean, you often come with the Fair Work Act and the various iterations of it in terms of just to demonstrate how big it is and how much both employers and employees have to navigate. Because it’s both parties understanding their rights and obligations. And certainly without a doubt, it is a complex Act. And it was one of the reasons, you and I discussed this. It was last year now, I think, the stimulation to the reforms to casual employment providing a definition, to provide clarity, as to what a casual is. Offering the ability to convert to permanent work, clarifying the Rossato decision, the devastating 39 billion impact on the double dipping and what that would’ve done to business. So I do agree with you and we certainly have been able to make some headway in relation to parts of it, but obviously the other parts of the omnibus bill didn’t get the support, but they are, I think, some concrete examples of where you can actually put in place. So for example, an actual definition, give the ability to convert, clean up a court decision and actually give certainty to employers. But I certainly acknowledge that this is something that you raise time and time again.

Yeah, and the fundamental-

Can I just check how long we have to go? I usually like to rotate the call every 15 minutes,

Another 10 minutes.

That’s absolutely fine.

What I’m getting at, minister, is that the fundamental problem is that despite the intentions of everyone involved the Fair Work Act, the previous work choices attempt the marren complexity, lack of understanding the fundamentals. And what’s happening with the Fair Work Act is that the workers and some small businesses and even some large employers are sidelined in favour of the industrial relations club. Lawyers, consultants, HR practitioners, large union bosses, large industry groups and the worker is sidelined. And so do you see any need then for restoring the primacy of the workplace relationship, the employer-employee relationship, and I know that the fair work Act, Mr. Hehir, does have protections in it, but when it’s so complex, the protections get lost. And so making it clear on workers’ rights, entitlements, protections, safety, which I know assist productivity. So instead of these things being bypassed they’re actually entrenched and allowing for flexibility because more and more workers today see alternative structures of work and work times in particular whether it be uni students or small businesses or casual coal miners, they want that.

And I think you make an important point in terms of the ability for, in particular employees, to choose the type of work that they want to want to undertake. And that is why you’ll never find the coalition government in any way, demonising casual employment as so often happens. And in particular, in this committee it is a valid form of work that so many choose. And when we can take you through the statistics in relation to casual employment. But also that landmark reform that we did pass in terms of that ability to actually convert should you wish subject to certain conditions. Again, it’s about giving both the employer and the worker, the employee, the choice to do that. Just in terms though of people actually understanding their rights, very important obligations, very important under the Fair Work Act. I think a lot of the work that The Fair Work Ombudsman does and in particular, that investment in its educative role is so important, working with small businesses, because there’s often the small businesses that don’t have that capacity to understand the Fair Work Act. And they’ll be on later on today, if you want to come back and ask them questions in terms of what is the educative role of The Fair Work Ombudsman.

We asked that at the last estimates.

We can get an update then of these estimates. But that’s a really good point because it’s not just about the Fair Work Act itself, as you’ve acknowledged, there are other ways and means, and one of them is ensuring that The Fair Work Ombudsman is able to get out there, talk to employees, talk to employers, and actually educate them on what their rights and responsibilities are.

I know that I’ve had a very positive response and fact agreement that David Newman from the CFMEU, Michael Raba from the CFMEU and from Queensland, from the Business Council, Australia, from Small Business Associations, that they’d be willing to sit down in a process to explore a much simpler and better and more effective industrial relations frame work. So I know an election is coming so I’m not expecting you to make any commitment and this is a touchy area but is there any appetite for that if it’s done properly?

Oh, well, I think when you look at the work that the coalition government has done you look at the omnibus bill that we brought forward. I mean, that was certainly done in a period of over 12 months, I believe. In terms of the consultations amongst different stakeholders. Unfortunately, when we brought it to the floor of the parliament, it wasn’t supported by the Australian Labor Party. But I think our appetite for making things simpler and in particular, as I said, the coalition reforms through casual employment and in particular cleaning up the issue of double dipping and the potential devastating impact of the $39 billion impost on business, I think does show a genuine commitment to working with all stakeholders to improve the system.

And with due respect, I just wanna finish with this point. I think that that casuals conversion was needed and essential. The shame was bogged down in so much misrepresentations by a lot of people, but quite frankly, I think that was tinkering and not reform. It was reform of casuals, but not reform of industrial relations.

[Michaelia] Understood.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, chair.

[Michaelia] A lot of .

I’d like to say one thing. As the minister indicated the casual amendments, the bill, that does introduce the national employment standards casual conversion and national employment standards. And does simplify assistance prior to that introduction into the NAS, you got a different conversions in the awards in the enterprise agreement, in the particularly black coal mining industries, there are confusion about whether the peoples are eligible for conversion or not. There are peoples who may not have a conversion, there was a gap. So by introducing it into the Fair Work Act as a national employment standards that provides a universal right to all the employees and in certain ways also simplified the systems.

And I accept that and appreciate what you said, Ms. Yang. The fact that the black coal mine award prevented, excluded casuals yet there was still casuals under various types of enterprise agreements, which were not, I don’t believe they complied with the law, indicates that the industrial relation system is a mess. But that’s why we supported the introduction of casual conversion because it does clarify things for people. But there’s a long, long way to go to fix this mess.

Yes, and the casual conversion does now apply to the people’s covered by the Black Coal Mining Award.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Roberts

/1 Comment/by

The Malcolm Roberts Show – Journalist Tony Thomas

,

I talk to journalist Tony Thomas who is interested in climate change, indoctrination in schools and universities, the ABC, and Aboriginal politics. See all episodes of my show on TNT radio.

Recorded 19 February 2022

Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):

You’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts on Today’s News Talk radio, TNT.

Senator Malcom Roberts (00:07):

And welcome back to Today’s News Talk radio, tntradio.live. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts, and I just want to apologise for my amateurish approach to the microphone. I’m learning this game as we go. So bear with me, please. Hope this is much better now. I’ll look for some feedback from the panel in the gold coast. This hour coming, I’m going to be chatting with the real journalist. Tony Thomas is someone who hasn’t lost sight of the dignity and responsibility of journalism. Tony’s now 81, he’s been in journalism for more than 60 years. Since he started his cadetship, and I want to emphasise that word cadetship, in 1958 on The West Australian newspaper, he spent a decade there, followed by 10 years writing economics for the age in the Canberra Press Gallery. Through the 1970s. He’s an ideal person to talk about the Press Gallery and the media in Canberra reporting on politics.

Senator Malcom Roberts (01:04):

He spent 20 years with weekly business magazine, BRW, including as associate editor. Since retiring from salary journalism in 2001, he’s published more than 400 features for Quadrant and Spectator magazines, and his work is marvellous. It’s always factual and accurate. He’s done a part-time master’s degree in literature and a bachelor of economics at Australian National University and published nine books on history, business, and current affairs, including four books of collected essays in the past five years. So you can see that he’s across many different topics. One of his books on business won an award in 2000, from the chartered accountants body as quote, “A substantial contribution to the literature of the industry.” Tony’s major topics currently include climate change, indoctrination in schools and universities, the ABC and Aboriginal politics. Welcome to tntradio.live. Tony.

Tony Thomas (02:04):

Thanks very much Malcolm, a very nice introduction.

Senator Malcom Roberts (02:10):

We always start with appreciation. Tell me something you appreciate, no matter how briefly, no matter what topic, what do you appreciate?

Tony Thomas (02:18):

I appreciate the ability to research right, and get published with alacrity. There’s no fun writing for a publisher, and then your book comes out 15 months later, but writing for Quadrant Online, I put the article in within a day or two it’s up on the blog site. So, that’s very satisfying.

Senator Malcom Roberts (02:43):

Thank you. Now I want to go back to your cadetship. How did young journalists operate? Is it like the classical movies tell us 40 years ago, they would sniff an issue, they would go out and research it, they’d talk to people, above all, listen to people, give everyone a fair hearing. And then they would write an article without fear, without favour, objective. Is that the way you started? Is that the culture in which you started?

Tony Thomas (03:14):

Yes. In those days, the young journalists were monitored and herded by old veteran pot belly grizzled journalists changed [inaudible 00:03:27], who’d been in the game since before the war, who would roast you for the slightest grammatical mistake or sloppiness, and so on. I must say though, The West Australian was a monopoly in that capital city. So they weren’t as sharp as many other newspapers are where everybody’s competing, but still it was a four year cadetship. I did three years and you learn shorthand. I actually learned shorthand twice over once at school and once on the job. And you were put through all sorts of experiences, especially court reporting, which may seem quite okay for a young cadet. But in fact, it’s the most difficult and exacting form of reporting. And if you get one little thing wrong or you mishear something because of bad acoustics, you are in big trouble. So the training was quite slow in those days, but thorough.

Senator Malcom Roberts (04:30):

Thank you very much. So basically it’s an apprenticeship and you learn-

Tony Thomas (04:35):

That’s right.

Senator Malcom Roberts (04:35):

…the tools of your trade and the methods of your trade and the processes of your trade by the guidance of experienced people, successful people. You also said something else, implicitly. You said that The West Australian was a monopoly. And therefore it wasn’t as sharp as some of the other papers where there was cutthroat competition. You also said there’s shorthanded school as shorthand was at school, basic skills that are not taught today. Now, just of something of interest. And you also mentioned you were sent to court reporting, where you have to be accurate and precise and succinct, just a little sideline, whenever I’m approached by anyone in the media, whether it be by phone or personally, I always turn on my recording device.

Senator Malcom Roberts (05:23):

The other day in parliament, I was wandering through the corridors on my way to Senate estimates hearings, and Andrew Probyn now with the ABC saw me and he went past me and he said, “Can I just get your comment off the record, of course, about a topic?” And I said, “Hang on just a minute, I’ll just turn my recording device on.” And he said, “No, if that’s it, not interested.” So, there’s that kind of thing, he’s not willing to stand up to accountability because if he misreports, this is my opinion, if he missed reports, then I can hold him accountable for it. The moment I did that, he ran away. So journalists have prized impartiality, what happened?

Tony Thomas (06:09):

Well, what happened there, was the old story, as you said, of journalists not wanting to be accountable. Now, it’s 10 times worse with the TV journalism because the TV journalist will interview you for half an hour and then cut and snip the interview down to just a few sentences, according to whatever agenda he’s on. And some really clever people like Joanne Nova, the climate blogger in Perth, when she was met by the ABC filming team, had her own filming camera set up in the lounge room and she filmed the ABC filming. And so then she was able to say, this is what the ABC has done with that interview, where they’ve cut, how they’ve distorted it, and basically how much they left on the cutting room floor. So there’s an old saying about, trust me, I’m a journalist. Well, that’s ironic.

Senator Malcom Roberts (07:15):

Yes. That’s a really important point. You’ve just mentioned journalists, as we agreed is not accountable today. And it’s worse with TV because of the editing. That’s implicit in what you said, Joanne Nova’s filming the filmers. There’s a story, I was in Cannes with a candidate who was fairly inexperienced and he had a colourful background, nothing wrong with it, but he had background and some of the media locally were trying to distort that misrepresented to cast dispersions on him. And one of the journalists came up and I said to him that I was recording it in front of the candidate.

Senator Malcom Roberts (07:54):

And then I proceeded to answer his questions by asking him questions. And after a couple of minutes, he realised that he was being interviewed and I realised where the slant of his thrust was going to go. So what I did was I posted the recording on Facebook immediately. Now that’s taking away livelihood from a journalist, but in my opinion, it was also protecting an honest, innocent person from being slandered or being misrepresented. So that’s one way of fighting the media, but how else can we protect ourselves against the media?

Tony Thomas (08:36):

Well, before the online world happened, the journalists for print could write what they liked and the only response that any reader would have would be to write a letter of complaint to the editor. And then the editor, which is like complaining to your wife about your mother-in-law. The editor would normally pick a side of the journalist and throw the letter in the bin, or whatever. But now that there’s an online world, if a journalist writes a piece that people object to, either on that site itself or on their own blogs or anywhere, they can put a post up arguing back against the journalists. So, that’s what the online world has opened up. The journalists are now accountable to every person on the planet, which is an excellent thing.

Senator Malcom Roberts (09:32):

Yes, until we get censorship in social media, which is what Facebook and Instagram and Twitter and LinkedIn are doing. So how do we counter that?

Tony Thomas (09:43):

Well, as Trump and Joanne Nova, and people are doing, they’re finding other platforms, which are pretty obscure, and I’m not across them, I think a bit [inaudible 00:09:56], and these ones are open and not centering you. So that takes some power away from Twitter and Facebook.

Senator Malcom Roberts (10:05):

What about polls? What do they show about trust in the media these days, Tony?

Tony Thomas (10:09):

I’ve been looking into this and there, there was a poll by the Reader’s Digest of all things in Australia last year. And they wanted people to rank professions according to trust. And guess where journalists came, they came second last of 30 professions, just ahead of politicians. Sorry about that, Mal. And just-

Senator Malcom Roberts (10:32):

You’re not affecting me because we deal with honesty, Tony, I know exact be what you’re talking about. They’re [inaudible 00:10:38].

Tony Thomas (10:38):

Yeah. And just ahead of delivery drivers, and when you go to a place like the United States, there was a, I think a Pew poll, for how is trust in the media represented across 46 countries, and of the 46 countries trust in the media, in the US was bottom. You can’t get any lower than that. Only 29% of the population said they trusted the media. Whereas I looked up Australia, that was 43%, but Australian trust in the media is below what you got in Croatia, Poland and South Africa. If you want a bit more there’s other polls quite recently, where trust in the media overall in the US is only 36%, which is the second lowest ever since Gallup began polling, only 11% of Republican trust the media. But when you take all American adults, only 10% trust the media on their COVID coverage. Now that is truly remarkable and indicates that no matter what the press is saying, their audience frankly, is mostly not believing it.

Senator Malcom Roberts (11:59):

So, they’re startling figures. So trust is just about shot, which will ultimately lead to two things, correct me if I’m wrong, people will stop paying media. People will turn to alternatives as we are doing. We are turning to what I call independent truth media, podcasts, independent stations like tntradio.live. These are the things because ultimately there is a free market, but let me just check again. Pravda still exists, doesn’t it, in Russia?

Tony Thomas (12:36):

I think so. I’m not sure.

Senator Malcom Roberts (12:38):

I’m pretty sure it does. That means our journalists in this country, our media in this country are ranked below Pravda, who would’ve thought that 40 years ago before 1988? Who would’ve thought that?

Tony Thomas (12:52):

Well, I don’t know where the Russia who was on that list of 46 countries, but I’ll give you the benefit on the doubt there, Malcolm.

Senator Malcom Roberts (13:00):

Well, some of the Eastern block countries.

Tony Thomas (13:02):

Yes. Well, they were there. Poland, Croatia. You name it.

Senator Malcom Roberts (13:07):

Yeah. How effective is the ABC’s charter for impartiality?

Tony Thomas (13:12):

Oh, it’s really a joke. What it actually says is that the ABC reporters should follow the weight of evidence. So that means if there’s a consensus about something, they should reflect that consensus. But it says that all points of view should be covered over time. And what this has done is given a licence to the, in addition it said, you don’t have to worry about tinfoil hat conspiracists and [inaudible 00:13:44], and people like that who are not actually entitled to any sort of point of view in balanced coverage.

Tony Thomas (13:53):

Well, the ABC people of course have now lumped climate sceptics to take the most pertinent example, along with the tin hat foil conspirators, and they won’t touch any sceptic point of view. And on the rare occasions they have, such as on their science show where they interviewed Dr. Judith Curry, a very esteemed American climatologist with a sceptic point of view, they book ended her with two or three of their own pet climate scientists, so that everything that Judith said, they were able to drown out with opposing views from their several friends there. So, that’s how they pretend to keep their charter, while actually protecting the public from the views of a very large proportion of people on climate.

Senator Malcom Roberts (14:51):

Well, it’s very interesting you mentioned. I didn’t know those details about the ABC, even though we’d done some research and some work in response to some political activities a couple of years ago. They are a disgrace, in my opinion, I think they should be sold with the exception of the regional arm. And that should be retained, especially for natural disasters. So, I’ll come back to the ABC in a minute. Well, let’s deal with them first, before we go to-

Tony Thomas (15:16):

[crosstalk 00:15:16] Pilborough.

Senator Malcom Roberts (15:17):

…go to the Pilborough in 1980s, the ABC actually requires dealing with the consensus, supporting the consensus. Now, that’s very interesting because they don’t do their research. When it comes to climate, the consensus is with the scientists who don’t believe that carbon dioxides from human activity has to be cut. That is undoubted. The Oregon petition 33,000, 34,000 now scientists, who are opposed to what we are being told by the United Nations. Kevin Rudd as prime minister, what a disgrace he was, his behaviour was atrocious because he’d basically lied in parliament. He said that 4,000 scientists produced the IPCC’s report. I challenged him. I wrote to his office and I said that the claim is really 2,500, but of those 2,500, only about a 1,000 produced a science report.

Senator Malcom Roberts (16:24):

In the science report, and you would well know this, in 2007 there was one sole lonely chapter claiming carbon dioxides from human activity effects climate, needs to be cut. The rest was bumf, fluff. That was it. Chapter nine, from memory in 2007. In that chapter, the reviewers numbered about 57, of those reviewers, only five endorse a claim that carbon dioxides from human activity affects climate, only five. And there’s doubt that they were even accredited scientists. So we have, not 4,000 that Kevin Ruddd told us, we had five. That’s from the UN’s own process, the UN’s own data, which Dr. John McClain painstakingly took from UN documents. After that exposure by Dr. John McClain, the UN stopped producing reports on the numbers of scientists, but that is a blatant lie. Now what makes it even more so atrocious, Tony is that I wrote to Kevin Rudd, his department responded to me. I then told them why their response was nonsense. They then responded to me again, from memory. And then I told them why that was nonsense. I won the argument. They didn’t respond. Hard data they go against.

Tony Thomas (17:48):

Yeah, I actually am a friend of John McClain, here in Melbourne.

Senator Malcom Roberts (17:53):

Wonderful man.

Tony Thomas (17:54):

Yeah. He tipped me off that there’s a key chapter in the IPCC reports called Attribution Studies, where they have to literally attribute global warming to CO2, via their modelings. And I’m not sure which report it was. It could have been the 2007 one. There were only 60 scientists involved in that attribution exercise, and basically all of them were in a network where their peer reviewing each other’s work, and hobnobbing together, and you can do one of those spider graphs where you can link just about every one of them to every other one. So it was a small group, a closed shop of people, but there were 60 people basically dictating this entire global warming hysteria that’s been going on now for 30 years.

Senator Malcom Roberts (18:51):

Well, not only that, I’m pretty sure you’re citing the data there that I also cited. There were 60 authors of the critical chapter, the sole chapter, again. The overwhelming majority of them were climate modellers, not empirical scientists.

Tony Thomas (19:10):

Sure.

Senator Malcom Roberts (19:10):

And there’s no empirical data, which is the fundamental root foundation of science. Objectivity is based on empirical data, hard facts, hard observations. None of that appears in chapter nine, 2007, the sole chapter that claims warming and attributed to carbon dioxide from human activities. What’s more though, is we see… And why hasn’t the ABC reported that? Why hasn’t anyone reported that? Because they’re too lazy, in my opinion Tony, to go and do the work, do the research that you were trained to do. And now it’s that second nature to you, but not only that, they don’t report on the links, the links to, for example, the network of very close, I think about four institutions, those 60 odd scientists, I don’t call them scientists, I call them academics. The 60 academics that produce the chapter nine, but largely modellers overwhelmingly were modellers.

Senator Malcom Roberts (20:12):

But more importantly, they were from, I think about four different modelling organisations. All enrolled in spreading this climate crap. And so they feed off each other, they validate each other’s papers. And when you look through the peer reviewers, they’re all forming a very close club and they depend on each other to maintain their positions. But there’s also another connection, a colleague of mine in Canberra, who I think you know, Peter Bobrov, he did an analysis of those who are connected to the United Nations or globalist organisations. Overwhelmingly, the loud voices, the mouths that spread this nonsense, they’re academic activists, advocates. They’re all one in the same, it’s hard to tell the difference between academia and activists these days, but they’re overwhelmingly connected to the UN or associated globalist bodies.

Senator Malcom Roberts (21:14):

And then David Karoly, he was editor, lead author for one chapter, I think it was in 2001 for the sole chapter that claims warming and attributed to carbon dioxide. He was also one of the three primary reviewers of the same chapter, the equivalent chapter, sorry, chapter nine in 2007. And the 2007 report just built on the 2001 report. So if we’ve got crap at the start in 2001, and it was, then it was validated by the people who produced the crap. It was validated in 2007. And David Karoly, despite people saying the science was settled back then, received a grant for $1.9 million to research this climate science, despite it being settled. And it’s just stunning the money that taxpayers spread out through people like Kevin Rudd, and sadly the liberals. So there’s this very tight incestuous group, but the media doesn’t talk about it.

Tony Thomas (22:17):

Yeah. The Australian Academy of Science in 2015, put out a booklet called a Question and Answers on the Science of Climate Change. And I immediately went looking for where are they going to produce the evidence for the CO2 causing the warming? And it said, “Paleo climate studies plus outputs from modelling provide compelling evidence of the connection.” Well, since when is output from models, been compelling evidence, it’s just a scientific absurdity. And this booklet would’ve gone through the hands of dozens and dozens of academy of science people, making sure that they weren’t going to get caught out on anything, and this just goes through. Output of morals to them is compelling evidence. It’s shocking, really.

Senator Malcom Roberts (23:14):

But no media journalists pick it up apart from Adam Creighton and Tony McCrain and sometimes Graham Lloyd. The media seems to willfully ignore it. And when you challenge him, aren’t they still ignore it. You mention the Australian Academy of Science, I had dealings with will Stephan, who is a member of the Academy, from memory. He was on four government funded organisations. And yet when he was introduced as a newly selected member of the climate commission, or should that be climate [inaudible 00:23:44], but anyway, climate commission, the minister at the time for climate, pushing climate, he was Greg Combet, and he said that Will Stephan. And the others were all impartial.

Senator Malcom Roberts (23:55):

They already had strong connections to the government. And as you point out, that the only thing that they can hang their hats on now is modelling. We had 90 models producing vastly different outputs. So which one of these is the settle science? And now we have whittled that down from 90 to 40, they say. So as it was asked in Senate estimates last week, if you’ve got 40 models producing different results, what does that tell you about the science being settled?

Tony Thomas (24:29):

Yeah. Yeah, that’s right. What they’re now going for is to pretend that basically the consensus is overwhelming and there’s no more argument. And so if you start signing the pledge and so on, that is proof that everything’s okay, there’s this organisation called Covering Climate Now based in Columbia University, School of Journalism and The Guardian and a few other groups, and they’ve got 460 media groups worldwide to sign the pledge, to do their utmost to hide global warming and shun any critics of it. And to use words that the guardian recommends like global heating, global crisis, emergency climate breakdown. So they even want to constrict the language into this campaign of theirs. Well, once you realise that 460 media outlets have signed that pledge, how can you possibly imagine that any of them remain objective on the subject?

Senator Malcom Roberts (25:40):

Exactly. And I love your use of data. Your readily available at your fingertips data. And I note that News Corporation in its editorial, leading up to the Glasgow Conference of Parties with the UN back in, what was that? November last year. The news Corp said, “We’re going to change our editorial policy slightly. We’re going to be reporting more implicitly,” didn’t state it directly, a slanted view, but Tony, we’re going to go to an ad break now. What I’d like to do when we come back in a minute or so is have your views on the role of the now activist global news agencies like Associated Press, AFP, Reuters, AAP, et cetera. We go to the ad break.

Tony Thomas (26:29):

With pleasure. I’ve been researching that all week. Okay. Thanks Malcom.

Senator Malcom Roberts (28:38):

Welcome back you’re with Senator Malcolm Roberts interviewing a journalist with 60 years of experience, Tony Thomas. Tony, one of the advertisements a minute ago just said “Your future depends on how you think.” Could it be any better said? The quality of our decisions depend upon what we think or on how we think. And particularly based on data, how can we make a sound decision on voting, which will determine taxation and community policies, defence, social policies, industry policies, productivity, with a biassed media? People have been asleep in this country. The media perpetuates the two parties, which are so similar. It’s really a uni-party, but people are still asleep. COVID though have as awoken people, and no matter how much the bias is there, and it’s very solid. People seem to be waking up. What’s the role of the now activist global news agencies?

Tony Thomas (29:36):

Well, people don’t really realise or appreciate that if it wasn’t for the huge global news wholesalers like Associated Press, Agence France-Presse, Reuters and Bloomberg, their newspapers would be half empty and the same with the radio, news, and so on. That they just shovel in the output from these news global wholesalers. And I’ve just been checking, and I find that AFP, which has got literally thousands of journalists there and probably thousand or more media customers, and Reuters and Bloomberg have all signed this covering climate now petitioned to hype global warming and stamp out any dissenting views. And then I began to realise that The Australian newspaper, which has been my main reading and I’ve always respected it, is taking basically ghastly climate propaganda from AFP. And there is an example, just the other day about a headline, The acceleration of global warming code red for humanity.

Tony Thomas (30:58):

And it was illustrated with a picture of a cool city with beautiful green grasses, blue skies, pink, white, fluffy clouds. And then because of CO2 on the left side of the picture, it turns into a boiling hot hellscape, fires and cracked earth, not a green thing in sight. And this was all under the heading, Breaking News. And then I found that the same guy from AFP who’s their global head of climate coverage called Marlowe Hood has got more than 20 of these propaganda pieces into The Australian.

Tony Thomas (31:41):

And it’s just unbelievable that they wouldn’t at least be put under comment, but to have them all in the news section like that. And clearly The Australian having paid for a feed from AFP, just uncritically takes everything that they offer. But if we move on to Associated Press, there’s a huge scandal just broken in the United States, where five leaftist philanthropic foundations have given Associated Press $8 million to hire 20 new reporters to push the climate change message.

Tony Thomas (32:29):

So this means that when you are reading climate stuff from now on, from Associated Press, you could be reading material by people who’ve been hired with money from foundations like The Rockefeller Foundation, the James and Catherine Murdoch Quadrivium Foundation. There’s the Walton Foundation, there’s another one that I’ve forgotten. Anyway, they’ve all got green leaf credentials. They’re all determined to save the planet. And this is so contrary to the codes of ethics of Associated Press itself, which it says don’t allow money to influence anything you’re doing and always be wary of anyone offering money to influence your coverage. And in point, they even said, announcing this $8 million grant that they were no longer going to be so wary because the money from these foundations is such nice money, and we really need it. I mean you can’t make this stuff up.

Senator Malcom Roberts (33:41):

No. And we know that I think it was John Rockefeller. One of the early Rockefellers about a hundred years ago, thanked the New York times, that’s right, for keeping the global control under wraps. So not being impartial, just silencing the control of the major 46 newspapers in the United States that were biassed and controlled by the globalists. And then there’s another problem we have Tony, and that is that I think it was Julia Gillard’s Labour government that had in amongst its ministers and its staff, amongst its MPS. It had something like 150 journalists working for them. Anastasia Palache was recently reported, was it 30 journalists reporting to her or reporting in her department-

Tony Thomas (34:39):

There could have been.

Senator Malcom Roberts (34:39):

…and what’s happening, sorry?

Tony Thomas (34:41):

Well, it could have been triple figures for all the media Flex in the Palache Queensland government. And it’s much the same in the Andrew’s government. The teams of media flex that he owns are probably larger than the teams in any other media outlet stable.

Senator Malcom Roberts (35:03):

So the point I was getting to, that’s a really important thing to say that the biggest employers of media are in fact, the politicians because what’s happened with increasing competition, especially from the internet, is that some of the conventional, what I call the legacy media, especially the print media, are now shutting down. Well, have been for many years, shutting down the number of journalists they have. And so journalists go and are employed by the politicians, especially those in government with seemingly endless taxpayers money to employ journalists. And this army of journalists, writes crap. And then the under demand journalists in the mainstream media, the legacy media, they just take whatever they’re given and copy and paste it, straight into the media. And so what we’ve got is, we’ve got governments of both types, labour liberal, both virtually writing newspaper articles.

Senator Malcom Roberts (36:07):

I cancelled my subscription to Sky News because it’s now woke, lame. Prime Minister Morrison seem to do some favours for some of the journalists in Sky News. And now they just gush about him. It makes people sick. And Sky News is dropping in viewership now. I don’t buy any newspaper, other than The Weekend Australian because my wife likes The Weekend Australian magazine, some News Corp journalists are quite good, Alan Jones, but he’s sacked or he’d been let go. So, that tells you something about News Corp. Bolt has been throttled, Terry McCray’s good, Graham Lloyd is sometimes impartial. We’ve got these temperatures. The temperatures today are cooler in Australia than the temperatures in the 1880s, 1890s. Fact Bureau of Meteorology’s own record. We know that temperature hasn’t increased. There’s been no warming trend since 1995, none globally.

Senator Malcom Roberts (37:14):

If you take away where the El Niño and Southern Oscillation in this, which is cyclical, there’s been no warming in Australia. We see now that we’ve had two experiments, real life experiments, and that’s the key to science. In 2009, there was a massive recession, a pretty severe due to the global financial crisis near the end of 2008. So when we have a recession, industrial production goes down, which means the consumption of hydrocarbon fuels goes down, which means the production of carbon dioxide from human activity goes down. It went down enormously. So the human production of carbon dioxide went down enormously in 2009. Yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing unabated, same linear trend of increase. In 2020, we had almost a depression around the world due to government restrictions on COVID, not due to COVID, but due to government restrictions because of COVID.

Senator Malcom Roberts (38:18):

And so again, we saw a reduction in carbon dioxide from human activity, and yet the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing at a linear trend. We know from science that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are controlled entirely by nature. We know that there’s 50 to 70 times more carbon dioxide dissolved in the oceans than there is in the entire atmosphere. And the UN has given us those figures. And so slight changes in temperature of the ocean, which is naturally variable, lead to either absorption of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere or liberation from the oceans to the atmosphere.

Senator Malcom Roberts (38:58):

So we’ve got this massive facts staring at us in the face. And yet we don’t see any of it reported in the media. So the media is destroying itself, people are losing trust. As you’ve pointed out, alarmingly. The people are losing faith in the science because they know there’s no overall warming, that people are losing faith in politics because of the lack of responsibility. And that means people don’t take responsibility because they don’t see that they can affect the outcome of politics. So these are not good science for our society, are they?

Tony Thomas (39:34):

No. Sure, the one sided reporting is pretty terrible, but even getting away from the climate issue, the public have got so many good reasons not to trust the media. I was just been looking into the scandal at the New York Times, which is the premier masthead in the world, old where-

Senator Malcom Roberts (39:56):

Well, I’ll disagree with you, but you can have that view.

Tony Thomas (40:00):

Yeah, well, but for 10 years, they were taking a $100,000.00 a month from the Chinese Communist Party to run Chinese communist propaganda in the guise of advertorials from the China Daily newspaper. And it only came to light because Republicans began demanding from China news, full details under probably the foreign lobbying act of just what they’d been up to with the American mainstream media. And it turned out that since 2016, they basically bought the American media for as little as $20 million, that included the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, New York Times, and running these propaganda pieces about which islands belong to China, and which don’t, and how nice the Chinese have been to the [inaudible 00:41:00].

Tony Thomas (41:00):

And it turned out that the New York times had run 200 of these pieces. And when China daily got sprung, the New York Times, which has kept their archives back to 1850, that’s how comprehensive they are. Sneakily went in and deleted all 200 pieces from their archives. So, this is an enormous scandal and you wonder the New York times would have any reputation at all left after this. So that’s just one of the latest scandals to hit the American media, which helps explain the low levels of trust there.

Senator Malcom Roberts (41:45):

What about the role of fact checkers these days? Are they a restraint on bad reporting?

Tony Thomas (41:51):

Well, they’ve been captured by the very same people, who are running so many, dare I say, fake news items. For example, Facebook contracted out fact checking to some group. And when somebody sued Facebook over their fact checks, Facebook said, but our fake checks are only opinion and that’s protected under the first amendment. Well, once they’ve said that, you know what fact checking’s all about. Now Agence France-Presse, and I think Associated Press have also got their fact checking outfits alongside, but of course, who needs fact check more than AFP and AP itself, there’s been a whole litany of leaks and stories from within these large media groups, like the New York Times where.

Tony Thomas (42:48):

For example, the New York Times editor, when it came out, the Trump collusion with Russia story was dead in the water, briefed the journalists to say, well, we gave that one, a good run. We focused our whole coverage on the collusion story. Now that’s gone. We need a new cause. So let’s focus on how racist America’s been since 1619, I think it was. And so that’s the new line that is being propagated through the New York Times, all about race and identity politics and so on. Well, once upon a time, or as the TV, people used to say, just the facts ma’am, just the facts. Well, now you’re getting just the narrative, thanks. Just the narrative that we’ve selected.

Senator Malcom Roberts (43:39):

And we’re getting something else too. I think Tony, from the use of these labels like racist, Islamophobe, homophobia, misogynist, et cetera. What I’ve noticed happen is that if I present something or when I present, so that is solidly backed by data, which is my habit, and a logical argument that shows cause and effect. Then people respond, especially journalists with either silence to shut me down, stop my common sense getting out or with labels. So they call me racists, Nazi, whatever they want to call me, tinfoil, hat wearer, a conspiracy theorist. And what I’ve learned to do to them is to turn around and say, well, thank you for just confirming that you have got no data or you can’t string together a logical argument for rebutting what I’m saying. Thank you for admitting that you’ve got no data and that I’ve won the argument, because if you had any argument, you wouldn’t be using labels, instead you’d be presenting the data in the argument, instead of valid response.

Tony Thomas (44:48):

Well, that’s an excellence response from you and basically name calling does lose you the argument in any debate. I must say there’s a new trend. It’s creeping in everywhere where the reporters are writing. What’s supposed to be a straight story and they’ll suddenly throw in the words “He falsely claimed,” or “He claimed without evidence,” or ” XYZ is a conspiracy theory.” And they attach these completely subjective labels to what they’re reporting. And I think as Joanne Nova said, “As soon as you see any of those labels, like false, misleading, without context and so on, have a good look because it’s very likely that what you’re reading’s correct.” And I could give you a recent example, the ABC 7:00 PM news last Sunday had a report on Scott Morrison, the prime minister accusing the opposition leader, Albanese of being soft on China. And the reporter said, Morrison accused Albanise, without evidence of being soft on China.

Tony Thomas (46:02):

So I put in a complaint to the ABC saying, what evidence would actually satisfy your reporter, that Albanese was a tool of China. Would you want a stat deck from three government ministers? Would you want a high court ruling? Would you want a Royal Commission that establishes the truth? Do you want a court case leading to a victory for Albanese, and how come you never say that Albanese, when he turned around and accused the prime minister of being the Manchurian Candidate no less, how come you never attach the label without evidence to that one? So I’ll be interested to see how the ABC replies to my complaint there. Sometimes I win these complaints. So that one time in three, I’d say.

Senator Malcom Roberts (46:51):

Well, I’m going to set aside. I’ve had questions that I prepared for you, further questions. We could go for hours, but I’m going to set them aside entirely because I’m sensing something far more interesting here. We’ve established what the media is like these days sadly, they’re propagandist. But I want to know about Tony Thomas, you’re 81, you’ve got the voice of someone in their 40s. You’re taking on these bastards in the media, you’re taking on these bastards in the government. Tell us what you do during the day. It’s fascinating.

Tony Thomas (47:28):

Well, I’ve been retired a long time and I don’t have too many babysitting duties. So I just think of a subject, research the hell out of it, wind up with maybe 30,000 or 40,000 words of raw material on it. And then I boil it all down to about 2,000 words and send it off to Roger Franklin at Quadrant Online. And as I said, he publishes it very, very promptly. And I love finding out stuff that’s so outrageous, that people have to say, Tony must be making that stuff up, but I’m always scrupulous to put in my links and evidence for everything I say. I mean the latest article I wrote-

Senator Malcom Roberts (48:12):

I’ve seen your work.

Tony Thomas (48:15):

…Biden’s new assistant deputy secretary for nuclear waste disposal, being a fetishist to do with gay men, pretending to be dogs with tails stuck up their rectum and all sorts of goings on there. And copiously illustrated with photographs. And this is the man now in charge of America’s nuclear waste industry, and as some of the commenters have said anything to do with nukes, you wouldn’t let a man like that, normally within a thousand miles of it, I mean, he’s entitled to his hobbies after work, but he’s making an absolute parade of his fetishisms. And as somebody else said, are his subordinates going to respect him in his role? Or is he basically shot his credibility, even in the nuclear waste area where he is qualified and nobody’s claimed that he’s not qualified. So, that’s the sort of article I love writing that just make people real back saying this can’t really be happening in the world I live in.

Senator Malcom Roberts (49:29):

Well, maybe giving Biden the button to obliterate the world through America’s nuclear arsenal is good because I don’t know if he’d be able to remember where it is. So may maybe very safe. Tell me what is most satisfying about your whole career spanning now 60 years? What are the highlights?

Tony Thomas (49:50):

When I was in the Press Gallery in the 70s, I was the only journalist who immediately spotted that Rex Connor, the minister for minerals and energy was a nut case. And I spotted this because he’d drawn a map with gas pipelines, going all over Australia, which is about 2,000 miles wide and high. And he apparently saw no technical problem with crisscrossing the country with these gas pipelines. And then he got up and told parliament, he was going to set up a nuclear enrichment plan on Spencer Gulf in south Australia, because there, it would be safe from enemy submarines.

Tony Thomas (50:30):

And I just knew that this man was short of a few kangaroos in the top paddock and began writing that way. So for a couple of years, I was almost the only writer who was critical of this minister for energy until he fell flat on his face, trying to do deals with raising $4 billion from Saudi Arabians. And it was all just a fantasy. And so he got sacked, his mate, Jim Cairns got sacked and then Whitlam, the prime minister got sacked, and that was the end of the labour government. So I think that was my proudest moment.

Senator Malcom Roberts (51:13):

And you weren’t proud, from what I can pick up, of leading to the dismissal of the labour government. You were proud of the fact that your facts eventually prevailed because of your gathering the data and your dogged persistence. And this is where it’s wonderful to be on a station like tntradio.live, because I happen to have been brought up in a family, and we’ve only got a minute or so to go now, Tony, before the news.

Senator Malcom Roberts (51:38):

But I was brought up in a family that ridiculed Connor, but later on, I talked to people and listened and there was some marvellous, what would you call it? Overall aims that he had for protecting our resources? Not for nationalising them, but for protecting them and getting a good price for them. So I can see both sides of the argument, but what’s important here is not whether I agree with you or disagree with you because in part I agree, I can see some things I disagree, but the fact that you were determined you would [inaudible 00:52:09] and you got the facts out and that’s extremely important, isn’t it?

Tony Thomas (52:12):

And unpopular, you could say.

Senator Malcom Roberts (52:16):

So that’s something to really wear proudly because it’s something that Pauline and I do as well. Proud of being honest. Tony, I want to thank you for speaking so bluntly, so refreshingly purely, so objectively, and thank you for coming loaded with data. This is Senator Malcolm Roberts on tntradio.live. Thank you very much, Tony Thomas.

/by