Government spending $2.4 billion on casuals with one Labour hire firm alone

, ,

During investigations into the the abuse of casual coal miners I found that the government has spent over $2.4 billion on casual labour hire from one firm, Chandler Macleod Group, alone. The government couldn’t even tell me what the total casual labour hire bill was across all agencies because they don’t even collect that data. The fact that the Australian Public Service Commission don’t even know how much money they’re spending is inexcusable.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing today. When we were investigating, over the last 2½ years, the abuses of casual black-coal miners in the Hunter Valley, we noted that there were thousands of casuals working for the Australian Public Service, with hundreds of millions of dollars being paid to labour hire firms. Why does the Public Service do this?

Mr Woolcott : Could you just put that question to me again, Senator? I didn’t quite understand. You’re talking about why we employ casual hire?

Senator ROBERTS: Casuals. We know that some people prefer to work casually; so I’ve got nothing against casuals. We know that casuals fulfil a basic secondary role within any workplace, with fluctuating workloads, someone going on leave, projects et cetera. Why does the Public Service use so many labour hire firms to employ these casuals?

Mr Woolcott : It’s for agency heads to determine how they construct their workforce. The Public Service Act sets out that the normal method of engagement is full-time, ongoing employment as a public servant, but there are provisions in the Public Service Act for non-ongoing and other aspects. It’s very much for each individual agency head to work out what is the appropriate mix of their workforce. Obviously, if it’s work that fluctuates then it’s quite appropriate for them to use labour hire and casuals to manage those fluctuations. But again, as I say, it’s a matter for each individual agency head. They’re the accountable authority. They have responsibility for delivering for the government and the Australian community and it’s for them to work out their proper mix.

Senator ROBERTS: As the Australian Public Service Commission, I imagine you’d be interested in efficiency, cost-effectiveness and employees’ conditions?

Mr Woolcott : Obviously we’re intimately involved in many of those aspects but, in terms of running that agency and running the duties and obligations that they are committed to undertake, it’s for them to do that.

Senator ROBERTS: I get that point. How many casuals are currently employed across the Australian Public Service—hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands?

Mr Woolcott : I think it’s 87 per cent that is ongoing. Ms Steele will have the data.

Ms Steele : That’s correct. In terms of casuals in the last year, we have at the moment 8,696 casuals. That’s an increase of 51 since December 2020.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many of those would you know are casuals in their own right employed directly by the Australian Public Service and how many are labour hire subcontractors or labour hire firms?

Ms Steele : I do not know that. I do know that those who are employed for a specific term or task are a further 10,816.

Senator ROBERTS: In addition?

Ms Steele : In addition to the casuals. There are two types of non-ongoing. One is casual, and one is you can be engaged for a specific term or task.

Senator GALLAGHER: And that can be contract, labour hire, fixed term?

Ms Steele : Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many casuals have been employed in the Australian Public Service for more than six months?

Ms Steele : I would have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, and could you also provide a de-identified report—anonymous employees—by department, by labour hire company or direct employment, by cost and duration of service?

Ms Steele : We don’t collect that information about labour hire firms or companies; we only collect the number of casuals by agency.

Senator ROBERTS: This one you’ll probably have to take on notice too, Ms Steele: how many casuals, internal or labour hire, have converted from casual to permanent employment in the Australian Public Service in the past 12 months?

Ms Steele : I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are casuals that the Australian Public Service has engaged through labour hire companies able to convert to the Public Service roles that they’ve been working in for more than six months?

Ms Steele : No.

Senator ROBERTS: If someone has been engaged for more than six months it would seem that they’re needed, so why wouldn’t they be eligible? Because the employer is not the Public Service?

Mr Spaccavento : I think it’s important to draw a distinction between a casual employee and a labour hire employee. A casual employee is an employee of the Australian Public Service and is eligible to convert to permanent employment if they meet the criteria laid out in the Fair Work Act and the Public Service Act. A labour hire employee is an employee of an entirely different company and not of the Public Service. A labour hire employee would not be eligible to convert to permanent employment.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you see some inconsistency there?

Mr Spaccavento : No, because in one instance the employee is a direct employee of the Australian Public Service, directly engaged by an agency. So it’s a contract of service versus a contract for service.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. We’ve seen the abuse of coal miners, for example, and we’ve seen hints of abuse of casual workers in other sectors as well—lost entitlements, basic safety provisions, significant pay cuts—and it seems to me that it’s just a naked attempt to go around the provisions of the Fair Work Act.

Mr Spaccavento : Casual employees in the Australian Public Service are engaged under the terms and conditions of agency enterprise agreements, so they receive essentially the same terms and conditions as permanent employees. I say ‘essentially’ because there’s some leave entitlements they don’t get and there is a casual loading. Labour hire employees are obviously different because they are employees of a different organisation. There’s a range of reasons why agencies would engage labour hire firms, and that would be a decision for that agency head to make.

Senator ROBERTS: In the course of our investigations in the Hunter Valley, Central Queensland and elsewhere we found, for example, that the Chandler Macleod Group was paid an estimated $2.4 billion over four years for providing labour hire contractors or labour hire employees to the Australian government. That seems pretty substantial to me.

Mr Spaccavento : I can’t comment on decisions that agencies have made.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware if these casuals under labour hire firms are paid the same and have the same terms and conditions as similar roles that they work beside?

Mr Spaccavento : Because it’s outside of our remit, we don’t have visibility of what labour hire employees are paid or the conditions they are on. It would be a matter of the employment arrangements they have made with the labour hire company and those employees. I couldn’t say yes or no to that question because we don’t have responsibility or visibility of it.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, this is a request for an opinion: do you think that’s reasonable?

Senator Duniam: In terms of the decisions that heads of agencies make around it?

Senator ROBERTS: The employment of people for more than six months by a labour hire firm could be a way of getting around the requirement now to offer casual conversion.

Senator Duniam: As the commissioner outlined earlier, heads of agencies make decisions with regard to how they engage their workforce based on the needs at the time. There are a range of circumstances that they obviously take into consideration. I would have every faith in those heads of agencies that they are doing the right thing to ensure that the people they work for, the taxpayers of Australia, are getting the service that’s required and that their employees are being treated properly as well.

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, that’s a nice motherhood statement, but I’ve seen people who work for firms with reputable international and Australian reputations completely abusing workers in this country. That has come as a big shock. To compound that, neither the Labor Party nor the Liberal Party nor the National Party nor state and federal governments nor the various bureaucrats have been interested in this. They’ve ignored requests to investigate.

Senator Duniam: If there are specific cases of abuse of employees then there are appropriate channels to deal with those things. I would encourage you, or those you ask these questions on behalf of, to take action, because that’s the appropriate thing to do. I don’t think there’s anyone around this table, on that side or this side, that would seek to endorse any abuse of employees or withdrawal or withholding of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s remarkable—and I’m not accusing people of doing that in the Public Service—and I’m trying to find out whether or not the government and the Public Service understand there is a potential for that. We’ve seen that widely in other industries from so-called reputable firms. I’ve heard some stories about the Public Service hiring $2.4 billion worth of labour hire people over four years. That’s a staggering figure.

Senator Duniam: I appreciate you’re not making an accusation. Certainly, your point is that there could be potential, or you’re trying to seek an understanding of whether there is. If there is a single case of this abuse then I would expect that it would be raised and referred to the appropriate authorities and dealt with accordingly.

Senator ROBERTS: What doesn’t give me confidence—I accept what you’re saying—is that some people in the Hunter Valley, for example, raised this repeatedly over the course of about five years and got nowhere, neither from the state nor the federal government, with blatant breaches of the law. I’m just trying to understand, if the Public Service know that this could be going on, what they’re doing to protect not only workers who work for them permanently, casually, directly, but also those who work indirectly through labour hire firms, because not all labour hire firms are ethical.

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of the particular issues that you are raising. Obviously, if you have concerns, please take them up with the relevant minister or with his department in relation to the way they manage their affairs.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to find out whether or not you’re aware of the particular—

Mr Woolcott : I’m not aware of any of the particular concerns that you’re raising, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Or the potential for that. Are you aware that casual workers who are employed either directly or through labour hire firms have less job security and find it harder, for example, to get home loans, because one of the requirements for a home loan is a secure, permanent job?

Mr Woolcott : Am I aware of that?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Woolcott : Again, it’s not an issue that’s been brought to my attention.

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware; okay. These workers who are working for the Public Service for more than six months miss out on the terms and conditions of government employment. Is that reasonable?

Mr Woolcott : You’re asking me for an opinion there.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask the minister.

Senator Duniam: With respect to the decisions made by heads of agency around how they engage their workforce, either in the way you’ve characterised or otherwise, as the commissioner has outlined, it’s a matter for them based on the needs of the community they serve and the work that they do. Personally, I would love to ensure that everyone gets everything they’re entitled to, and I have every expectation that, for those who are engaged, under whatever contractual arrangement occurs, those contracts are in alignment with the law and are done in accordance with what is legally required of the employing agency. My hope is that everyone gets what they deserve and nothing less.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s my hope, too. But in the Hunter Valley, for a period of seven years now—five years until we started working on it—there were many people who were abused and exploited, and they were told to go and talk with the state department, WorkCover. They were told to take it up with the federal government, and nothing happened. We were then actively misrepresented when we tried to do something about it. Eventually, we prevailed in some areas and we’re still working on others. So it could happen in the Public Service, and I’m checking to make sure that the Public Service is aware of some of these things; that’s all.

Senator Duniam: You have brought this concern to the commissioner’s attention. Certainly, the minister that I’m representing will be aware of your concerns. Again, if there’s a specific instance or a series of them, we should deal with them in the appropriate forum.

Senator ROBERTS: One final question, Chair: what margin is paid to labour hire firms when you engage a casual through them? I’m now putting on my other hat; instead of protecting constituents, I’m protecting taxpayers, who are also constituents. What’s the margin?

Mr Woolcott : We don’t keep data on that, so I can’t answer that question. It would be a matter for each particular agency head, in terms of the arrangements they have. We don’t collect data on that issue.

Senator AYRES: Ms Steele, I didn’t hear your answer to Senator Roberts’ initial question. I think you gave an answer—tell me if I’m wrong—which was about the number of direct casuals and the number of non-ongoing; and, consistent with the APSC’s previous answers to the committee, you don’t have an answer for the number of labour hire employees engaged by the APSC?

Ms Steele : That is correct.

Senator AYRES: The justification for what I think is an impossible proposition is still the same, Mr Woolcott, is it?

Mr Woolcott : We collect data on Australian public servants, and arrangements under the APS act fall outside our terms of reference. Having said that, Senator, it’s always appropriate to look at ways to improve data collection and our understanding of the public sector workforce. We will continue to do so, and use the COO committee to that end.

Senator AYRES: Does that mean that you’re heading towards being able to collect that data, to be able to identify what proportion of the workforce is privatised, or are you just making a general comment?

Mr Woolcott : I’m just making a general comment at this point, Senator.

Senator AYRES: So it’s still studied ignorance on labour hire. With the survey work that the commission does on a regular basis, there’s been no consideration given to extending that survey work to the experience that labour hire employees have with the Public Service?

Mr Woolcott : Not at this point.

Senato r ROBERTS: There’s no guarantee—you can’t provide a guarantee—that there’s no wage theft going on in the industry, in the public sector?

Mr Woolcott : No, I can’t provide that guarantee.

Senator Duniam: Again, it’s important to say that, if there are examples of that, I’ll walk with you to the appropriate authority; we’ll make sure that they’re made aware, that investigations occur and justice is done.

Mr Woolcott : The workforce ombudsman, Sandra Parker, obviously looks at this aspect very closely in terms of both the private sector and the public sector.

/by

Where’s the death data for Aged Care Vaccinations?

, ,

I would have thought COVID data on deaths in Aged Care would be on hand for the Government, especially at Senate Estimates. Instead they’ve taken the questions on notice. I was also surprised to find that there had been no improvement in breaches of the Aged Care Quality Standards.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for attending today. I have three sets of questions. The first is pretty straightforward: it’s only one question. How many aged-care residents died of COVID-19 by state per month since March 2020; and how many died in aged care within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 injection?

Dr Murphy : I don’t think we could provide that information other than on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m happy for that.

Dr Murphy : We can certainly provide that on notice. That sort of level of detail wouldn’t be available to officials today.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you provide data by state per month on the deaths due to COVID; and the deaths within four weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccination?

Mr Lye : Regarding the second part of that question about the relationship to vaccinations, I think that the work that Professor Kelly’s leading may shed some light on that question but it might be harder to get than the other. But I think that we can get the other data quite simply. The second one might take a bit longer.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought—

Senator HUGHES: Senator Roberts, can I ask a question maybe through you for the real COVID death rate. For example, what is the death rate for people who had cancer or were in palliative care but also had COVID; did they die of COVID or did they die of the cancer that they had? When you get those figures, can we actually have a look? I know a lot of COVID deaths were put down as the person dying of COVID—as opposed to with COVID—and that other factors were involved.

Dr Murphy : As we said at the last estimates, I think that the Victorian health department did some detailed analysis on their aged-care deaths and found that 44 per cent of people who died with COVID had died primarily from another cause such as cancer or severe dementia. We always report them as COVID deaths because we want to be absolutely inclusive; however, in many of these vaccinated people who’ve had another condition, the COVID is incidental to the cause of death.

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Lye, before I move to the next question, I would have thought it would be fairly simple, given the aged-care records, to know whether or not a person died within four weeks of getting a COVID injection.

Mr Lye : I’m outside of my area of competence but, to save other officials coming up, I think the complexity is working with states and territories around settled death data, which takes some time, and then the additional linkage to the system that covers immunisation.

Dr Murphy : Yes, we certainly can link to the immunisation record, and that data analysis can be done. As you know, Senator, the TGA also does get reports of deaths reasonably close to vaccination. Many of those are considered completely coincidental and not related to the vaccination. We can explore what we can do by data linkage to see if we can come up with an answer.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be surprised if you couldn’t tell me if someone died within four weeks of getting their injection, but anyway we’ll see what happens.

Dr Murphy : With 1,000 people per week in aged care dying and a busy immunisation program, there will definitely be some who die within a month of their injection just as a matter of course.

Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but we’ll see if there is any trend.

CHAIR : Senator Roberts, we have to break at 11 am, so you need to conclude by then. I am just giving you a heads-up.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. I move to the second set of questions. One in three nursing homes continue to spend less than $10 a day per resident on food, despite being given an extra $10 a day by the Morrison government. How are you checking whether the cash that the government gave providers is being used for its intended purposes?

Mr Lye : I might hand over to Ms Laffan and the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commissioner on this. The short answer is that we have required people to report to us on nutrition based on that uplift in funding. Those people who hadn’t given us assurance that they would report to us have had their additional funding stopped. Then we have a process by which people who haven’t met the standard are referred to the quality and safety commissioner. I’ll let Ms Laffan give you a complete answer and then the commissioner, who is here, can give you more detail again.

Ms Laffan : As Mr Lye said, first we require providers to provide an undertaking that they will use the money with a focus on food and nutrition and then we require quarterly reporting on matters of food and nutrition. We’ve recently released the data from the first two quarters. We found that 75 per cent of providers reported on-site only spending on food and ingredients, with an average spend of $12.25 in the July quarter and $12.44 per resident per day in the quarter starting in October. Those providers that spent less than $10 per day were referred to the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission. Ms Anderson may be able to tell you what she has been doing with that information.

Ms Anderson : We received a list of 883 services—referred from the department—which had reported less than $10 expenditure per day on a calculated basis. We looked closely at that list and then we added some services to it on the basis of our analysis of risk. We added to it services who appeared to use only preprepared food and then added a further number who use a combination of fresh and preprepared food where they had relatively low expenditure on food and associated labour. We looked at a list of 955 services, so a larger list than came across from the department, and we made an assessment of their food and nutrition profiles.

We looked at that in the way that we assess risks generally, by looking at a number of different parameters. We looked at their relative ranking in relation to the quality indicator for unplanned weight loss and at the top percentile of concern there. We looked at the relative number of complaints that we had received about that service in relation to food and nutrition and rated those low, medium and high. We also looked at any findings of noncompliance that we had made about those services in relation to the standard in the Aged Care Quality Standards specifically relating to food, 4(3)(f), which says: ‘Where meals are provided, they are varied and of suitable quality and quantity.’

On the basis of that analysis of the 905, 4.5 per cent of those services were rated as high risk for noncompliance with the expectations in relation to food and nutrition, and another 41.3 per cent were rated at medium risk. The balance were rated at low risk, or they had not yet submitted their quality indicator data which meant that we weren’t able to do a full risk profile. We then looked at the high- and medium-rated risk services. Those services we rated as having a high-risk profile will be prioritised in our monitoring schedule in terms of their compliance specifically with that requirement in the quality standards. I won’t go into more detail about that because if we are to undertake a visit, our visits are unannounced. But I can say that there will be a greater intensity in the monitoring that we undertake of those services. Services which have been rated as high or medium risk will be required to participate in an education program that we’re currently putting together which will give them more information and be clearer about the expectations that the Australian community has of them in relation to food, nutrition and the dining experience. We’ll be expecting both staff and management to participate in those educational sessions.

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be fair to say that they know they’re being watched?

Ms Anderson : Yes, that would be accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator WATT: Do the high-risk facilities—I’m not going to ask you to name them individually—tend to be major providers or smaller independent providers? Is it a mixture? Is there any sort of trend there?

Ms Anderson : I’m sorry, I really don’t have access to that detail. It is an interesting question, I agree with you, but I really can’t answer it today, I’m sorry. I’ll have to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand you measure quality and safety standards—has the rate of breaches of quality and safety standards improved specifically? Can you quantify it?

Ms Anderson : No, there’s been no material improvement in assessed compliance with the Aged Care Quality Standards. However, it’s a complicated question to answer succinctly, because we have been improving our capability as a risk based regulator, which means that we are more able to identify the higher risk services because we are more proficient and skilful in understanding bits of intelligence that come to us. We put them together as information in a risk profile for individual services, and we understand how that profile relates to other profiles for peer organisations. In that risk profiling exercise, we pay greater attention to those who are rated as higher risk. Our detection rate for noncompliance has actually improved because we know where to look. We are finding high levels of noncompliance, but we’re also looking in the right places for noncompliance. That is why I can’t say categorically that we are seeing overall improvements in quality and safety, because as a regulator we are becoming more efficient and effective in identifying noncompliance.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, would it be possible for one of my staff to go and have a talk with the agency?

Senator Reynolds: I’m sure that would be fine.

Senator ROBERTS: Senior Australians have different needs and health issues to younger people, yet they’re treated as part of a larger community segment. Why do we not have purpose-built seniors focused healthcare facilities, including seniors’ hospitals? Wouldn’t that be a way of not only improving the service but saving money?

Dr Murphy : The average age of the in-patient in our major state and territory public hospitals is about 70, so effectively we do have hospitals that are looking after the elderly, because—as you obviously realise—chronic disease and the disease burden mostly increase as we get older. But I think your point is valid. There are some specialist services that are very much directed toward dealing with the elderly, and we have a very strong focus in the department to enhance working with the states and territories to get geriatric services into aged-care facilities. There are now some very good models of in-reach where those aged-care services get those specialist geriatric services and specialist mental health services. But, essentially, our hospitals are largely for the treatment of people of more advanced years, given that’s the nature of disease.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a useful point you raise, because I and many people find hospitals daunting, so for an elderly person it’s even more daunting. Some doctors say it’s better to stay out of hospital; they’re not being derogatory, they’re just saying—

Dr Murphy : You don’t want to be in a hospital unless you really need to be in a hospital—

Senator ROBERTS: Right, that’s what I’m getting at.

Dr Murphy : That’s absolutely right.

Mr Lye : The multidisciplinary outreach measure in the budget is precisely about bringing gerontologists and some of those health experts into residential aged care to give that access in the home setting. When people have a more complex set of health circumstances, what we don’t want is the residential aged-care facility just quickly admitting them to hospital all the time, and them having that experience, when it could be delivered in the residential facility.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who do we contact, Secretary, for the previous question?

Dr Murphy : I think we can seek a briefing from Minister Colbeck’s office.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

CHAIR: So, on that note, we’ll take our break and then continue with outcome 3.

/2 Comments/by

Interview with Maria Zeee – 4 April 2022

,

Investigating the vaccine, the TGA and the Government’s failings with Maria Zeee.

Transcript

Maria Zeee:

Welcome to Maria Zeee Uncensored. I’m your host, Maria Zeee, reporting to you from the epicentre of the testing ground for the New World Order, right here in Australia. And the world will do well to watch this country because whatever they test here and implement successfully, rest assured, it will come to other countries. I believe that to know what you’re standing for, you first must know what you’re standing against and my mission is to expose the truth of this entire agenda to help people do that. Right here. Uncensored.

Audio:

Share the truth at whatever cost.

Maria Zeee:

Over the past two years, we’ve seen Australia slipping into what can only be described as a complete totalitarian society. Now, as they try to sweep COVID, the effects of these bioweapons, police brutality, and government overreach, under the rug by distracting us all with world war, we, the people, have not forgotten. I’ll be discussing this more later on in the show, but first I’d like to introduce you to a brave Australian Senator. Senator Malcolm Roberts recently held a COVID Under Question committee where professionals from the medical field expose the nanotechnology that is undeniably in the Pfizer injection vials. Yes, the same injections that they’ve been forcing onto global citizens for the purpose of changing what it means to be human. In my recent interview with Dr. Matt Shelton and Sue Grey, a lawyer from New Zealand, we see how four separate teams of scientists from our neighbouring New Zealand have discovered the same. If you haven’t seen that interview yet, you can watch it after the show on my page on Red Voice Media. But first, Senator Malcolm Roberts.

Maria Zeee:

Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you so much for joining us today.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s always a pleasure, Maria. I love to see your smiling face. And I know that you’re going to be factual so it’s so wonderful to see journalists or media people who are factual.

Maria Zeee:

Thank you. Thank you. So Senator Roberts has been fighting for Australians in parliament, speaking out over the past two years over the absolute tyranny that our people have been subjected to. And Australia is certainly blessed to have people like you in our corner, Senator Roberts. Now you recently led a COVID Under Question committee here in Australia where you came to some shock findings. Can you talk to people please about the findings from this committee?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We haven’t finalised the findings yet, but I can just go by memory. I haven’t got my notes in front of me, but it was stunning. We had people from … first of all, cross-party. It was a multi-party event. The third session, that was the blood pathology work which I’ll share with you in a minute, that was another astounding thing. I’d seen their work before so I knew what to expect. They found basically, angular structures, not natural, in the Pfizer vaccine. I’ve seen-

Maria Zeee:

You told me offline that you’d actually been there and seen it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I saw it.

Maria Zeee:

And you’ve seen this under a microscope.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Maria Zeee:

So talk us through that process please.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, to make sure, we took a video of one take, so we didn’t turn the camera off. We took one take from the … in the downstairs lab where they do things under a proper air hood. They took the Pfizer vaccine out of the fridge. My wife was doing the camera work, so I know it’s legit. And I was introducing it and watching it the whole time. We took them into the fridge. They took the Pfizer vial out. This had all been kept under standard conditions. No doctoring of the Pfizer.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They opened the vial, took the sample out, injected it with the syringe, put it onto the slide, put the slide cover on the slide, then put it in the carry case. Then the scientist carried it. All the time. That slide and slide container were in the same field, in the focus of the camera, went up the stairs to the lab, to the microscope rather, and then put it under the microscope. The whole time, it was in there. So no one could have swapped it out. It was one take. And then the camera went back and took in a broader view of the computer monitor, which showed what was in the slide and there were luminous angular objects. Clearly not natural. Clearly not natural. And we just did that once to show people that this wasn’t dummied up, doctored.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And so then what the two blood pathologists did was, at their presentation inquiry last Wednesday, they showed some samples from various Pfizer vials. They also showed some injected blood, people who’d been injected with the Pfizer vaccine.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve also sampled, I think they’ve sampled, AstraZeneca. But what you see in the Pfizer vials, Pfizer samples, these angular structures, luminous structures. Then in the blood samples, you see the white cells going onto the angular structures and the white cells dying. And then you see the red blood cells, which are very important for oxygen-carrying, agglomerating into basically just bunches of cells. And remember, some capillaries are so small, that one blood cell goes down at a time. Well, sorry, one red blood cell goes down at a time. Each blood cell’s got two surfaces on it for releasing carbon dioxide, sorry, releasing oxygen into the cells. And then the blood absorbs the carbon dioxide and takes it away. It just gets dissolved. All right? So the red cells are important for getting the oxygen from the lungs into your metabolism. And so when you’ve got, say 20 red blood cells, all together, instead of having 40 surface areas liberating oxygen, you’ve only got the first one and the second one. You’ve got two. So your oxygen-carrying capacity is decreased. So all kinds of stupid behaviour, unnatural behaviour, in people who’ve been injected. And a [crosstalk 00:06:29]

Maria Zeee:

Senator Roberts, you’ve been involved in multiple inquiries in parliament where you’ve questioned the Australian health authorities on these matters. At any point, or on the safety and efficacy of these so-called vaccines, which they’re not, at any point has anyone told you that there’s a possibility of nanotechnology being found in these vials or being included in these injections that are being pushed onto Australian people?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Never. Never. What’s more Maria, we know that in October, there were 546 deaths or 564. I think it’s 546 deaths reported by doctors that were attributed to these injections. I don’t call them vaccines. They’re not. They’re injections.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I asked the Therapeutic Goods Administration’s head, Professor Skerritt, on what basis they revise them down from 546 to just nine. Okay? I asked that as a question on notice, and I said, “I want to know the process by which you review each of those reports from doctors and you dismissed them. I want to know, was there an autopsy done? Was there a blood analysis done? Blood culture. Was there tissue cultures done? What is the process?”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And he had six weeks to get that to me. We didn’t get it. In February, which is what, October, November, December, January, February, four months later, we said, “Where are those results? Where’s the answers to my questions?”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“Oh, we sent them.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“No, you didn’t.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then he implied straight away, “We’ll send them immediately.” We still haven’t got them, Maria. They won’t tell us the process by which they revise the deaths downward. We’ve now got 798 deaths as of last week reported by doctors. And we know that’s just a fraction of the total number because doctors are scared to report and attribute anything to the vaccines. 798. They’ve been revised down to 11.

Maria Zeee:

Unbelievable.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re hiding things.

Maria Zeee:

They are hiding things. And they’re also not conducting autopsies with all of these people that are dying either, to confirm whether or not it was actually the vaccine that caused this. Because it seems that the judicial system is failing us. It seems that most politicians, apart from a few such as yourself and the names that you’ve mentioned, actually have the courage or the integrity to look into these matters any further. What are people going to do, Senator Roberts? Because we’re potentially looking at … the data out of other countries is suggesting mass deaths that are coming for us.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. It’s suggesting genocide. And what’s more, Maria, is so many things you can talk about here. What can we do? I think there’re going to be three solutions. And I can’t name which one at the moment, which will come through. I can’t identify it because I don’t know. Judicial? But they’re having troubles with some judicial, what do you call it, authorised, not judicial, areas of judiciary. They’re having some jurisdictions of judiciary. Parliamentary. And the third one is the people. And the most significant is the people because the people are the ones who put the pressure to the politicians. So people have got to keep standing up and we’ve seen some things eroding around the world. Jacinda Arderns collapsed after four weeks, I was told, of relentless demonstrations by Kiwis in Wellington, in front of Parliament. And she wilted. Canada wilted. Britain has wilted. Australia still hasn’t, but bits and pieces of it are starting to work. The mask mandates in some areas are coming down. Parliament now has no mask mandates.

Maria Zeee:

We see that potentially some of the restrictions are wilting, but we also have another problem, which is this incoming digital identity. And this, from the One Nation’s website, says that the digital identity acts as a master ID joining together previously disconnected government databases containing confidential, personal information and that it seeks to link all government data related to a person. But also more alarmingly, Senator Roberts, that it acts as a foundation for a China-style social credit system. So while they might be trying to sweep, what you just referred to as the genocide of these injections, under the rug and pretend that none of what they did to us over the past two years matters anymore, we’re actually going to, what seems to be the next phase of government control, which is digital identity. Can you talk to us about that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The horrific things that they’re doing under COVID, that’s just foreplay. The real screwing comes in the Digital Identity Bill. And the COVID thing has been meant to be an introduction to the Digital Identity Bill. Can be seen as no other thing. The Digital Identity Bill does exactly what you said. It has been, get this, significant portions of it have been copied and pasted from the World Economic Forum into our legislation. Now it hasn’t been introduced formally into the lower house yet, into parliament, but it has been put out there for us to look at. So what some of the things that’ll come from this is that basically, your data, my data on health, and everything else will be linked. Then they can sell it to a corporation. That corporation could be in the United States. They don’t have to meet our laws when it comes to storing our data, access to our data. They will then possibly charge you for your access to your data on health.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then, what we’re looking at, is the elimination of cash. Now people might say, “Well, I just pay with my watch or my wallet, my phone. That’s easy. That’s good. I don’t need cash.” No, you do need cash. Because if there’s no alternative to cash, then what happens is, people then start slipping in a digital currency. Then you get a social credit system and a social credit system where you will, by doing certain things in a certain way, you will get more credit. They’re doing the Digital Identity Bill testing now. And so what they’ll also try to do … the Greens have already flagged … the Greens are the biggest control freaks in the country. They are the ones pushing vaccine mandates, injection mandates. They are pushing control. That’s what the Greens are all about. People are being diluted by the Greens. They’re starting to wake up, that the Greens are horrendous.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And so the Greens introduce concepts and the Greens have introduced the concept of a living wage. A guaranteed wage. So what they’ll do is they’ll say, “Well, Maria, I don’t know what you’re earning. Let’s say you’re earning the average 80,000 a year. We’ll give you 50,000 a year for nothing.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

“Oh, I don’t know if I can live. Yeah. Okay. I don’t have to work for that. That’d be great.” Everyone will get 50 grand a year. They’ve given it to you free. And then when you’re hooked and you’ve got nothing else to go to, they’ll suddenly say, “Maria, you know that four-wheel drive you’ve got? Get rid of it or else you’ll go down to 40,000. If you keep eating meat, you’ll go down to 30,000.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

This is not fanciful. They have talked about it. The World Economic Forum has actually discussed these things. The UN is discussing these things. Get away from beef. They’re saying basically, that alcohol, beef, will only be for the rich. They haven’t said it like that, but they’ve said, “If you earn less than $300,000 a year, you shouldn’t eat meat. You should be eating insects.” Yes. Insects.

Maria Zeee:

Yes. Insects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The federal government has recently funded 64 million dollars to the United Nations to help it develop insects for us to eat. This is just insane. And so, Maria, when you get something free, you’re a bit worried and you should be. But if you’re a mouse and you can see cheese on a mousetrap, it’s free.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Just let that sink in. That cheese is free. You’ve got to get it and you’re dead. And that’s what this has all about. Not necessarily killing us, but making us slaves. This has already been discussed by many people. We’re returning to feudalism. We’ve now got, as a result of what I’ve been doing and what Jared’s been doing and Pauline’s been doing, we’ve got doctors now coming out and starting to speak up because they’ve realised they’ve lost their profession. I met with a vascular surgeon here in Canberra last Saturday at the rally I spoke with. Wonderful guy. Very, very bright. He’s lost his practise because, and he’s, probably going to have to sell his premises, because he can’t practise because he won’t comply with the vaccine mandates. We’ve got surgeons doing top jobs who have been out of paid work for seven months because of that.

Maria Zeee:

I wish that they’d spoken up sooner, Senator Roberts, because maybe then Australians wouldn’t have complied. And we wouldn’t have been in the state that we were, where we had police shooting rubber bullets at our peaceful protestors. We appreciate all of your work, Senator Roberts. Thank you so much for doing this inquiry and continuing to speak up. We need more brave politicians like you here in Australia and beyond.

Maria Zeee:

We are extremely fortunate to have people like Senator Roberts fighting for the truth and who are not afraid to stand up to these tyrants. And another person that’s not afraid is Simeon Boikov, the Aussie Cossack. He is an Aussie with a proud Russian heritage who’s been screaming from the rooftops from the beginning about what’s really happening in Russia and Ukraine. And I have to say, he’s been on the money a lot of the time.

Maria Zeee:

He’s also the man that leaked the viral documents about Australia’s involvement in the Ukraine biolabs and the Doherty Institute to the internet and has been under immense and unjustified mainstream media attacks ever since, including his YouTube channel of 155,000 subscribers, being suspended. That interview is available to premium users in the next segment. And I want to encourage everyone to subscribe for a premium membership with Red Voice Media. These guys have been giving me and other truthers out there a platform to get the truth out to more people and I support their work. And I hope you do too. I’ll see you in the next segment.

/4 Comments/by

Coal LSL audit vindicates One Nation allegations

,

I’ve pursued allegations of fraud, conflicts of interest and risk management about the Coal Long Service Leave Corporation for years. Finally, an independent review has confirmed dozens of governance and fraud risks that have left casual workers without their fair entitlements. It’s a hard-fought win for casual coal miners by One Nation, but there is still much further to go.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Sheldon, you are making a statement. We will now go to Senator Roberts.

Senator Cash: Do you feel better, Senator Sheldon, for getting that off your chest because—

Senator SHELDON: I do feel better.

Senator Cash: I’m glad you do because, as I said, I don’t believe, Senator Sheldon, that you as the head of the TWU would indulge in this behaviour. I don’t believe that you, three years later, after a case has been dismissed by the full bench of the Federal Court, would actually stand up and say, and make admissions, the national executive did not approve any of the 20 donations, the subject of the investigation, which contravened the registered organisations act. As I said, that was as recently as December 2021. You’re referring to a statement made on 7 March this year, I would reflect, backed on the admissions made by the AWU in December 2021—a range of admissions concerning contraventions by the AWU. They submitted they made mistakes; they did not comply. So I think, if anyone’s providing an apology, perhaps the AWU should apologise to its members for those contraventions.

Senator SHELDON: And the minor breaches that they were fully aware of throughout the entire five years—

CHAIR: Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Senator Sheldon.

Senator Cash: Senator Sheldon, as you and I know, you need to comply—

Senator SHELDON: The ROC was fully aware that they were minor breaches all the way through, and yet they continued to pursue it.

Senator Cash: You and I are going to have to agree to disagree in relation to the incorrect information you’re providing by way of your questioning.

Senator SHELDON: That’s not incorrect. It was minor breaches, and they were fully aware for the whole five years, and they dragged this out—

Senator SMALL: Who decides whether it’s major or it’s minor? Is that how you plan to act in government?

CHAIR: Order! Order, Senator Small! We would like now to move on to Senator Roberts, who has a series of questions on a different topic.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. Most of my questions, I think, will be going to the minister, or certainly to the department. Minister, recently KPMG presented their report into Coal LSL. How are you progressing in relation to implementation of this review and report, and when will it be completed? I understand that some are immediate and some are—

Senator Cash: Understood. I know this is a genuine interest for you, so what I will do is ask Ms Williams to take these questions for you.

Ms T Williams : Senator, you asked how we are progressing with implementation of the recommendations. As you might know, the government has accepted all 20 recommendations of the review. In terms of the 10 recommendations specifically directed at government, the government response to the review identified that the government will take legislative action to clarify eligible employees and ensure that no eligible employee is worse off; ensure fairness for casuals to be treated equitably with permanent employees; address legacy coverage issues to ensure fairness and transparency for employees, employers and employers that may register with the scheme; and strengthen decision-making, review and dispute resolution to enhance accountability and compliance.

The government response to the review really highlights that. It recognises that the reforms are complex and they will require further technical legal advice to ensure that the changes really have the desired impact and benefit for employees and employers under the scheme. The intention is for consultation and action to continue in the spirit of the review, which, as you may be aware, included consultation with producers, employer groups and peak bodies, employers, employees, unions and representatives from modern industry stakeholders. We’ll draw on their expertise and stress test ideas going forward. We’ll need to do that closely and methodically with the stakeholders, including the provision of exposure drafts of legislation. The department is just working through that now, and consultations will begin as soon as practicable.

Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that it’s still being digested. When do you think the plan will be available—or you will have one, even if you’re not sharing it?

Ms T Williams : We’re working through. The review also canvassed that there were a number of existing proposals put to government and suggested that they provided a really good foundation to start to work through some of those ideas. The department is working through that now. In terms of the exact specifics of the consultation, we’ll provide advice to government in due course.

Senator ROBERTS: Reading parts of the report—I haven’t read the whole report—I believe some can be remedied by legislative changes, some can be remedied by the existing proposals and some can be remedied by further consultation. When do you think you will you have the plan together?

Ms T Williams : We’re working on that now. The specifics of that will be a decision for government but, as I said, it will continue in the spirit of the review and be broad-ranging in terms of the consultations. I think the other thing that the review really recognises is the deep industry expertise from employers and employees in this sector and also a real commitment by all the stakeholders that were consulted in the review to get this right. So we’ll provide advice to government on how to take that forward, but the consultations will be very much in that vein.

Mr Hehir : I might just add to that. We’re still some months away. The consultation process will still take a few months to work our way through. Then, following the consultation process, we’ll need to put our advice to government. So we’re still some months away.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I will just go to page 126, and I’ll read the main points, the issues in red that are not—

Senator Cash: Just hold on for one moment. Have you got the whole—

Ms T Williams : Yes, I do.

Senator Cash: It will assist if the official is reading it with you.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a fairly simple question, even though the question will be long. I’ll read out the issues not addressed—the ones in red. On waiver agreements, it says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

The report says the same thing about conflicts of interest, which it says are significant; allegations of fraud; culture; communications; risk management; adoption of technology; data security and privacy; and validation of data. So none of them are being addressed. For each of them, the report says:

The Existing Proposals do not substantively address this issue.

When do you think you will have something around those? They’re the core issues. That’s not a complaint about the report; the report is fine. But we need to understand when they will be addressed.

Ms T Williams : I will just clarify for you that this section of the report is actually talking about the existing proposals that were put to government before the government realised, or in the process of the government realising, that we needed to have a holistic response to the issues in the sector. So these proposals were actually put by stakeholders, and then the government commissioned an independent review. So the review itself and the recommendations do cover those issues. I think conflicts of interest are covered by recommendation 11.

Senator ROBERTS: What about changes to the board structure and composition?

Ms T Williams : That’s recommendation 13. So they are all covered by the review. This is really talking about how, before the government commissioned the review, those existing proposals had that gap in them. So we commissioned the review, which has now addressed those areas.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Now I’d like to move onto the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, the FEG. These are simple questions. You may have to take them on notice. My first question is: have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Mr Manning : Is this about the One Key workforce case?

Senator ROBERTS : Yes.

Mr Manning : Ms Saunders, who will be coming up from our waiting room downstairs, should be able to answer that for you. Unfortunately, we couldn’t get a room next door today. But we wouldn’t be told whether or not they were union members. We wouldn’t ask that on the application form. So I’m not sure about that, but, when Ms Saunders arrives, she might be able to answer it. You might need to repeat the question, though, because she’s had to come from downstairs.

Ms Saunders : Would you mind repeating the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Sure. It’s from a constituent. Have the Fair Entitlements Guarantee and Coal LSL paid any Coal LSL entitlements to One Key employees who no longer work in the coalmining industry and were not CFMMEU members?

Ms Saunders : Under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee, we pay the five basic employment entitlements: redundancy pay, long-service leave, wages, annual leave and payment in lieu of notice. So our consideration of that doesn’t actually take into account the extent to which they are funded by another organisation, except that, if there is a redundancy trust fund or whatever that will step in to pay a portion of the cost, that is not covered under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee program. I guess, in the sense that any entitlements that were payable under their governing instruments would have been paid under FEG, to the extent that they were eligible for it. For example, with One Key Workforce we paid 346 claimants a total of a $6.8 million in FEG assistance. That covered a range of entitlements.

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total figure?

Ms Saunders : It was $6.8 million.

Mr Hehir : Recognising that covered off a number of different employee entitlements.

Ms Saunders : I don’t have the detail of what made up that in terms of the different entitlements that were covered. I can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: If you could, please. I’d like to understand this issue because it involves some constituents in the Hunter Valley. My next question is: why did the Fair Entitlements Guarantee not pay One Key employees who were non-CFMEU members all entitlements owed under the black coal award, including shift penalties and overtime rates?

Ms Saunders : Okay.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s a complex issue, but it should be able to be boiled down once you have the data. I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator Cash: You’re happy for us to take it?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I’d like to get to the bottom of it.

Senator Cash: Yes, understood.

Senator ROBERTS: Finally, the issues raised in here show—I won’t say neglect, but times are changing across industry and the cracks that are exposed in Coal LSL itself are significant for employees and some employers. They’re very important, but they’re minor relative to the cracks in the Fair Work Act that have been exposed with changes in industry and in employment practices over time. Minister, is the government open to comprehensive review of industrial relations? The reason I ask is that Dave Noonan and heads of the CFMEU and the ETU have said they welcome a comprehensive, fair approach to reviewing and revising industrial relations. The Business Council of Australia has told me that they’re open to it as well and they support it. Large employers have told me the same. Small business is crying out for it, and medium businesses are as well. The industrial relations club which consists of major union bosses, major employers, major industry groups, consultants and lawyers are feeding off this, but the workers are not protected. Even unionised workers are not protected today, and they’re coming to us. The Fair Work Act is so complex that people are trying to detour around it, and that’s adding even more complexity. We need to restore fairness, entitlements and protections to workers—especially fairness to the small businesses. Are you open to comprehensive review of industrial relations?

Senator Cash: I think the government is always prepared to listen to stakeholders—it’s obviously subject to the ability to get anything through the Australian Senate—to make the system a better one, a more productive one, both for employers and for employees. You do raise a good point, though, in relation to the complexity of the system, and I might just ask the official who was talking about the budget announcements that we have made in relation to small businesses in particular being able to better navigate the system to come back to the table, because this is something that you and I had actually spoken about. We have made a budget announcement, so it’s embedded in the budget. But this is, in particular, to assist small businesses to be able to better understand and better navigate the Fair Work Act as it currently stands. If you would just indulge us for two or three minutes, I will get you this information.

Ms Huender : The government’s providing $5.6 million over four years to the Fair Work Commission to establish a dedicated small business unit within the Fair Work Commission to provide tailored support to small businesses to assist them to navigate the system. We’re aware that small businesses are a big part of the Australian economy, with 3½ million businesses employing over 40 per cent of the workforce. However, they do find the system complex. They don’t have the support of HR managers or legal support, so they also find navigating the system costly. So this unit’s designed to provide strategic leadership and to develop improved information resources and case management support for small businesses when they engage with the system. Small businesses, I understand, make up 50 per cent of the Fair Work Commission’s customers, as it were, but they represent 95 per cent of first-time users.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, that’s necessary, but it just reemphasises my point. It’s a moribund, complicated, inefficient system. And I’m thinking now that, for not only small business but also workers in the Hunter Valley for some of the world’s largest companies, workers in Central Queensland, workers for other large companies, some of the things that are going on with the COVID injection mandates are just despicable. I could tell you stories that would really shock you. We’re not living in a Third-World country, but we’re behaving as if we are, and some workers have no longer got basic protections and basic entitlements.

Senator Cash: I would disagree.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s like we’re living in a Third-World country.

Senator Cash: And I understand, because you genuinely do prosecute this case that every estimates and in relation to, in particular, the size of the Fair Work Act now and its growth over time.

Unidentified speaker: I’m disappointed you didn’t bring it along today!

Senator Cash: As I’ve said, the government is always prepared to work with stakeholders, employers and employees, to take on board the feedback to improve the system. Ultimately, though, changes are to the Fair Work Act itself, and those changes do need to be got through the Australian Senate. I think the perfect example—and you and I had many discussions on this—was the omnibus bill. There were significant parts of that bill that would have given more certainty to certain sectors et cetera, but we just could not get that through the Australian Senate.

With your support, though, we of course rectified the Rossato decision, and that was later, obviously, confirmed in the High Court of Australia. That was an incredibly important decision, as you know, because of the uncertainty that it had given to small businesses that they might end up with what we’d estimated to be I think it was up to a $38 billion or $39 billion liability. We couldn’t even get the support of the Australian Labor Party to actually take that impost off small businesses. You worked with us, and I was very appreciative of that, and we did make that change.

But, in relation to the other parts of the bill, again I’m prepared to work with people. I think a better system, a simpler system and a more productive system—but it has to reflect the needs of both employers and employees—is a good situation to aspire to, but ultimately, as you know, it does come down to the ability to get legislation through the Senate, and we can’t get the Labor Party or the Greens to support that type of productive change.

Senator ROBERTS: We had to work with small businesses to identify issues that they had, and we were pleased that the government resolved some of those issues and put our suggestions into the revised act. But, again, your recounting of the situation, while accurate, reinforces the need for change, because it is just so difficult and such a complex environment, with so many stakeholders hanging on by their fingernails. It’s just out of date and it’s hurting workers.

Senator Cash: As I said, you and I have had many discussions over many years now, and we’ve always worked constructively together in this regard, with a commitment to improving the system for both employees and employers. Ultimately, though, it is difficult to get through the Australian Senate. But what I think it does show is that it’s not therefore about one policy lever. If that policy lever is difficult to actually pull and properly implement because of the nature of the Australian Senate, you do then need to look at other ways that you can deliver for small business.

You and I have long talked about lowering taxes. When you look at, say, the tax rate for small business, under the Australian Labor Party it was 30 per cent; under us it is currently 25 per cent. So, whilst that’s not the industrial relations system as such, it is another way that you can ensure that you’re giving back to small business. I know, throughout COVID-19, even just the ability to change the way you process documents to allow for that—the e-technology certainly assists them. There is the availability of the instant asset write-off and the ability to say to them, ‘If you have that capacity to invest in your business, the government’s going to back you every step of the way.’ If one lever proves difficult, there are other levers that you can then look to utilise to ensure that you are responding in every possible way to that commitment that they are the backbone of the Australian economy, that they deserve to be backed by government, which is what we do. In relation to those changes, the omnibus bill is the perfect example: it was a very reasonable bill that would have provided both employers and employees with a more productive workplace, but we couldn’t get it through the Senate. I was grateful for the support you gave on the Rosato decision.

Senator ROBERTS: You fiddling with the tax system, and I don’t mean that derogatorily.

Senator Cash: I know what you’re saying.

Senator ROBERTS: The tax system makes the Fair Work Commission and Fair Work Act look simple. It doesn’t fix basic safety protections that have gone AWOL in workplace relations. It doesn’t fix the basic employer-employee relationship, which is the primary relationship of any workplace and must be such. We need something that’s comprehensively reformed and brought back to something simple that looks after the primary workplace relationship between employer and employee.

Senator Cash: On safety: I think that, for each one of us, that has to be paramount in the workplace. There are no two ways about that. I know that, when I first came into portfolio and I worked very closely with Mr Hehir on this, we were presented with the outcome of the Boland review. That was something that I looked at. As you know, there are model work health and safety laws, and the Commonwealth works with the states and territories to ensure that we can effect change that is recommended to us. We had the Boland review, we had the recommendations of the Boland review and I worked constructively with our state and territory colleagues regardless of political persuasion. If you’re, the relevant minister I work with you. I was very pleased that, within a few weeks of me formally come portfolio, all relevant ministers across Australia had agreed to accept all the recommendations coming out of the Boland review.

So certainly, when it comes do work health and safety, I have a very good relationship with state and territory ministers, and we will make improvements to the model work health and safety laws together by accepting all of the Boland review’s recommendations.

Senator ROBERTS: Notwithstanding what you just said, I have enjoyed working with Mr Hehir. I have found him easy to deal with and open to deal with.

Senator Cash: Thank you for that feedback.

Senator ROBERTS: But there are people being severely injured, not even reporting and then being threatened if they dare raise safety issues in this country, and that’s not good enough. I’m happy to leave it there, but it is an issue that’s really important, and we will be pushing it.

Senator Cash: Thank you for those questions.

/by

Ukraine: lets take a different perspective

We know that truth is the first casualty of war. Politicians of both sides hint they want to drag us into another war, but we have been lied to before. War is horrible for all involved, we must seek peace wherever possible as the people are the ones who suffer most.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to note that peace and security are my goals. Yet often these conflict—part of the irony of the human condition—at a personal level and a global level. We do know some things for sure. War is ugly. There are many inhuman actions in even the smallest war. We also know that truth is always war’s first casualty. We’re told there are two sides to this issue in Ukraine. I want to discuss a third view. So far, we’ve only heard one view. I’ll leave the other side to the Russians. They can talk for themselves; I’m not going to speak for the Russians. I want to discuss a third view. Having read widely in the last 14 years, I no longer swallow the crap we were fed at school and continue to be fed in the media.

Former Senator Ron Paul in the United States is acknowledged for trying to start a department of peace in America instead of a defence department. He had the respect, when he was in Congress, of both sides of politics, Democrats and Republicans. He is very well known for his honesty, his competence and his sincerity. Ron Paul said that every major war since 1913 can be directly attributed to the United States Federal Reserve bank, which is controlled by globalists.

Senator Steele-John just talked about Iraq. Mr President, I’d take your mind back to Iraq, and I remind people of what Mr Alexander Downer said when he retired. On his last night he said that, when John Howard came back from the 9/11 World Trade Center towers collapse in 2001, he walked into cabinet and said, ‘We’re off to Iraq.’ And the cabinet followed, and Australia followed, and in that conflict we killed Australian men and women—young men and women. We also killed a lot of Iraqis and people of other nationalities. ‘We’re off to Iraq.’ I can recall another incident, too, when Prime Minister Howard, Prime Minister Tony Blair from the United Kingdom and President George W Bush from the United States said, ‘We’re all going to go there because of weapons of mass destruction.’ And then, quietly, the world was told they never had any evidence of weapons of mass destruction, but not one parliament, not one congress, held anyone accountable. It went similarly after the Vietnam War and so many other wars around the world, and, as Senator Steele-John just said, it was led on many occasions by the United States.

I have huge admiration for the United States, having lived there for five years, been through all 50 states, worked in eight states and lived in eight states. I admire what the United States has done. I’m married to an American—a dual citizen of Australia and America. But I recognise now that I swallowed a lot of rubbish and propaganda from the Americans, because the government of America led many war efforts. The American people are fine, peace-loving people, but we have been taken into conflicts. So I’m open to alternative views on the Ukrainian issue, but we have no dog in this fight and we should stay out of it.

We repeatedly see decisions in the place—as people know, I can see—where there is data contradicting the reality, and yet, without any data, we blunder into things. We sometimes ignore the facts and data. And always, as one of the Labor senators pointed out, the people pay. So I raise questions. I question the narrative. I question the media narrative—it’s one-way. I question the political narrative—it’s one-way. I question the propaganda and the demonising. But I don’t make statements without facts, and I don’t know sufficient facts to take other than a third view here.

I question the cost of fuel. The biggest impact on our fuel prices is not the Ukraine conflict; it’s government taxes. Senator Hanson has flagged a reduction in excise duty. I question our capacity to defend ourselves, because we need manufacturing to produce weapons, armaments, tanks. We don’t have that capacity anymore. We’ve been gutted by adherence to UN agreements—the Lima declaration, the Kyoto protocol. We see, today, the government setting aside money for injecting babies—babies!—with an untested vaccine.

We heard the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Payne, talk about the Russians now having to fight German weapons that are being given to Ukraine. But the Germans are giving them billions of dollars for gas, because the United Nations has destroyed Germany’s capacity to look after its own energy needs. We have been disarmed. Germany is being disarmed. The only concrete thing I will say in this statement is that we need to get the hell out of the United Nations, not follow it, because the United Nations is pushing a war on humanity.

I’m not sufficiently informed to take a stance either way on this issue. I am, though, sufficiently informed to invite all senators to question what we’re being told. I implore senators, first of all, to understand basic needs of humans and the needs that are driving these conflicts, whether they’re domestic, national or international, and to understand that meeting universal human needs for security, basic interactions and connections is key. It is key to connection and key to relationships.

So I’d just ask people to question. I question how the Ukraine—I’m told by Senator Steele-John—is $129 billion in debt to the IMF, when it’s one of the richest countries in the world. How is that possible? So I ask questions, and I take a third view.

/2 Comments/by