Exposed: 48 Million Reasons to Screw Over Workers

,

Some people ask why the union would screw over workers like they have with casual coal miners. One explanation could be the $48 million in payments flowing from the labour hire company to the union.

During this Senate Estimate session, I raised concerns about the complexity of donation laws and transparency issues, citing that the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union (CFMMEU) received significant money from Abelshore, a subsidiary of coal company Glencore, where the union also donates to the Labor Party. Despite $48 million being transferred, the original source, Glencore, is not visible in the Labor Party’s declarations.

Mr Rogers admitted he had not reviewed the specific return in question but said that it was the Australian Electoral Commission’s (AEC) role to ensure that current legislation is adhered to. Further, Mr Rogers noted that if there are issues with transparency or adherence to the law, it is the responsibility of Parliament to amend the legislation, not the AEC. He agreed to review the details once they were provided to him.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Maybe you could elaborate on some of the issues faced with getting a clear picture when it comes to donation law, a really complex situation. The returns for the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union for 2022 and 2023 show they donated huge sums to the Labor Party. The CFMMEU has received more than $39 million from a company called Abelshore, which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of coal company Glencore. In 2021-22 they donated $9 million, so over two years they donated $48 million donated by Glencoreowned companies to the CFMMEU, to the Labor Party. So you have tens of millions, $48 million as I said, flying from a coal company through a subsidiary, through a union to the Labor Party but the coal company does not show up in the returns to the Labor Party. Can you explain the difficulties in finding out where the money was originally coming from on the returns that are lodged?  

Mr Rogers: First of all, I have not seen that particular return, so I would have to take it on notice and have a look but I am not aware that any of that breaches the existing legislation. Our role is to adhere to the legislation, promote the legislation, ensure that agencies are adhering to that. As you know, the whole funding and disclosure issue is the most complex part of the Electoral Act. It is highly technical. As long as those entities are meeting their obligations for transparency under the act, and I have no information that they are not—I would have to look at that specific issue in detail—as long as they are within the legislation, changing that legislation is a matter for parliament rather than the AEC, which I know you are aware of, and it is something we were discussing earlier this evening. I would have to have a look at in detail.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, we will send you a copy. It is on a register from the CFMMEU, I think I said. That is an awful lot of money to be hidden and it is not deliberately hidden. Perhaps it is inadvertently hidden. I think the intent is deliberate because it seems a bit strange that money is going from a coal company to a mining union to the Labor Party. 

/by

Peter Dutton’s Unsettling Stance: Is Free Speech Under Threat?

,

Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton replied to an interviewer, calling for the public to dob in loved ones, friends, or workmates who have changed their opinion of the Government for the worse to ASIO. After facing backlash on social media, I expected the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks, but he has yet to do so.

His advocacy for Australians to report their fellow Australians to ASIO for expressing concerns about government COVID measures—which destroyed lives, health and families—is deeply troubling. 

We are witnessing police actions in Canada and the UK where merely attending a protest rally, without any violent actions, is grounds for arrest and imprisonment. Is this a glimpse into the future under the Liberal Party?

Transcript

Last week, Opposition Leader Dutton, in a media interview, made a comment we expected he would clarify but he hasn’t. In the interview, the interviewer said: 

“We saw the terror threat raised to Probable yesterday. But there are multiple fronts now. 

One of those fronts that I found most interesting has come out of Covid. There’s the conspiracy theorists, the anti-vaxxers … what does it say to you about government overreach, and government, essentially, controlling people’s lives and the effects that that can have?” 

Peter Dutton’s answer: 

“None of that, though, should give rise to the sort of conduct that you’re referring to. I would say to anybody in our community, whether it’s within your friendship group, your family group, the work group, whatever it might be, where you see somebody’s behaviour changing, regardless of their motivation, or if they’ve changed radically their thoughts about society and government … you need to report that information to ASIO, or to the Australian Federal Police as a matter of urgency”. 

In 1997, in the legal case Lange v the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the High Court found: 

  • Under a legal system based on the common law, everybody is free to do anything, subject only to the provisions of the law, so that one proceeds upon an assumption of freedom of speech and turns to the law to discover the established exceptions to it. 

To protect human life, free speech stops at incitement to violence against others and at incitement to break the law.  

Free speech does not stop, as Peter Dutton suggests, merely at criticisms of others. Advocating that Australians be dobbed into ASIO for venting about government COVID measures, destroying their lives, health and families is a tone-deaf disgrace. In Canada and the UK right now, police response to criticism of the government is underway. Mere attendance at a protest rally without any violent words or actions is now enough to be arrested and imprisoned. Is this a glimpse of the future everyday Australians will endure under the supposedly honourable men and women of the Liberal Party, under an opposition leader who has come to bury Menzies, not to praise Menzies. I call on the Opposition Leader to clarify his remarks immediately. 

/1 Comment/by

Can a Party Give MY Preferences to Another Party? The Myth Debunked!

Question: Where are One Nation’s preferences going this election? Answer: Wherever YOU out them!

A great thread below from @actualAlexJames (X) explaining how preferences work. In short, mark One Nation 1 and then decide where you want your preferences to go.

Transcript

I must have heard it a hundred times now “Don’t vote for One Nation because they give their preferences to Labor!” or “watch out who you vote for, Katters gave their preferences to such and such!”. This is a myth and is simply untrue. Let me explain why.

As we all know Australian voting is not the typical first past the post voting style that a stereotypical democracy would have, instead, we have a preferential voting system. This means that in Australia, an elected official is not decided simply by getting more votes than the others in a typical sense. Instead, it’s a form of instant runoff voting.

You have to number each candidate based on how much you would prefer them to be in office. Imagining that there are only three choices, If you vote 1 for PHON, then 2 for LNP, then 3 for labor, that would mean that if the LNP and the labor candidate received more votes than the PHON candidate, then your vote will be redistributed to LNP. By the end of the election. Your vote will have been a vote for LNP. Add in more candidates and the process is the same until it is between only two candidates to decide the winner.

Therefore, your vote will end up exactly where you decided for it to go based off of the total votes of your electorate. But in the end, you decided possibilities of where your vote actually goes.

“But One Nation gave their preferences to Labor last election!”

This type of statement is just blatantly untrue, but here’s why people fall for this idea. I read an article sent to me by someone who was trying to convince me of this and it helped me to understand where this myth comes from. Essentially what it boils down to is media misrepresentation. Which by the way, is another reason why the misinformation disinformation bill, which would allow for this misinformation to continue, is so incredibly dangerous.

The media article essentially used wordplay to paint the picture that One Nation gave their preferences to labor. As in your vote. What actually happened, at least sneakily implied by this article, is One Nation put labor above LNP on their “how to vote card”. This is a card that is given to pretty much every voter at the voting booths where the volunteers are. Usually, people chuck this out because they are annoyed that they have to vote.

This card is the representation of what that party giving you the card would prefer you to vote for. It is a recommendation only. One Nation “preferencing” labor in that electorate would have been a form of strategy used because they had high reservations when it came to the LNP candidate. Essentially the LNP candidate would have been seen by One Nation in that area at that time as being worse than the Labor one for their interests.

They did not actually give Labor any votes.

They did not send your vote to Labor.

They would have only recommended that their supporters preference labor higher than usual in that area. Only the voter has control over that, you don’t have to listen to them, you don’t have to follow a “how to vote card”.

All votes are decided by the voter. NOT by any party. Your vote will end up where it does based on your numbering decisions.

Politics is a ruthless game. And politicians, parties, the government, the media, and influencers will strategize according to their own interests in order to get the outcome they want. This is not always as simple as a politician wanting to get elected. It may even mean running a candidate that they don’t want elected in a certain area in order to lessen or strengthen another for example.

Also, the media would love, I’m sure, to continue the myth that parties decide preferences simply so people lose trust in the party that they typically associate with the fake practice.

No one controls your vote. Your decision will not be changed by any party. Only the voter can decide preferences. This idea of parties giving away your preferences is a myth. Bookmark this post and share it so you can show others when you see them spreading this myth.

/by

Predatory Foreign Giants Control Our Banks and Supermarkets

,

We don’t have four banks and two supermarkets in this country. We have one predatory group of foreign investors hiding behind different logos.

BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others own large portions of the banks and supermarkets that are ripping Australians off the most.

Transcript

So, why does that happen? Why are foreign companies getting let off the hook? I’ll tell you why. It’s because many of even our large Australian companies are part-owned and controlled by foreign corporations. The major predators are BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. They own the four banks, sorry they own 10 per cent of the four banks combined and they own the controlling interest. They tell the banks what to do—BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard, First State and others in that little cohort of multinational predatory organisations. We don’t have four main banks. We have one main bank that is hiding behind four logos. That’s what we have. Same policies, same principles, same strategies, same products, same services. 

Coles and Woolies, again, Blackrock, State Street, Vanguard. Go right through our corporations in this country.  The corporations we thought were Australian owned, they’re foreign owned and controlled, and where does the money go? The profit goes overseas and what did the Morrison government do, along with the state premiers? Loaded it up so that foreign multinationals owning the large companies in this country made a killing out of COVID at the expense of small companies and small businesses. 

/by

Aussie University SCAM: Graduates Can’t Speak English

News broke earlier this week of Universities being accused of handing out degrees to foreign students who can’t even pass basic English courses. Australian universities generate huge revenue from foreign students and are heavily dependent on this income.  Meanwhile, Australian students are required to complete group assignments with these students who can’t even speak basic English.

I don’t want the education of Australian students sacrificed so that universities can make huge amounts of money from international students. It’s time to bring them into line and enforce basic English standards.

Full story: 30 July 2024 – https://senroberts.com/3M8IF5H

/by

$18 Billion in COVID Vaccines 💉

,

In a recent senate estimate session, I raised questions about the massive purchase of 267 million COVID-19 vaccine doses for Australia’s 27 million population. Despite only using a fraction of these doses, concerns remain about transparency and cost efficiency of that purchase.

Bureaucrats state that there was a need for a diverse vaccine portfolio and future supplies, yet exact delivery figures remain undisclosed due to commercial sensitivities. 👂 Listen as they sidestep the questions.

The question remains, was the expenditure justified and how much has actually been delivered.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?  

Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.  

Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?  

Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?  

Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.  

Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.  

Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—  

Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.  

Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.  

Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’d like the data. 

/by

Stagnant Wages, Skyrocketing Energy Costs and Record Business Failures

,

Real wages have gone backwards, erasing a decade of pay rises since this government took office. This data is up to March, so it doesn’t reflect the current inflation rise.  So, if Australians feel they’re working harder and getting less, it’s because they are. 

Net zero policies are driving up electricity prices, which in turn affect the entire economy. Every sector—whether farming, manufacturing, or retail—uses power, and rising energy costs inevitably get passed on. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies reached record levels, with the construction sector hit particularly hard. Housing construction is declining, yet the government continues to bring in more immigrants. 

This government has clearly failed in its economic management—there is no trust left.

Transcript

The Reserve Bank has just announced the inflation rate for May as four per cent, which is above the expected rate of 3.8 per cent. What’s even worse is that the underlying inflation rate, which had been trending downward, has now increased to 4.4 per cent. Inflation is surging, and it’s entirely the fault of the Albanese Labor government. Today we heard Finance Minister Gallagher again bragging about this government’s track record on protecting wages. The data does not support that statement. 

According to the Australia Institute, real wages of everyday Australians have fallen from $52,900 to $52,080 since this government came to power. That figure has been calculated to March this year, so it doesn’t take into account what is now rising inflation. If everyday Australians feel like they’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The inflation spike was entirely predictable. Net zero measures continue to force up electricity prices, which cascade throughout our entire economy. Every business, from farming to manufacturing to retailing, uses power. Any increase in power has to be passed on, and this is what we’re now seeing. 

One Nation calls on the government to abandon the insane net zero transition before the economy falls apart entirely, catastrophically. In the March quarter, business bankruptcies were at record levels. Bankruptcies in the building sector were especially high. Housing construction is not rising; it’s falling. Yet this government continues to bring in more new-arrival immigrants, which is inherently inflationary. The economy as a whole is just barely staying out of recession, with GDP growth at 0.2 per cent, a figure that shows the destruction that net zero is causing to our entire economy. I hope the Reserve Bank holds its nerve and doesn’t raise interest rates. If it raises rates, everyday Australians will be doing it even tougher. What a mess. This government is not fit to govern—no trust. 

/by

The Truth: Net-Zero Will NEVER Happen

,

40 wind turbines every month. 22,000 solar panels every single day. 28,000 km of transmission lines and 48 gigawatt of batteries. That’s what the Net-Zero pipe dream requires.

These goals will never be achieved, yet the government persists in pursuing them, causing huge damage to our environment along the way. No one will take responsibility for cleaning up these environmental vandals, so Australia is on track for an environmental wasteland, more expensive electricity and blackouts.

Ditch Net-Zero – let’s bring down power bills AND protect the environment.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy (Senator Wong) to questions without notice I asked today relating to renewable energy.  

In question time I asked the government how their insane net-zero wind and solar pipedreams were progressing. Here is what Labor’s energy minister Chris Bowen’s plan requires for the next eight years: 40 large wind turbines every single month, each with 100-metre concrete foundations, a massive turbine and huge blades atop a 300-metre tall steel tube; three days to erect the crane on each site; days to install each turbine; two days to dismantle the crane and move it to the next place; 22,000 solar panels every single day for eight years; 28,000 kilometres of new transmission lines carving up national parks, prime farmland and the environment; plus 48 gigawatt hours of batteries. Predictably, the construction of wind and solar is nowhere near these targets. The government’s targets are physically and financially impossible.  

While the targets will never be achieved, this government will do huge damage trying. Farmers and landholders are being conned into having these environment-killing wind-and-solar installations on their land. With the promise of some short-term money, farmers let these predators onto their land. Little do these landowners know, they are now responsible for disposing of the toxic wind turbines and solar panels at the end of their short life when the company that instals them inevitably goes broke or abandons them. 

Every coalmine, however, is legislated to pay a rehabilitation bond for each hectare of land disturbed. The mining company pays upfront. The money is held until the mine ends and restores the environment to its original state. The bond is then returned. Wind and solar companies don’t pay any rehabilitation bond. Thousands of landholders will be stuck with useless wind turbines and solar panels on their property that they will have to pay to remove. Prevention is better than cure. Anyone can see this scandal coming, yet the government won’t take action to prevent it. It just sits there causing this catastrophe. The government protects its billionaire wind-and-solar mates living like parasites off subsidies Australian electricity users and taxpayers will continue to pay. Government screws it up; taxpayers pay.  

/by

Shipping Fleet Tax Incentives to Boost Australian Shipping and Crews!

,

The Strategic Shipping Fleet proposes tax incentives for selected shipping owners to flag vessels in Australia and employ Australian crews. The plan aims to ensure these ships remain near Australia for potential repurposing during supply crises to maintain essential goods supply.

One Nation supports this proposal, however the published plan lacks detail, particularly regarding the types of freight that would provide commercial viability while keeping these ships nearby. It appears that implementation of this idea is still far off.

The allocated budget only covers planning for another 5 years, yet the Department indicated that the budget did have an allocation for implementation, but that the details were not for disclosure. Publishing such budget information can help guide tendering companies on bid amounts, but it can also be misleading if funding isn’t actually available.

Despite the Minister’s assurance of implementation within 5 years, I remain unconvinced. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here this evening. I’d like to ask some broad questions on the scoping of the strategic shipping fleet that Labor has announced and that we support. It’s been something we’ve been pushing for a while. Then I’d like to ask a few questions that build on what Senator O’Sullivan’s been talking about. Queensland should be a big winner out of the proposal for a strategic fleet, with a long coastline currently underserved by road and rail transport. A national rail circuit would help that too, and I’ll ask about that later. However, the idea is to encourage private ownership of ships to service the Australian coastline and the Pacific which could then be requisitioned in the event of an emergency, like the next virus or whatever. The report doesn’t go into detail about where the freight will come from, so we don’t know if it’s commercially viable— specifically which companies and how many containers. Do you have any information on where the containers are going to come from to keep container vessels commercially engaged in the scheme? What’s the volume of cargo? Or is it just very early days? 

Mr Johnson: The planned approach in terms of selecting the vessels for the strategic fleet is to approach the market, and there are questions for that marketplace about both the capability of vessels they might put forward to join the strategic fleet and the commerciality of those vessels, which really goes to what freight they’re moving currently and how they propose their vessels will fit into the commercial marketplace. That’ll give us the information on the volumes of cargo and those sorts of things that would be moved on a normal day-to-day basis. But the vessel would be Australian flagged and crewed and therefore, as part of the arrangements to join the strategic fleet, would be available for that requisition. 

Senator ROBERTS: Am I right in assessing then, Mr Johnson, that it’s very loose, maybe deliberately so— and maybe commendably so—and the arrangement at the moment hasn’t been fleshed out? 

Mr Johnson: Part of what we’re looking at in terms of how the fleet’s established is to get the industry to come forward with those views on how that capability might be provided and what’s commercial in the marketplace, rather than us trying to identify what’s commercial. Then the industry would provide that in the proposals put forward to join the fleet, which we would then match up with the capabilities and capacities of the fleet that would suit the purposes for requisition later. So it’d be work with industry to join the two through theapproach to market process. 

Senator ROBERTS: The funding in this budget is $21.7 million over five years, which seems enough to keep a small team of bureaucrats busy but little else. Does that not seem to include funding for the tax incentives and other costs in the scheme once operational? Can you confirm whether the funding is pre-operational only? 

Mr Johnson: You’re correct; that is the funding to support the administration of the strategic fleet— 

Senator ROBERTS: Ongoing. 

Mr Johnson: and implementation of the other recommendations in the strategic fleet taskforce report. The amount of funding to actually support implementation of the fleet has been allocated but hasn’t been announced. 

Senator ROBERTS: Has been allocated but not announced. 

Mr Johnson: Yes. 

Ms Purvis-Smith: It is not for publication, and that is so it doesn’t prejudice the government getting negotiations with market players so that we can get value for money. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I know that during COVID our fuel reserves got down to just two days, which is very poor governance in my opinion. This does illustrate why we need a strategic fleet, but the delay worries me. Can you confirm that, within the next five years, there will not be one extra ship with Australian crew operational in Australia as a result of the scheme? 

Mr Johnson: The intention is to have the three vessels announced in the budget by the government operational within the next five years. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I’ve had the maritime union and a shipping operator on the phone asking for more details—actually asking for a meeting with the department and the minister to see how they can respond to this development and swing freight over to the strategic fleet. Should I tell them to come back in five years or will you meet with them to get the ball rolling on planning new freight routes for container transport? 

Senator Chisholm: I’m sure that people would be happy to take a request for a meeting. But, as you heard just then from Mr Johnson, we are keen to get this operating sooner than five years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/by

Senate Motion Spurs Urgent Inquiry into Defence Awards System

,

I joined Peter Fegan of 4BC Radio to discuss the inquiry into the defence honours and awards system due to my motion being passed in the Senate recently.

The morale within the ADF is alarmingly low, reaching a level that could severely impact our future security.

There is a prevailing sentiment among ADF personnel that the senior leaders are not accountable. The top brass are abandoning enlisted members and veterans, while taking credit for achievements that aren’t rightfully theirs.

4BC Weekends with Peter Fegan: https://www.4bc.com.au/show/weekends-with-spencer-howson/

/by