What is the Role of a Bank?

A theme throughout this inquiry into Australia’s bank closures is that bank representatives continue to say they are committed to providing cash for the foreseeable future despite Australians using cash less frequently.

The Commonwealth Bank has no plans to remove the distribution of cash even though it is a cost to the bank to keep cash available, according to CEO Matt Comyn.

I know that Australians are afraid of losing cash. There’s no doubt that the best way to keep cash alive is to keep on using it.

Despite regional bank closures, more than 90% of customers remain which is seen as a sign less customers see a physical branch as important because more of them are using online services.

I asked Matt Comyn about the bank’s digital expansion which includes the CommBank App. He said this app is used by eight million customers and the vast majority of customers appreciate the bank’s investment in it. The bank’s contract with Australia Post, worth tens of millions of dollars, is a partnership allowing customers to make transactions at Australia Post outlets where the bank has been shutting down branches. For many rural customers the Bank@Post scheme doesn’t offer everything they need.

We also discussed the many ways the Commonwealth Bank along with the rest of the Big Four Banks are supported by the government including bail-in, props such as government guarantees for overseas borrowing, regulatory support and their advantages over smaller banks.

When I asked about the shareholdings by asset managers such as BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street, Matt Comyn responded that most of the bank’s shareholders are Australian retail shareholders, domestic superannuation shareholders, and shares held by 12 million Australian families. Share dividends will be high this year with a record $10.2 billion profit and a pay packet for its CEO of $10.4 million.

The Commonwealth bank serves about 10 million customers. Among those customers are many Australians who are worried about digital controls, branches closing, and the gradual loss of cash as a readily available and convenient means of transaction. The Commonwealth Bank prides itself on supporting its customers so let’s hope they’re also a listening bank.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of what has happened to Qantas’s reputation in the last few months?

Mr Comyn: Yes, I am.

Senator ROBERTS: You represent a bank which provides financial services, and cash is fundamental to those for many people. People are afraid of cash. Whether you agree with that or not, they are afraid of cash and
they’re increasing their use of cash. As to your costs and services, from your statement I concluded that they’re reviewed annually, but are you considering the whole service and what people really expect from your bank?

Mr Comyn: Yes, absolutely we consider the whole service.

Senator ROBERTS: More than 90 per cent of your customers stay after a bank closure?

Mr Comyn: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: So, your customers are sticky?

Mr Comyn: Yes. It could be perceived in a slightly different way as well, which is the role of a physical branch in some customers’ minds perhaps isn’t as important as it was. I sort of agree with that and I think it very
much depends on different customers. I think a range of different conclusions can be drawn from that.

Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you. The fact is your customers are sticky and so are other customers. You mentioned cross-subsidisation of electronic customers on cash is $40 per customer?

Mr Comyn: What I said was we calculated we think the cost of providing cash, and I believe providing cash will continue to be important and is an important issue. I suspect we pay a significant proportion of the costs of providing cash in Australia. I don’t say that as a complaint, I say it more as a statement of fact. We serve about 10 million customers. It works out to be about $40. The reality is, like anything, there’s a small proportion of customers who use cash very often. There’s a much larger proportion who don’t use it at all, and there would be somewhere in between who are using it infrequently across that. I’m not exactly sure I understand the point you made about ‘afraid of cash’? I think you said earlier on in your question that Australians are afraid of cash? Did I mishear you?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry. They’re afraid of losing cash. Thank you for picking up on that. That’s a very important point. They’re afraid of losing cash. We’ve seen a digital identity mooted by the Morrison government, now raised by the Labor government, and a bill that was introduced not into parliament as such for processing but into the public debate in parliament last year. We’ve seen attempts to limit the cash ban bill. People are scared, especially after losing a lot of their fundamental freedoms in the last three years under COVID mismanagement. They’re worried about being controlled in all aspects of their lives. How much has your bank spent on digital expansion that cash customers did not ask for?

Mr Comyn: It would be very difficult for me to answer that, because we haven’t asked every one of those 10 million customers.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that.

Mr Comyn: I think we could reasonably assume that with our retail bank, the CommBank app, which is our mobile banking app, we have more than eight million users. On average, they log in 39 times per month. It’s
clearly one of the most important, if not the most important, feature that customers use. I’d say that clearly the vast majority of customers highly value the investments that we make, both in terms of hopefully helping make it easier for them to manage their financial lives but also as Senator White was asking, to make sure it’s the safest, secure and most resilient experience possible.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come back to cash in a minute. You just said you’ve got a commitment to cash?

Mr Comyn: I believe cash will continue to be available for many years within Australia. I don’t think people should fear that cash is going to be removed from circulation.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that your commitment or is it just your belief?

Mr Comyn: I can only make the commitment on behalf of the Commonwealth Bank.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I mean.

Mr Comyn: We certainly have no plans to remove cash distribution or the provision of cash in Australia. I don’t think that’s feasible, and I don’t think that would be desirable, certainly in the foreseeable future.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to Australia Post and we’ll come back to cash. How much do you pay Australia Post for the community representation fee—not the transaction but the community representation fee?

Mr Comyn: I mentioned in the introduction it’s tens of millions of dollars. I know I’m protected by parliamentary privilege. Would you mind if I checked whether there’s any commercial—

CHAIR: You can take it on notice.

Mr Comyn: I know what the number is. I don’t have any difficulty sharing it with you, but I probably should check that.

CHAIR: I think usually the best idea is to take it on notice. Mr Comyn can provide the information to us.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your concern one of the figure or of releasing it?

Mr Comyn: I’m not personally concerned with either of those dimensions, but since it’s in a contract entered between the Commonwealth Bank and Australia Post I just want to doublecheck if there are any contractual
restrictions and probably out of courtesy let Australia Post know.

Senator ROBERTS: It was released in 2018 as being $22 million for each bank.

Mr Comyn: It’s more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re currently flooding Australia Post. When I say ‘you’, it’s not just the Commonwealth Bank but all banks. You’re closing branches in the regional areas and Australia Post is getting flooded with customers. Is it more than $22 million?

Mr Comyn: The totality of what we pay Australia Post? Yes, it is. Again, not to get caught up in the semantics, I wouldn’t characterise it as ‘flooding’. We pay on a per transaction basis to Australia Post with an extension beyond 2030. We entered into a long-term contract to give Australia Post and some of those individual franchisees certainty. We meet—I know Mr Jones does—regularly with Australia Post to talk about are there opportunities for us to continue to improve the service to be able to support Australia Post’s customers better and to make sure as many transaction types are available in Australia Post to ensure the convenience is as high as possible.

Senator ROBERTS: So, you’re treating them as a partner?

Mr Comyn: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to the structure of the banking system in this country, especially the big four banks, there is protection for the banks if the banks go overboard in risk or the economy collapses. You’ve got protection in bank bailing, which was legislated I think in 2018. That was confirmed to me by a senior Treasury official two years ago. You’ve had props from the government in the past, and government guarantees for things like overseas borrowing. You have enormous support. Four pillars for a start is a regulatory support. You have more generous treatment from APRA in risk weighting. You have barriers to entry that the regulations provide for protecting the big four. You have a barrier that’s legal in the sense that you’ve got deep pockets and you can fund enormous defences in lawsuits brought against you. I’ve seen this first-hand when chaired the Senate select inquiry into lending to primary production customers. You dominate the cash distribution network. You’re essentially now, as a result of the support from the community and governments, a low-risk business. And your customers are sticky. That’s a hell of a ride.

Mr Comyn: I’d challenge just about every one of the assumptions that you made then, but I’m not exactly sure where that would get us. I definitely wouldn’t characterise it in terms of the context that you did. Are we heavily regulated? Absolutely. Is there a lot of investment required to manage and appropriately respond to that regulation? Yes, there is. Do I think significant financial institutions in Australia and others should be heavily regulated? Absolutely. Do I think it’s important that Australian banks and the Commonwealth Bank have unquestionably strong levels of capital? Absolutely. Because we’re big importers of capital and the success of economies and financial institutions are necessarily very intertwined. I could give you multiple examples but I don’t know how helpful it would be. Even if you think about capital levels, Australian banks hold considerably more capital than many other financial institutions and jurisdictions. As a policy setting I think that’s absolutely appropriate, but to help make the numbers real that costs across the major banks per annum between $7 billion and $11 billion. I’d characterise a lot of things differently. I think sometimes our funding facilities are described in a way that’s not necessarily matched by our experience.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge your view. I point to the fact that every monopoly in the world—I’m not accusing you of being a monopoly—is there as a result of government. You say you have a low-risk business. Your ownership of the Commonwealth Bank, a significant controlling portion, includes the Vanguard Group and BlackRock. I’m reading from your registry: Vanguard Investments, Norges Bank, Goody Capital Management, BlackRock Advisors, Vanguard Global Advisors and a couple more. When I look at the other three big banks, they’re almost identical in terms of the significant controlling interests. It seems to me that we have one bank with four logos. That’s a very tight industry. You hide behind the regulations, I’d put it to you. When I chaired that Senate select inquiry into lending for primary production customers, I saw the services almost identical from each of the banks. The strategy is almost identical. The disregard for customers is almost identical as is the hiding behind regulations. Regulations are there to protect your bank; that’s the way I see it in practice. It’s almost identical across all four banks. Directors appoint you, I take it, and your directors are appointed by the likes of BlackRock, Vanguard, First State and State Street. The banking sector with the four big banks seems to be a very cosy club and you can do whatever you want with very sticky customers; is that correct?

Mr Comyn: No, it’s not. Again, the shareholder base is quite different to the way you outlined. There are quite significant differences even across the major banks. We’re an extremely widely held retail stock. Approximately 50 per cent of our shareholding is held directly by retail onshore shareholders. Obviously that’s a result—

Senator ROBERTS: How many of those shareholders vote?

Mr Comyn: Every one of them is entitled to vote.

Senator ROBERTS: How many of them vote?

Mr Comyn: I couldn’t give you the exact number. One thing I would say is clearly I meet with institutional shareholders. I just came back from meeting with some institutional shareholders internationally. I can assure you I get stopped and asked about the performance, profitability, questions on people’s minds, and the dividend by a lot more retail shareholders than I ever do from international. To finish quickly on the shareholder base, more than 50 per cent would be direct to retail. The next approximately 30 per cent would be institutional but domestic, primarily through superannuation, some of the biggest industry and superannuation funds. We actually have quite a small representation internationally. You mentioned some of them. There’s a mixture of both. You touched on some of our index funds. Some have a variety of different mandates from either US, North America or within Asia. Fundamentally if the Commonwealth Bank is profitable, 75 per cent approximately of our profits go to our shareholders, predominantly Australian families—more than 12 million. I can assure you based on my experience they absolutely do value it. I’m not sure the point you’re making on regulation, either. Obviously we work very closely with regulators.

Senator ROBERTS: The point I’m making was that regulations help you because they give you protection. It’s very difficult for a small borrower to take you on legally.

CHAIR: We’re going to have to rotate the call. Mr Comyn, you can briefly respond to that if you want to. It’s up to you.

Mr Comyn: In the interests of time

/by

The Future is Digital Says Westpac CEO

Your future is digital and Westpac’s is even higher profits. Once again, the commercial in confidence excuse was trotted out around disclosure of the cost of the Australia Post community representation contracts that are allowing the banks to close many of their regional branches. In 2018 the amount was public information so what’s changed? Westpac has taken the question on notice.

Almost a quarter of Australians cannot do digital banking. Either they lack access or the necessary skills to go online for their banking. I asked Westpac why the bank is turning its back on these Australians. The way Westpac’s CEO Peter King views this is that 96% of their own customers are engaging with them digitally so all is well.

Has Westpac looked at the fact they’re pushing people online who don’t actually have the capability to stay safe and secure on that platform? Instead of directly answering my question, Peter King said the three biggest scam losses are through investment scams, romance scams and business email compromises. Banks are doing everything they can, he said, to prevent this by blocking suspicious payments and educating customers.

Westpac is enthusiastic in its push towards digital. In Townsville for example, where Westpac has shut its doors, the bank conducted education sessions to help customers adapt to the digital transition. Clearly there are factors that limit digital banking in regional Australia. Westpac’s answer isn’t to reverse the closures, it’s to improve its banking app to do everything. The bank intends to shoehorn people into the digital economy whether they like it or not. Peter King believes this shift is much broader than just banking because all government and essential services will become digital too.

Will there still be cash? Peter King thinks that cash will still exist in the economy but its use will decline. Cash made up 70% of all transactions in 2007. That figure is now 13% and trending down. Where telecommunications or power are cut off, Westpac would get cash into an affected area by flying it in. Telecommunications is obviously critical.

Finally, I asked if Westpac’s data might not be accurate. It isn’t capturing all cash transactions. Once cash is circulating there is no way to track it, so perhaps they’re not seeing the real picture of cash use in the economy. I was told the Reserve Bank undertakes surveys into how cash is used and in Westpac’s view there is less call for cash making it less important in the scheme of things. Online banking and Bank@Post will replace bank branches, particularly in regional areas where Westpac and the other big banks are pulling away from in person services.

Profits over personal touch is what’s in store for customers in the digital economic future. In a move we’re seeing across the corporate and political sectors, the Big Four are making the data fit the narrative so they can achieve their goals. Where’s the care factor?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Just sticking briefly with Australia Post, how much do you pay Australia Post for a community representation fee, not the transaction fee?

Mr King: It’s subject to some commerciality requirements. I’ve said it will be over $200 million over 10 years, including the fee. We might see whether we can provide that separately in confidence.

Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t commercial-in-confidence in 2018. Is something being hidden?

Mr King: No. We’ll work with Australia Post on how much detail we can give you.

Senator ROBERTS: So, you’ll take that on notice?

Mr King: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Your submission relies on digital technology as a fallback to the removal of physical branches, yet 23.6 per cent, almost a quarter of the population, either lack access to or the ability to handle digital banking. Why are you turning your back on almost a quarter of the population? Do they not have enough money to warrant your attention?

Mr King: What we see in our customer base is 96 per cent of customers are engaging with us digitally, in terms of transactions.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s your customer base. I asked about the population of Australia. Almost a quarter don’t.

Mr King: In terms of our service offering, if you take the cash, we have our own branch network, and the Australia Post, and an ATM arrangement. So, there are plenty of opportunities for customers who still want to use cash to get cash through the country.

Senator ROBERTS: The ACCC reports that Australians lost $3 billion in online scams in 2022. Has Westpac done any work on what share of that has come from Westpac and the banking sector in general, forcing this 23.6 per cent of the population online when they lack the skills to avoid being scammed? Is Westpac simply setting up these people to lose their money in an online scam?

Mr King: In short, no. There are three big drivers of scam losses, and the biggest one by a long way is investment scams. As to investment scams, we have less financial planners in the country, more people doing
research, including on social media platforms, and that’s devastating. Romance scams are still pretty high in terms of people being prepared to pay for romance scams, and then there’s business email compromises. A lot of those are issues around how customers are being tricked out of their money, effectively. The way the banks are reacting is to do everything we can to help customers make better decisions. So, prompt them about those types of things, put friction in the system to stop the payments. But we do need to help our customers pick these scams up as well.

Senator ROBERTS: In towns where you close your branch and provide education to customers on how to use online banking safely, do you open a digital education centre?

Mr Miller: In a regional town where we’re closing a branch we have a fairly lengthy period where we’re consulting with our customers. We run education sessions from the branch before it closes. When the branch has
closed, we’ve enabled our call centres to be able to take calls from customers anywhere in Australia where they can continue that digital education with customers online. We would have had 340,000 of those conversations with customers since March this year.

Senator ROBERTS: Some of them are a physical, face-to-face in town where the bank is about to close?

Mr Miller: Absolutely. That’s our priority during the transition period.

Senator ROBERTS: What factors would limit digital banking in regional Australia?

Mr King: For us, I think we’re looking to have everything you can do in the bank in the app. We’re not there yet, as Ross said, but we will be. Another is, as you just said, helping people transition to the digital economy. But I think it’s broader than banking. If I look at government services, banking services and most services in the country, they’re all going to go digital, so we have to help people get on. Then telecommunications is critical as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you saying there will be no cash, none of this stuff?

Mr King: No.

Senator ROBERTS: You said ‘all digital’?

Mr King: I believe there will still be cash in the economy but the usage will go down. I think I used a stat before that, in 2007, 70 per cent of consumer transactions were cash based. It’s now 13 per cent and it will go
further down; that is the trend. Cash will be less important in the scheme of things than it has been historically.

Senator ROBERTS: What are customers supposed to do if the bank or the NBN or the telco fails for a whole day? I noticed in Mount Isa, the day before I arrived recently there was no internet and no EFTPOS so people had to use cash. Business was open purely because of cash.

Mr King: That is an important part, but also the merchant terminals can go into a mode which is called offline for a period of time, but you need your card. You need to put your physical card in. It’s hard to use a digital wallet in that situation. There are fallback facilities when telecommunications are down. It’s a bit harder when the power is down, obviously. In that case, like we do in any event, a flood or fire, we would get cash into the area and a way to distribute it. We did that in Lismore through the floods by flying it in.

Senator ROBERTS: If a constituent of mine goes to a farmers market and pays cash, how is that captured in the data for cash use and electronic payment?

Mr King: It will depend on how that merchant reports. Certainly, when we’re tracking cash usage we’re looking at money going in and out of the banks. It will depend on how that person banks, whether they go near a
bank at all. They might just spend it. The Reserve Bank has the data on how much cash is on issue, and then it touches the bank at certain points but we don’t see 100 per cent of it because some of it’s in the economy and going around without us seeing it.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s exactly the point, isn’t it? The data does not capture all of the cash transactions?

Mr King: If it doesn’t go through us we won’t see it; that’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Could the volume of cash transactions occurring outside of the banking sector be quite different to the data you present as being the reduction in cash transactions?

Mr King: Possibly, but the Reserve Bank also does periodic surveys where they survey consumers on how they’re using cash. That doesn’t rely on the reported data. You also get surveys. Our experience in what we’re
seeing is there is less cash being used for transactions, and much more cards and particularly debit cards are being used for transactions.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m being sent complaints about queueing in the branches that remain after closures in the area. Your point of presence is now inadequate. If a customer wants to use face-to-face and their branch is
closed, then they go to the next nearest branch which is queued out the door so they give up and go home and use phone or internet or banking, would you consider your bank as being helpful?

Mr King: As I started with, customer service has to improve. If there are examples from your constituents, send them through and we’ll have a look.

/2 Comments/by

Australia Needs Independent Drug Scrutiny — the TGA is Compromised

, ,

In Senate Estimates, Professor Brendan Murphy, former Chief Medical Officer for the Australian Government and now Health Secretary, rejected the suggestion that the TGA ever took a position on vaccine mandates.

You can listen to him saying here that the government only supported mandates in limited circumstances earlier in the COVID injection roll-out. He says they were only needed in health, disability and aged care settings due to their high vulnerability.

National Cabinet had no strong position on community-wide mandates. Professor Murphy claims that everyone, including other departments and jurisdictions, took their own position. The TGA did not promote the COVID injections or mandates. Incredible!

The TGA authorised Moderna’s injection for young children with co-existing health conditions despite the fact the study is only being conducted in healthy children. That study is also not yet completed. ATAGI’s guidance is that the ‘vaccine’ is recommended ONLY for high-risk children with a comorbidity. Under questioning, the TGA admits it does not require patient level data and relies on a dossier from the sponsor (the pharma company). The ATAGI advice was that this shot be reserved for use in ‘at-risk’ children, i.e those with immuno-compromising pre-existing conditions.

I asked the TGA about reporting performances in the DAEN database of adverse events including fatalities. I wanted to know whether adverse event notifications were higher in those parts of the country where reporting is required compared to those without mandatory reporting. I’m advised that reporting rates are not higher in the jurisdictions where it is obligatory to report. The TGA has advised that consumer reporting of adverse events directly to the TGA increased by 28-fold in 2021 compared to 2020. Similarly, health professionals submitted nearly three times as many adverse event reports to the TGA in 2021 compared to 2020.

Strict independence of scrutiny for these products is clearly needed and is now being called for by a highly regarded epidemiologist.

Mortality figures for cancer are higher since the injections were introduced. The COVID products were not tested for carcinogenic properties simply because those responsible have taken the position that the substances involved don’t warrant such studies. The TGA did review Pfizer product on paper only for genotoxic and carcinogenic potential. In its dossier, Pfizer justified the absence of studies into cancer risk based on the exposure threshold concept. However, there is an absence of repeat dose toxicity data and the assessment of the stimulation of cytokine release.

Pfizer’s dossier, as sponsor of the product, adequately justified the authorisation of its use in Australia by the TGA, and so we joined what former Minister for Health, Greg Hunt, called the largest human trial and the largest vaccination trial that the world has ever engaged in.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s talk about approval of paediatric COVID vaccines. The TGA approved the Moderna COVID paediatric vaccine on 19 July last year for children aged six months to five years. According to
your website, this was based on the results of the KidCOVE clinical trial run by Moderna in the USA and Canada. The approval was for all children, but ATAGI’s guidance is that the vaccine is recommended only for high-risk kids having one of a list of serious comorbidities. Is that correct?

Dr Langham: I believe so. I would have to check the current ATAGI guidance, though. I can take that one on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The KidCOVE clinical trial is listed on clinicaltrials.gov as ‘a study to evaluate the effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine in healthy children’—healthy children—’aged six months to 12
years’. On what basis did TGA authorise the use of a vaccine, tested on healthy kids, for use in Australia on high-risk kids with serious comorbidities?

Dr Langham: What we’ve learned throughout the pandemic is that the disease of COVID is most damaging to those with other comorbidities, and particularly people who have immune systems that don’t work well. Our recommendation, or the recommendation of ATAGI and the recommendation of the TGA, would have been to be able to support young children with precisely those conditions by demonstrating that the virus was safe and efficacious in a healthy population.

Senator ROBERTS: The study was to evaluate effectiveness of Moderna’s vaccine in healthy children, yet you’ve approved it for children with comorbidities—no basis.

Dr Langham: Again, it is the sort of thing that can be extrapolated. It was very important to be able to provide a protective therapy for young Australians who were at risk of serious illness from COVID-19.

Senator ROBERTS: You just extended the study into a completely different field without testing?

Prof. Murphy: You can’t do the clinical trials—those trials have to be done in healthy children. You wouldn’t be able to do that first in-population trial in people with severe underlying diseases. You’d have to get healthy volunteers. The ATAGI advice considers all of the other risks of COVID as well. The safety can be shown in healthy people but the ATAGI advice is relevant to the risk of severe COVID. There’s no disconnect there.

Senator ROBERTS: Your approval was in July 2021. That clinical trial finishes in November 2023, so it is not even finished yet. The TGA must have worked from interim documents. Did the TGA evaluate the patient-level data, or did you just take Moderna’s word for it, like you took Pfizer’s word for it?

Mr Henderson: The Moderna vaccine was approved through the provisional pathway, which is a wellestablished pathway. It was an established pathway before the pandemic. That allows for approval based on
interim clinical data, and data will be supplied on a rolling basis over a period of time.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you evaluate the patient-level data before you approved it?

Mr Henderson: We have answered questions in relation to patient-level data. At the TGA, we do not require patient-level data. We do require clinical data that is sufficient evidence from the sponsor of the vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: So you relied on sponsors of the vaccines?

Mr Henderson: We relied on the dossier provided by the sponsor, with clinical data provided.

Senator ROBERTS: Would this be misfeasance on the part of the TGA?

Mr Henderson: Sorry, Senator, I’m not sure—

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Quality of reports in the DAEN: the DAEN reports can come from medical practitioners and also the general public. How many of the reports of deaths from COVID vaccines
recorded by DAEN came from members of the public and how many from medical practitioners?

Mr Henderson: I don’t have those exact numbers with me. I will take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the first question you ask, when a person makes a report: ‘Are you a medical practitioner or a member of the public?’

Mr Henderson: It is to allow us to have as rich a dataset as we can.

Senator ROBERTS: Why is the first question that one?

Ms Duffy: It allows the triaging of the subsequent questions as you go through the form.

Senator ROBERTS: Checking these reports—my staff have checked the reports—suggests there is a waiting room at the DAEN database holding reports that have been made but not yet checked and registered, which seems logical. How many reports of COVID vaccine harm are waiting to be checked? How many of those are reports of death or serious injury?

Mr Henderson: Again, I don’t have those numbers with me. I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Were more reports to DAEN made by states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect notifications—which I think is New South Wales, Queensland and Western Australia, which is
only 62 per cent—as against states without mandatory reporting of vaccine harm?

Mr Henderson: Senator, could you repeat the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Was there a higher proportion of reports of adverse events from states with mandatory adverse vaccine effect reporting notifications?

Mr Henderson: I would have to take that detailed question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: There is now a call for a vaccine safety office from an epidemiologist. He is pretty highly regarded, from my understanding. He is calling for independence in the scrutiny. When we have a
provisionally approved medication, surely, it’s even more important to have a very strict reporting of adverse events?

Mr Henderson: We have a very comprehensive and rigorous safety monitoring system at the TGA. We use a number of mechanisms to look for safety signals, as well as talking to our international regulator colleagues and sharing information in relation to safety issues with the vaccines.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any testing on what percentage of doctors and the public are reporting adverse events?

Mr Henderson: No, we haven’t done that study. I will take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go to carcinogenicity of the vaccine. The European Medicines Agency, EMA, had a 140-page assessment report for the Pfizer vaccine. On page 55, it says: No genotoxicity nor carcinogenicity studies have been provided. It then says: The components of the vaccine are lipids, an mRNA, which are not expected to have genotoxic potential. The carcinogenicity part of that statement was skated straight over. I want to ask you about that. Did you receive any genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies in support of the Pfizer application?

Mr Henderson: I do not believe that we did, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: The words ‘carcinogenicity’ and ‘cancer’ do not appear in your 42-page assessment report. Did you review the Pfizer product from the perspective of cancer?

Mr Henderson: I believe there was no need for that. I will take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: According to the data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, in their latest release of the provisional mortality statistics, we know that it under-represent deaths—this was from the head of the ABS the other night—by 15 per cent because it does not include autopsy reported deaths, only doctor reported. The figures for provisional mortality from cancer were as follows: based on average for January-February over the last four years, 3,637; January- February cancer deaths in 2023, 3,803—plus 15 per cent; and for 2021 it was 3,816. Both years are above trend. It should be remembered that trend includes autopsy deaths and the provisional mortality figures do not. Yet the provisional mortality figures for cancer are above the past figures. The problem is worse than these figures suggest. Let’s review: we have injections that were approved without carcinogenicity testing. We now have a spike in cancer. Can you please show me where you have investigated this spike and ruled out it being from the COVID injections? Have you even considered that?

Prof. Murphy: There is no evidence that increase in cancer risk is vaccine-associated. As Professor Langham said, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines administered. If there was a significant association with cancer, I think the international data would have shown it. There is no evidence that there is an association.

Senator ROBERTS: The reference to lipid nanoparticles in earlier conversations around COVID vaccines suggested that the nanoparticles stayed near the injection site, then passed out of the body. Am I remembering that correctly?

Dr Langham: Senator, that’s correct. We’ve dealt with this on a number of occasions, in answer to other questions on notice as well.

Senator ROBERTS: Documents released in the Pfizer-gate court-ordered document dump showed that Pfizer knew at the time of seeking approval for their product that the lipid nanoparticles not only collected at the
injection site but significant concentrations were also recorded in the adrenal glands. A table in the Pfizer test data showed they accumulated in the ovaries, the liver, the kidneys, the brain and the adrenal glands; they go all over the body. Did you know at the time of the Pfizer application that lipid nanoparticles collected across the body?

Dr Langham: Senator Roberts, what you are describing is a particular aspect of the pre-clinical studies by which an element of the lipid nanoparticles was labelled with a fluorescent label. What is seen in those studies is the fluorescent label and not necessarily the lipid nanoparticles.

Senator ROBERTS: Is it still your position that this build-up does not have an adverse health effect?

Dr Langham: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: Why did former minister Greg Hunt say, ‘The world is engaged in the largest clinical vaccination trial’? Why did he say that as health minister?

Dr Langham: I can’t speak for Minister Hunt’s comment; I am sorry.

Senator ROBERTS: We have dealt with other agencies and employers who relied on you, as the TGA. They cite your advice as the basis of their policies and decisions: CASA, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Fair
Work Commission, Fair Work Ombudsman, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, judiciary, the Department of Home Affairs, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, state and federal health ministers, the chief medical officer and the chief health officer all drove vaccine mandates. The national cabinet cited you guys. Millions of people have been gutted, based on these horrendous facts and injuries, all pointing their finger at you. Do the members of the board of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance in public office?

Prof. Murphy: There is no board of the TGA. The TGA is part of the department of health.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the heads of the TGA understand the concept of misfeasance?

Prof. Murphy: We very much understand the concept of misfeasance, and we totally reject any suggestion that has taken place. I should point out that the TGA has never taken a position on vaccine mandates. The TGA’s remit is to assess the safety and efficacy.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you support them or not?

Prof. Murphy: The Commonwealth department has supported them in limited circumstances, particularly early on, when transmission reduction was much more beneficial. We certainly supported them for aged-care
workers and disability workers. The Commonwealth department has not taken a strong position on community-wide mandates. Some of the state and territory governments have taken a much stronger position.

Senator ROBERTS: Who from your senior leadership advised former Prime Minister Scott Morrison to buy the injections, at billions of dollars, to then give them to the states, to indemnify the states, to also then provide the health monitoring data so that vaccine mandates could be introduced? The state premiers then said that they mandated vaccines on the basis of the national cabinet, which the Chief Medical Officer is associated with. Then we saw the former Prime Minister mandate vaccines in Defence, the Australian Electoral Commission and aged care. Then the former Prime Minister said repeatedly, daily, for two weeks, ‘We have no vaccine mandates in this country.’ It was a blatant lie. Did you do anything to stop him lying?

Prof. Murphy: I can’t comment on what the former Prime Minister said. I know he supported vaccine mandates in aged care and disability. That was very much a national cabinet position because of the high
vulnerability of the residents and workforce in those settings. I don’t believe national cabinet took a community-wide mandate approach. Various agencies—state, territory, Commonwealth and private sector agencies—made their own decisions about that. I don’t think it is fair to say that the TGA has been promoting vaccine mandates. It’s not their remit and they have never done it.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you do anything to stop it?

CHAIR: Thank you, Professor Murphy. Senator Roberts, I do need to share the call. Are you able to place the remainder of your questions on notice at this point?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

/2 Comments/by

TGA is Risking Your Health to Act as a Sales Agent for Big Pharma

,

A cheap, safe, award-winning, generic medicine, one that has been around for decades and was readily available, was shown to save people’s lives during an outbreak of a virus. Do you think it was a good decision for Australia’s Therapeutic Drug Administration (TGA) to arbitrarily ban its availability and off-label prescription in order to save it for skin conditions? Why not just buy more of it?

Despite substantial bodies of evidence from around the world, Australia did not recognise the available proof supporting Ivermectin’s use because no ‘sponsor’ (read pharmaceutical company) brought it to the TGA. What they did do was convene a Commonwealth-funded Clinical Evidence ‘Kangaroo Court’ which declared Ivermectin had no value in the treatment or prevention of COVID19.

This completely ignored a generation of evidence that Ivermectin was an effective early stage treatment for coronavirus.

The TGA continued to ignore the new data that showed Ivermectin was an effective and safe early treatment for COVID until the jab rate was over 95%, then they allowed its use. Here’s the kicker — the TGA admits in this video they made this decision because they were worried that people would not seek vaccination if they believed Ivermectin could help them.

Regulatory capture by pharmaceutical industries is a well known concept but I’m reassured that this “doesn’t happen at the TGA”. Yet in the same line of questioning, the TGA admits that if a pharmaceutical company sponsor does not promote a drug with them, and pay the fee of course, they don’t bother to show the initiative themselves.

This is purely a transactional process, as the TGA itself admits in this senate estimates. It’s clear that there is something very wrong with the system.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the TGA. In the last Senate estimates, I asked Adjunct Professor Skerritt if the TGA was inquiring into the opportunity presented by albicidin, a natural antibacterial derived from a sugarcane virus that does not cause antimicrobial resistance. Dr Skerritt’s response was: We are very closely monitoring the science. In fact, I’m the keynote speaker next Thursday at the Australian Antimicrobial
Congress…We haven’t had a submission relating to that product because it’s still very early days, but we are monitoring…antimicrobial resistance because…it’s a serious threat.

I was concerned that was a non-answer, so I asked the minister about it, in question on notice 1449. His response was: ‘The department of health is not conducting a review into albicidin.’ Can you clear this up, please? Are you treating albicidin as a prospective revelation in the battle against antimicrobial resistance, thoroughly deserving of active research and development?

Dr Langham: The normal manner in which the TGA evaluates and assesses a product for use is through a process whereby a sponsor brings us a product, with all of the relevant research, clinical trials and a dossier of its safety and quality, and that has not happened at this stage. Until someone comes to us with this, we’re not able to do anything in terms of furthering what could potentially be a really important treatment; we’re not able to further that, in terms of making it available to the public.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the department of health have any role, ability or authority to sponsor?

Prof. Murphy: Generally, no. Occasionally, we have taken the role of sponsoring in very difficult circumstances, when there’s a drug that’s registered and available and the sponsor doesn’t want to sponsor it. But
with an experimental new drug, we would never take that role. Occasionally, there are avenues for us to support drug development through MRFF and NHMRC research. There have certainly been programs that have looked at therapeutic advances in that space. But with a new agent or a new molecule, it would be quite inappropriate for us to take a role as a sponsor.

Senator ROBERTS: The TGA is 96 per cent funded by pharmaceutical companies through fees. Albicidin is a naturally occurring substance. Can it be patented? I would say not.

Prof. Murphy: We’d have to take that on notice. It depends on the use, and patent law is quite complicated. I can’t answer that.

Senator ROBERTS: My point is: would it get a sponsor to make an application? Drug companies rely a lot on patents and making excessive profits.

Dr Langham: You would expect so, absolutely.

Prof. Murphy: If it were proven to be highly effective, I would imagine that a drug company would be very interested in pursuing it, but—

Senator ROBERTS: Drug companies have shown that they’re only interested in profits—the major ones.

CHAIR: Please put that as a question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is a question.

CHAIR: What was the question?

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t that the case?

Prof. Murphy: No. Private companies all make a profit, but profits can often come by sponsoring highly effective new agents; that’s where they make their biggest profits. This is all highly speculative and I don’t know
that we can progress it much further.

Senator ROBERTS: The CSIRO has produced a guide to controlling antimicrobial resistance that assumes massive government power, including close monitoring and regulation of homes, pets, agriculture, waterways, new vaccines against diseases that used to be controlled by antibiotics and, of course, conferences. Antimicrobial resistance is being set up to be a massive government and pharmaceutical company gravy train. Why are you ignoring a probable solution to antimicrobial resistance? Do you want the power to order more vaccines, to wield more intrusive powers and to make more sales for big pharma, which is the history of the last few years?

Prof. Murphy: We reject that assertion. We completely accept the assertion that antimicrobial resistance is a significant problem. One of the ways that we have been, for many years, trying to combat it is to try to encourage prescribers in the use of antibiotics to reduce their use of antibiotics, which is not in the interests necessarily of the pharmaceutical industry. We are very keen to make sure that we limit the use of antibiotics to those situations where they are absolutely essential. There’s a lot of unnecessary prescription of antibiotics, and some of that is a real problem. We certainly have a lot of interest in antimicrobial resistance, and any new agent would be of interest to us. But we are not in a position to sponsor something like that.

Ms Duffy: We are in collaboration with the CSIRO in advancing their work and we have been involved in a number of CSIRO roundtables on this project that they’re going through, so we are working in lockstep with them.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s turn to medical or medicinal cannabis. My office is getting reports that prescriptions of dried medical cannabis issued under the pathways scheme are being endorsed with the phrase ‘for
vaping’, and that requires patients to also buy and use a vape. A doctor that my office spoke to has advised that this is a TGA instruction; is that correct?

Dr Langham: Medicinal cannabis products, with the exception of two of them, are not regulated as ‘medicinal products’ by the TGA. They are available under a special access scheme, and it’s a condition of the special access scheme that the practitioner who is approved to prescribe adopts all of the undertaking to ‘consent’ patients, to understand the research, to advise on side effects and so forth. The TGA does not regulate any of the medicinal cannabis products in Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you require someone who uses medical cannabis in dried form to purchase a vape— the device?

Dr Langham: It’s not our advice, no, and it would be coming from the medical practitioner, if the medical practitioner felt that there was a substance that was better done as an ointment, a tablet, a spray or a vape. I don’t know whether you’re able to add anything on vaping devices for that.

Ms Duffy: In terms of the method of delivery, it would be up to the treating practitioner to identify the most appropriate method for that patient.

Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?

Dr Langham: I’d need help on what’s in the act and what’s in the regulations.

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I didn’t understand all elements of that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want me to repeat it?

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: To list a product under the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods for prescription under schedule 4, there’s a prescribed process, which is not legislative. The steps, time frames and levels of proof of safety are all in regulation issued by the secretary under delegated powers, and much of the process isn’t even regulatory but administrative. Is that an accurate statement?

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: I don’t know that’s an entirely accurate statement. Some of the process is set out in primary legislation and some of it is set out in delegated legislation. But, yes, there are some administrative
policies that support the administration of the act.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the suspension of these processes by the minister and/or the secretary during COVID prove that the ARTG—the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods—process is whatever the secretary
or the minister says that it is?

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: That’s simply not the case. The secretary’s powers are bounded by the act and instruments made under the act, including regulations, which are made by the Governor-General.

Senator ROBERTS: COVID vaccines were not manufactured under good manufacturing process, GMP, so even this basic requirement for the approval of a drug is just a preference and not a legislated requirement, is it not?

Mr Henderson: For the provisional approvals of the vaccines, they needed to provide evidence that they were manufactured under good manufacturing practices.

Senator ROBERTS: But they weren’t. Could you get us a copy of that evidence, please?

Mr Henderson: I’ll have to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, fine. Referencing section 26BF of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, this ‘allows the minister to direct the operations of the secretary in respect of the scheduling and listing of products’. Minister, isn’t it true that the minister could down-schedule medicinal cannabis to schedule 4 and move the products approved for prescription under the pathways program onto the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods right now, if he wanted to? He might not intend doing that, but it is within the minister’s power, isn’t it?

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the minister could regulate right now to move medicinal cannabis to schedule 4. Thank you, Minister.

CHAIR: I believe that the witness is taking that on notice; is that right?

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: Yes. We can take it on notice, but I’ll just add that I don’t believe that power supports that. The usual process is that there has to be a legislative instrument, made under a power much further down in the act, to amend the Poisons Standard.

Senator ROBERTS: The way that I’ve been advised, I’m pretty confident that it’s just a ministerial regulation.

Dr Gilmour-Walsh: We can consider that further, but that’s not my general understanding.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, my office checked all the state legislation on prescribing and found much commonality. There is the use of a simple statement such as ‘prescriptions can be issued for anything listed in
schedule 4′. There is no separate state list of drugs. If medicinal cannabis were down-scheduled federally, the states would need to introduce legislation to over-rule that decision and then get that legislation through their own parliament; is that correct?

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, could the bill introduced by Senator Hanson to down-schedule medicinal cannabis be regulated right now, today, if the minister chose to do so? In other words: the legislation is not needed and the minister could just regulate.

Senator McCarthy: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Let’s come back to today. Today is a wonderful day to celebrate. Today is 1 June 2023. From 1 June 2023, the prescribing of oral ivermectin for off-label uses will no longer be limited to specialists such as dermatologists et cetera. It’s back and can be used off-label. I must note, to keep the secretary calm, that the TGA says that it does not endorse off-label prescribing of ivermectin for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. It doesn’t do that, but it can be used for that. Craig Kelly, a former member of parliament, contacted the office of the chief minister in Uttar Pradesh—Uttar Pradesh is a state in India—and
asked for guidance on how Uttar Pradesh had successfully used ivermectin to control the COVID virus in Uttar Pradesh. He received great information on their success. If a member of parliament, at the time, could reach out like that to be better informed, why didn’t the TGA reach out and be better informed on ivermectin?

Prof. Murphy: The TGA relies on the body of scientific evidence. Professor Langham can talk about that. We rely on the published scientific evidence and not the statement of a politician in India. Professor Langham, do you want to comment?

Dr Langham: Thank you. I guess it comes back to my earlier point that a drug, a medicine or a product that is on the ARTG is there for a specific indication. In this case, the specific indication for ivermectin—for which there’s been a dossier provided, evaluated by the TGA as robust, good clinical science—is that it is useful for the treatment of certain parasitic illnesses, be they gastrointestinal or skin based. No evidence has been presented to the TGA by the sponsor to demonstrate in any way, shape or form that ivermectin is useful in treating COVID-19. If the sponsor would like to do so, we’d be happy to consider that, because that’s the only way that the TGA is able to expand that indication.

Senator ROBERTS: Could I table these for discussion, please, Chair.

CHAIR: You can submit them to the committee for consideration. It’s going to take a while to work through them, by the look of it.

Senator ROBERTS: What is being distributed is an affidavit from Dr Pierre Kory in the United States. He has gone through this for many years and he has compiled many references—I think it’s over 96—that praise
ivermectin’s use in treating COVID. It’s been used in many countries and has stopped COVID in its tracks. It has been not only a treatment but also a prophylactic, to prevent the spread of the disease. This is my last question: are you aware of any successful programs overseas that used ivermectin to control the pandemic? Now you’ve got the evidence, Professor Langham.

Dr Langham: Obviously, there’s a very dense article here and a lot of different publications are being referenced. For me to pass judgement on this particular body of evidence, I’d need to take that on notice and get
back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased to hear you say that, because I wouldn’t want it done on the spur of the moment.

Dr Langham: Certainly not.

/2 Comments/by

Is the Referendum Rigged? Watch this

Is the Voice referendum RIGGED? Let’s talk about it.

Transcript

Is the referendum being rigged? 

The short answer is we don’t know. 

Yet there are many bad actors out there screaming very loudly, without the evidence, that the referendum is invalid or rigged. 

I’m worried some of our opponents in the Yes campaign are pushing these people to make you think it’s not worth turning up to vote. 

You may have seen the polls.  

The only way the Yes campaign can win at this stage is if people who are going to vote no, simply don’t turn up. 

It’s valid to be worried about the integrity of elections and the referendum. 

For years now, I’ve been working hard in the Senate to make improvements to Australia’s election integrity so that everyone’s vote is counted fairly. 

I’ve had some wins, and I’m still working hard on other unresolved issues. 

All of that work will mean nothing if people don’t turn up and write NO on the ballot paper in the first place. 

If you want to get more involved sign up as a scrutineer, in which your job is to watch the votes being counted and to make sure it’s done properly. 

Political parties can appoint scrutineers, apply to One Nation to become one today. 

Remember, voting is a few minutes of your day every few years. 

Can you do that for all our fellow Australians? And I promise to keep doing everything I can to make sure your vote is counted fairly. 

Stop Albanese’s proposal to divide Australia on race. On your referendum ballot paper write N-O.  

/2 Comments/by

My Speech at Small Business Association of Australia 2023

Small Business Association of Australia Conference, Melbourne, 22 September 2023

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you, Andrew. And I want to thank the organisers of this wonderful conference. And I want to thank every single person in this room for being here. It is a delight to be here with you. I enjoyed the two days up in Surfers a couple of years ago, Anne, fabulous. So I’ve decided to stay the whole two days as I did in Surfers.

I also want to acknowledge every Australian and I want to acknowledge every human, I’m very, very pro-human. Business and politics are all about humans. We seem to forget that at times. And people, I want to remind people of this, our constitution is the only constitution anywhere in the world in which the people have voted for the constitution. Did you know that? The only constitution. And who’s in charge of the constitution? The people of Australia. Very, very important.

Before speaking on industrial relations, there’s news I need to discuss. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese yesterday called for a review into the Commonwealth Government’s response to Covid. It breaks his promise to us all before the last election for a Royal Commission. The review lacks the power to compel witness testimony, to discover documents and lacks the power of indemnity that a Royal Commission enjoys, including the ability to protect witnesses. Extremely important.

Australia’s Covid response substantially damaged our whole small business sector and transferred $4 trillion of wealth from everyday Australians to the world’s most wealthy billionaires. The Albanese government has sold out small business owners hoping to see a Royal Commission make recommendations to protect small business next time, sold them out. Instead of justice and a clear statement of intent to defend his constituents’ freedom, the Prime Minister has framed an inquiry that will endorse the actions taken. In so doing, he encourages our autocrats to exceed their moral and legal authority even more next time.

This review is a dark day for small business and for those who understand that transparency and due process are the bedrock of a democratic society. And I made a promise in the Senate three years ago that I would hound down those responsible for this attack on small business and on personal freedom right across the country. Today I commit, I recommit to my promise to those responsible for the atrocities of COVID, I will hound you down.

Now turning to the point, to the hot topic of the moment, Labour’s deceitfully named, Closing Loopholes Bill, I’ll discuss that in the bigger picture. Labor’s set of reforms is just the next episode in a long list of policies crushing small business. The appalling state of our industrial relations system though isn’t only the Labour government’s fault. The slow motion car crash known as our industrial relations system has been unfolding for decades.

So let’s step back for a minute and assess the wider picture of industrial relations and how we got here. The Fair Work Act is 1,265 pages long. Double what it was just two years ago. It doesn’t even come in one book. For printing, it’s now split into two volumes. The government’s so-called Closing the Loopholes Bill is an additional 284 pages of new chapters and changes, plus an explanatory memorandum. That’s 521 pages of brief explanation of what the government is trying to do with each clause of its 284 page bill to change the 1,265 page act.

Now don’t feel ashamed if you’re struggling to keep up. Drafters want that. They want you confused. They want us confused. The Fair Work Act hasn’t been crafted with small business in mind. The act is littered with exceptions for small business, which is an implicit admission that the requirements are simply too onerous and burdensome for business to function.

In a sign of how out of touch our industrial relations system is, in some sections a small business is defined as less than 15 employees. One of our staff team in the Senate pointed out, the corner bakery that he worked for in high school had more than 15 staff. So how did we get here? Anne talked yesterday about the need for policy change. Anyone in business knows change is necessary. So why hasn’t it happened?

The Fair Work Act, to be blunt, is a Frankenstein child of decades of lobbying from what I call the industrial relations club. Remember this, the industrial relations club. The armies of consultants, industrial relations lawyers, union bosses, large industry associations and multinational corporations. Recognise them? All of these players benefit from industrial relations being made more complex, not easier. The lawyers want companies forced to employ them to make sense of the act. That means more fees. If employees and employers were instead allowed to talk with each other to agree on pay, union bosses wouldn’t be able to insert themselves in the middle and extract their pound of flesh, their cold, hard cash. Union bosses like to rope everyone into the expensive and deliberately difficult bargaining system.

The large industry associations and multinational corporations like to keep industrial relations complex. Complexity helps big companies keep out competition, especially from small business. The multinational corporations, the Bunnings, the Woolworths, the BPs can afford teams and teams of lawyers to make sure they’re ticking every box in the Fair Work Act no matter how complicated. Yet even they still get it wrong.

So what hope have small businesses got? Small operators simply don’t have the resources or the time to comply with all of the requirements that come with giving someone a job today. We see it every day. Many small businesses giving up and closing shop. You mentioned that yesterday, Anne, and you did it so well.

This is in large part due to the complexity that the industrial relations club has fabricated and forced on us. To summarise how we got here with this Frankenstein industrial relations framework, IR lawyers, industrial relations lawyers, like their fat fees, the more complex the legislation, the more money they make. Union bosses need ways to insert themselves into every agreement. Big corporations are fine with complexity because they can afford to comply and they know their competition in small business can’t. All these groups have a lot of money and a lot of lobbying power. They’re the ones making submissions to parliamentary inquiries, appearing in the media and lobbying politicians. They steer the national industrial relations conversation.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of small businesses across the country barely get a shoe in the door. In this area, I acknowledge the great work of groups like the Small Business Association of Australia with this wonderful conference. Thank you so much Anne, and your team, marvellous work.

Unfortunately, the huge lobbying power of the Canberra industrial relations club can drown out the good work of those few small business groups. In the end, union bosses, big corporates, consultants and IR lawyers all get a piece of the pie. The interests of small business and the productivity of our country are left in the dust. That’s how we get here and got here. As comedian George Carlin said, “It’s a big club and you ain’t in it.”

Now let’s generally discuss what we’re facing in the Albanese Labor government’s Closing the Loopholes Bill, the so-called Closing the Loopholes Bill. A chief concern that I have is that this bill is going to drive up costs for the small businesses which can least afford it. With no or little benefit for workers. There’s been little meaningful consultation with the small business sector. In fact, there’s been almost no consultation with anyone from this government.

The Labor government resisted sending this bill to an inquiry with enough time to investigate the effects of all the 805 pages of law and explanations. Thankfully, One Nation, as part of the Senate cross bench with the opposition, extended the inquiry report date to February, ensuring this bill will be properly investigated. We still need time to fully appreciate this bill’s effects, although an initial look makes very unpleasant reading.

The new bill includes changes to the definition of a casual worker. Although this may be beneficial, it will be the third definition in three years. Another example of just how off the rails is industrial relations. We face comprehensive changes to the so-called gig economy, blurring the distinction, the clear distinction between contractors and employees. For decades, businesses have relied upon well-defined tests and court decisions to understand the difference between employees and contractors. This bill seeks to introduce an entirely new third category. How this new category of employee-like contractors fits into our economy is still not clear. And it’s something we will investigate in coming months. It’s clear though that Labour has not thought it through, with many concerns already raised about the impact on anyone that holds an ABN.

Among the concerns raised with me already are whether business owners will be forced to make an assessment and pay their contractors’ superannuation and leave entitlements. Do these changes mean for example, a sole operator hairdresser will have to add a superannuation and leave loading as a line item on their invoice because their clients have regular appointments and will be treated as employees? Does a web developer who may be on a small retainer to update a small business website have to charge superannuation and leave loading to their client? Taken together across all the suppliers of services a business may use, how many full-time equivalent positions will a small business now have to in effect directly employ with all the overheads that entails? This is madness.

Many basic and concerning questions like this must be answered as we pick apart each chapter of this bill. And I’ll get onto the reason why they’re doing this. It’s got nothing to do with the reasons they’re saying. Even without the results of the coming inquiry, some portions of this bill are clearly wrong.

In particular, the potential open slather that this bill will enable for union bosses to intervene in the normal operation of small businesses. On the face of it, union bosses may be able to enter premises for the sole purpose of recruiting membership. If a union boss suspects wage theft or underpayment, they would have permission without notice to enter premises, including homes. How do we validate that an overzealous union boss’s suspicions are legitimate? And why should these powers be available to a union boss, not to the enforcement body, the Fair Work Commission? If a union boss abuses these powers, the only way a business could immediately challenge it is with a costly court application and lawyers’ fees. This used to be the job of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, the ABCC, that took misbehaving union bosses to court. Of course for doing such a good job and taking the burden off businesses, the Labour government disbanded the Commission.

Casual definition, gig economy contractors, union bosses powers are just some of the issues we’ve seen in Labor’s Closing the Loophole Bill. All 805 pages of law and explanation will require careful evaluation and we hope the Senate inquiry will give us the opportunity to do that so that we can weigh up all the pros and cons.

Now it’s true that there are some measures in this bill making it easier for first responders to receive PTSD compensation, protection for victims of domestic violence and measures to control silica health harms and the enhancement of industrial manslaughter laws that One Nation may be able to support once we more closely examine the legislation.

On principle, I will always stand for free enterprise over the government nanny state dictating every detail of what we can and can’t do in our lives and businesses. The key to pulling our country’s economy out of tough times is unleashing small businesses to do what you do best: delivering goods and services and employing everyday Australians to grow the wealth of our nation. Decades of regressive governments have done the opposite. It’s only gotten harder to make things and employ people, and small business feels that the most.

We’re witnessing one of the greatest wealth transfers in our history happening right before our eyes. Government policies are ripping money out of small businesses, out of our local communities and pumping up the profits of multinational corporations. Whether or not it’s the government’s intention to do this, it’s the undeniable chilling result of their policies. It’s fact.

Everyone remembers when every small business had to shut down during the deceitful Covid mismanagement. Yet Bunnings was allowed to stay open. Coles and Woolworths had record revenues, while hundreds of thousands of small businesses folded, families were destroyed. It’s a decades long attack, a decades long attack on small business and communities with major parties on both sides of the political aisle beholden to vested interests.

Our country’s industrial relations laws are harming the workers. Australians have always been told that this country’s industrial relations trade-off is to pay to protect workers. That’s why you put up with the pain. In reality, our current industrial relations framework makes it harder to do business while failing to protect workers. The complex powers of legislation often become box ticking exercises rather than genuine protections. Instead of fixing the cracks that workers are falling through, more complex legislation creates more loopholes for the big corporates with their teams of lawyers to make.

And as I’ve exposed in the Hunter Valley and Central Queensland, the mining union bosses are complicit, making money off stripping workers’ entitlements and basic protections. Union bosses stealing from workers, with the help of government and major corporations.

The fundamental problem is that no one can imagine and create an encyclopaedia of laws that will ever perfectly apply to every business, every employee in every situation. Yet the government says it can.

A shameful case I’ve been pursuing for over four years proves our industrial relations framework is not protecting workers, despite the huge burdens the system is putting on small businesses. The very union bosses who are meant to protect coal miners in the Hunter Valley have thrown workers to the wolves. Simon Turner was a miner injured on site. Under the Black Coal Award, he’s entitled to a safety net, compensation and minimum rates of pay. Instead, he was employed as a casual under a fraudulently endorsed enterprise agreement that union bosses and labour hire companies signed. And that is what this bill is protecting. There’s no loophole, all they have to do is enforce the Fair Work Act. The enterprise agreement stripped Simon of 40% of the pay he would have been entitled to in a permanent position. Workers’ compensation and sick pay gone. In fact paying less than the award and national employment standards.

The Hunter CFMEU entered into a written agreement with labour hire company Chandler Macleod to not pursue the Chandler Macleod company over any infringements of workers’ rights in relation to the agreement. Signed in writing. Soon after, almost half a million dollars changed hands from the multinational employer to the union.

Simon has been living without lawful compensation for nine years while totally and permanently disabled as a result of what his union did. I’ve been trying for four years to have these dodgy dealings punished and Simon and thousands of workers to get justice. It only needs enforcement of the current Fair Work Act using the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Yet even with the thousands of pages of industrial relations law and rock solid evidence of these issues, no one in their entire industrial relations system has yet been able to deliver justice to Simon. No one. Nor justice to thousands of miners. This is just one of the examples I’ve seen in our warped industrial relations system with its thousands of pages of laws and regulations failing to protect workers. Deliberately.

Those in our industrial relations system can’t see the forest for the trees. Don’t despair though. Despite all the problems I’ve talked about, I don’t want you to think I’m a pessimist or a cynic. I’m angry. And I’m determined. But I’m not a pessimist. In fact, my staff team are often gobsmacked about situations I see as optimistic and hopeful because I have enormous faith in humans.

It’s true that small business is one of the toughest jobs. It’s true that the government is making it much harder. To make things better, we first need to acknowledge the reality in which we find ourselves. Yet I believe we can unlock a prosperous and abundant Australia. And the proof of that lies in the facts and our history. Don’t believe it? We’ve already done it.

Early last century, Australia had the world’s highest per capita income in the world. I’ll say that again. Highest in the world. Australia wasn’t just punching above our weight, we were world champions. And simultaneously we were building infrastructure still in use. And students of history will be aware of the United States Lend-Lease programme for World War II. The Lend-Lease programme provided the war winning materials and products to the allied forces against Nazi Germany. What fewer people know about is reverse Lend-Lease in which Australia instead provided materials to the United States. In the 1940s with only seven million people Australia provided in today’s dollars $15 billion worth of wartime products and materials. That’s what this country did. And I see an honourable former service man right here. Thank you, Warren. A huge contribution of things we made here in Australia.

All of this was in addition to the contribution of troops we sent away to foreign lands. Australia today has enough energy resources, coal, oil, gas, uranium alone to keep our lights on for thousands of years and export globally. We are the number one exporters of energy in the world. That’s before we discover even more deposits. We are the world’s largest exporters of energy, yet we cannot use it here. Our country’s potential is nearly unlimited. We don’t need to send iron ore and coal mined here to China so they can use it to make steel wind turbines that we buy back from them and ship back to Australia and increase our power prices. We can make what we need here and forget about wind turbines. Just use the coal to make cheap electricity.

We can be the best in the world again, it just needs putting people with guts into parliament. Politicians who aren’t afraid to upset the vested lobbying interests, and instead have the country’s interest at heart. People not afraid to run a fire through our current industrial relations system and clean out the dead wood. People willing to call out the government’s destruction of small business. People willing to point out the United Nations net zero climate scam has taken us from the world’s cheapest power without wind and solar to now among the highest prices due to wind and solar. People willing to point out that the Reserve Bank is raising interest rates to send mortgage holders broke while trying to fight the inflation the Reserve Bank caused due to printing $500 billion out of thin air to respond to the government’s gross mismanagement on Covid. People willing to point out that we wouldn’t have a housing crisis in this country if net immigration wasn’t running at 460,000 a year, plus another 540,000 student visas, plus working visas totaling 1.2 million arrivals a year.

Now do you see why housing prices are shooting through roof and rentals are increasing? Every time I’m listening to constituents, to business owners like you, whether on the streets of the city or the streets of small rural towns, I see our economy’s heroes.

Please make submissions to the Senate inquiry, and write and call and visit your local MPs. They work for you. They’ve forgotten that. Just remind them. I see you, Australia’s small business owners, you will save this country and our economy just doing your job. That’s how you’ll save this country. I just want to get government out of the way so you can keep doing your job and so you can keep the rewards you are due. Thank you very much.

/1 Comment/by

Time to Burst the Bankers’ Club Bubble

At a recent Senate Banking Inquiry I spoke with Michael Lawrence, Chief Executive Officer of the Customer Owned Banks Association.

I know that many of our supporters hold the belief that more regulation will bring the banks under control. The truth is that the banks will always have smarter lawyers than the government. Regulation becomes a barrier to entry of new or small players wanting to compete with the big banks. At the same time, the big banks do whatever they want with only the occasional penalty that is clearly not enough to stop them.

The answer to this dilemma is a Government-owned bank that provides the existing banks with real competition by running the bank for the benefit of the customers and shareholders equally, rather than entirely for the benefit of shareholders, as the banks are doing at the moment. The difference will be especially noticeable in the areas of customer service and ethics.

Suncorp is the 6th largest bank in Australia. It is on the market for a bargain price of $4.9 billion. My proposal is for the government to buy Suncorp Bank outright using the Future Fund and re-purpose it to provide the full range of banking services through Bank@Post.

This would offer real competition to the big banks. By running the Post Office Bank using a modified Code of Practice it guarantees the customer a bank that will not behave like greedy, immoral, profiteering crony capitalists.

That would be a refreshing change.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Mr Lawrence and Ms Elliott, for returning today. You made some comments about regulation, Mr Lawrence. Would less regulation lead to more competition and better service?

Mr Lawrence: We don’t advocate for less regulation, because we need to be regulated in the same manner as any bank. What we ask is that it be targeted at the objective. It needs to take into consideration business models. It needs to take into consideration the size and the complexity, rather than a broadbrush—Senator ROBERTS: Are the big four banks hiding behind excessive regulation that is really a barrier to entry for your smaller banks?

Mr Lawrence: I can’t speak for the big four banks. What I can say—

Senator Roberts: I am asking you for your opinion on the regulation of the big four banks, not to speak for the big four banks.

Mr Lawrence: The big four banks are facing the same regulation, but it gets magnified because of their size and complexity. They do have more resources to put towards that regulation and compliance. As I said, it comes back to the size of ours. You only have to go back to October 2021. In one month, we had design and distribution obligations land, we had open banking time lines to be met and we had three recommendations of the royal commission. If you are a customer-owned bank with 20, 50, 100 or 1,000 staff, that’s a significant amount of regulation that takes you away from focusing on your customer. It’s that proportionality.

Senator Roberts: Did you see my questioning of the CommBank chief executive, Mr Comyn, this morning?

Mr Lawrence: Yes, I did.

Senator Roberts: I put it to him that the regulations are a barrier to entry for anyone outside the big four banks.

Mr Lawrence: My opinion is that the complexity of regulation that we have today would be deemed to be somewhat of a barrier for new entrants.

Senator Roberts: I go to your letter which accompanied your submission. You say:

Solutions that help, not hurt
Two policy solutions canvassed by stakeholders—a Government-owned bank and a community service obligation—would be anti-competitive interventions detrimental to our sector’s ability to provide services for regional communities.

On page 10 of your submission you say:
The attractiveness of an Australia Post Bank with an explicit government guarantee for customer deposits would almost certainly reduce deposit flows to privately owned banks…

Are you aware that all bank deposits of COBA members are already covered by the government’s Financial Claims Scheme bank guarantee?

Mr Lawrence: Yes, they are covered.

Senator Roberts: Yes. It says so on your website. Are your words, then, an acknowledgement that the Financial Claims Scheme is underfunded and never likely to be used?

Mr Lawrence: I am aware of the Financial Claims Scheme. Do I think it will ever be used? I think if you look at the people who are funding it, they are not necessarily the ones that are at risk. It could well be used.

Senator Roberts: Could you explain that?

Mr Lawrence: I don’t have the list of everyone who is funding the Financial Claims Scheme, but there are organisations that aren’t as heavily regulated that could be the recipient.

Senator Roberts: Of the Financial Claims Scheme guarantee money?

Mr Lawrence: Not of the deposit guarantee, if that’s what you are referring to.

Senator Roberts: Yes; not of that?

Mr Lawrence: Not of that. To have a guarantee on deposits, you have to be an authorised deposit-taking institution, and therefore you are fully regulated.

Senator Roberts: The proposal One Nation has raised is to ask the Future Fund to purchase Suncorp bank and operate the bank commercially, under a modified Banking Code of Practice that guarantees face-to-face service, cash availability and the provision of service guarantee—a code you would be free to use as well. Then Suncorp could expand its services through Bank@Post. I note your objections to a government-owned bank and to Australia Post becoming a bank. Which, if any, of these objections would relate to the Suncorp proposal that I just outlined?

Mr Lawrence: We haven’t taken a position on the Suncorp merger, if that’s your question.

Senator Roberts: No. My proposal is for the Future Fund to purchase Suncorp bank and to operate the bank commercially, under a modified Banking Code of Practice.

Mr Lawrence: The question to us is?

Senator Roberts: Have you got any objections to that?

Ms Elliott: It is something we would need to consider. We have fantastic banks in Queensland ready to serve the public. We wouldn’t be looking for a government-backed intervention that would be to the detriment of the existing competitive market that involves customer-owned banks.

/4 Comments/by

Nobody is Immune to this Labour Hire Fix

This is my latest letter to Tony Burke, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations.

I’ve been pursuing an outcome and accountability in this horrific labour hire case for over three years now. This is the immoral saga of a mine owner in bed with the union, which has its claws into superannuation, and the government is deliberately turning a blind eye. Workers are getting swindled. Simon Turner was done out of his entitlements, his health, his job and his life. There is an $8 billion black hole hiding in plain sight. 

You might think it won’t affect you. It’s just mining companies wanting cheaper labour. The union’s are happy to comply and they get a cut on the side. This rip-off needs a thorough investigation. People are no longer protected by the government, their unions, industrial relations laws, and certainly not by these corrupt foreign companies.

If this can happen to Simon Turner and hundreds of others in the Australian coal industry, it can just as easily happen to you.

HonTonyBurke-MR190923Download
/1 Comment/by

Calvary Hospital Taken Over Suddenly

In the wake of the sudden and unjust takeover by the ACT Labor-Greens government of Calvary Public Hospital, the Senate conducted a public hearing inquiry.

I asked questions of a representative from the hospital. It is unusual that due process was not followed and a long-term contract was removed without consultation.

Calvary had a very strong workplace culture with well-supported values. It was more than a location for people of faith, and staff often described working there like they were part of a family.

People are deeply upset by this compulsory acquisition and the reasons that could be behind such a move at this time.

I asked the ACT’s Minister for Health questions about the specific reasons behind this move. The answers don’t match the sudden nature of the takeover, as you will hear.

What is clear though is the ACT government does not welcome any interference in its ability to exercise its own powers.

/4 Comments/by

WAGGA WAGGA: Vote No!

Join me at the Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre on 26 September 2023, where I will be speaking in support of the “NO” campaign in the upcoming referendum.

Seats are limited so reserve yours now at: https://www.civictheatre.com.au/…/vote-no!-voice-to…, or by calling 02 6926 9688, or in person at the box office.

Tuesday, 26 September 2023

6 pm

Wagga Wagga Civic Theatre

Burns Way (off Tarcutta Street)

Wagga Wagga NSW 2650

/by