Not in Front of the Children!

When family department stores and online shops display books that are designed to groom children about sex, we have to say – this is not acceptable!

The Australian Classification Board is failing children miserably.

This is a graphic book about sex that has been designed and deliberately marketed to young children.

This is not about book-burning. This is about protecting children’s innocence and letting them have their childhood.

Government and unelected bureaucrats are now interfering in children’s lives. Parents have the right to decide what’s best for their children.

Leave our kids alone!

/14 Comments/by

Fair Work Fails Exploited Workers

,

This is a case of the Ombudsman adding insult to injury.

In the May 2023 Senate Estimates I asked the Fair Work Ombudsman how their office decided that Ready Workforce could be a person’s employer when payslips, PAYG summaries, employer Super contributions and all ATO records indicated that the true employer was Chandler MacLeod, a labour hire company.

Apparently the investigation is continuing.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Ms Parker, is it true that, prior to your position at the Fair Work Ombudsman, you were the assistant secretary for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations?

Ms Parker: I was Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations Group.

Senator Roberts: In your role as a deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were you aware of the appropriation monies that the department sent to Coal Long Service Leave?

Ms Parker: Yes, I was.

Senator Roberts: Were you involved in the production of documents table for the annual financial reports for the department whilst in that role?

Ms Parker: In terms of the Coal Long Service Leave, that agency provide its own reports and its own financial reports.

Senator Roberts: But, given that you were the deputy, wouldn’t you have taken an interest in something that was worth a few hundred million dollars?

Ms Parker: We’re going back a way, but it was part of the overall reporting, for example under the annual report. But they were independent, in that sense. They were an agency that managed their own resources, so we didn’t have—

Senator Roberts: But you compiled the report.

Ms Parker: No, not for their own financial—

Senator Roberts: Not for their part, but you compiled their report into your department’s.

Ms Parker: That’s generally speaking. I’m just trying to think back. Our own finance area within the department looked at every single outcome, so, while they sat under the workplace relations auspice, if you like, the financial arrangements and et cetera were done through our finance and corporate areas in the department.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman reported Simon Turner to New South Wales Police recently about a document?

Ms Parker: I’ve not heard that.

Senator Roberts: He was contacted by the police. He wondered what was going on, and the police said it was in regard to an email he sent. I think it was to Robert Evans, Fair Work Ombudsman investigator. Mr Turner then read the email to the police. The police then said he’d been through the wringer and ended by saying there was no need to see him. Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman involve the police?

Mr Scully: I recall the email. I looked at it. I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I was concerned about the language in it, and I was concerned about Mr Turner’s welfare based on that language. So I asked for a welfare check to be done by the New South Wales police on that person.

Senator Roberts: Given what he’s been through, I have the utmost admiration for Mr Turner. He’s very, very solid.

Ms Parker: He is, but there are times when we get aggressive, abusive emails—

Senator Roberts: I’m not criticising Mr Scully.

Ms Parker: That was this occasion. I take those things very seriously, and it’s not acceptable. I understand he has had some stress—

Senator Roberts: Stress? Wow.

Ms Parker: I understand, but it doesn’t entitle him to be aggressive towards Fair Work Ombudsman staff.

Mr Scully: If I can clarify, that was for a welfare check. I asked for a welfare check on Mr Turner to be arranged by the New South Wales police.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Mr Scully: To clarify that further, it wasn’t in respect of any interactions he had had with the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was the language within his email. I was actually concerned about his welfare.

Senator Roberts: How long has this investigation been going? I understand it’s been underway since 2018.

Mr Scully: I haven’t got the exact date in front of me, but it has been ongoing. Mrs Volzke might have some more information.

Mrs Volzke: There have been a number of inquiries or requests for assistance made by Mr Turner. The initial one, as I understand it, was subsequently completed, but then there are other concerns that he has more recently raised about pay slips, as you know. That investigation is still ongoing, but we hope to be in a position to finalise it shortly.

Senator Roberts: I hope so.

Chair: I’m a bit reluctant to be talking in detail about an individual. If it’s helpful, Senator Roberts, maybe we can talk about the particular case you’re taking forward, rather than the individual. I also might have a bit of a discussion with the committee. I don’t think this should be on—

Senator Roberts: Mr Turner has given me his permission to divulge his name so that the case is clear.

Ms Parker: I would say that I know that you may not agree but the Fair Work Ombudsman staff have put an enormous amount of time and effort into this matter and have taken it very seriously. It’s a complex issue—

Senator Roberts: Very complex.

Ms Parker: and I hope you’d appreciate we have been doing a lot of work to try to assist. It has been going on, as you said, for some time, but it’s not a simple matter.

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could ask that question of yourself after I ask the next few questionsinvolving one of your Fair Work Ombudsman investigators. Mr Robert Evans has a—

Ms Parker: Sorry, Senator; I thought we had agreed we wouldn’t talk about individuals. I’m very happy for you to talk about an inspector. I’d really prefer you didn’t name him. There have been some issues, as I mentioned before, including some aggressive behaviour towards my inspector.

Senator Cash: Chair, I don’t think Senator Roberts deliberately did that—

Chair: Absolutely not.

Senator Cash: but I think you are right, going forward, given the nature of the issues.

Chair: Yes. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been given, can we be very mindful of the appropriateness of going into any details.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has an ATO document that states Ready Workforce was not the aggrieved miner’s employer?

Mrs Volzke: As I said, there is still an ongoing investigation in relation to the tax documentation and how that goes to the true employing entity of a particular individual. As you know, we’ve been looking at those issues and trying to engage not only with Mr Stephens and Mr Turner but also with the ATO. I’ll have to take on notice the question about that particular document that you refer to. I have to say I have no knowledge of it.

Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has been given a copy of a court decision that states that Chandler Macleod was the true employer of the aggrieved miner and not Ready Workforce?

Mrs Volzke: The name of the case escapes me at the moment, but what I would say is that that was a case that was particular to the individual in that matter. It’s not necessarily the case that you can extrapolate from those findings in that matter about a particular person and say that that must mean the same conclusions will be made in relation to—

Senator Roberts: I would strongly disagree with you. You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s quite clear tome. Can you explain how a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator could come to a decision that Ready Workforce, ABN 037, was the aggrieved miner’s employer?

Mrs Volzke: Again, talking at a broad, general level, whenever we’re trying in one of our investigations towork out who the employer is, the first place to start is always: what is the contract of employment that is enteredinto? It is from that that we work out where the entitlements flow. That’s on the basis of a number of High Courtcases—Rossato, Jamsek, Personnel—but even the current definition of casual in section 15A of the Fair WorkAct essentially gets you to the same place.

Senator Roberts: I understand you have to check, but the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision is in direct conflict with all the evidence documents given to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator, which showed payslips, PAYG summaries, tax documents, employer super contributions, Coal LSL contributions and all ATO records held by the aggrieved miner, who was paid his wages by Chandler Macleod using ABN 052.

Mrs Volzke: Again, we obviously don’t want to get into details, but you start with the proposition that, on the basis of the documentation at the time, that employment was entered into. Unless there’s a variation or some other sham or estoppel mechanism that casts doubt on that, those other matters don’t necessarily displace that. You’ll also know that we have made inquiries with the relevant employer in this case, as well, to seek an explanation about the discrepancy in relation to their ABN being on those pay slips.

Senator Roberts: The court ruling also stated that Chandler Macleod, ABN 052, was the true employer. The court affidavit showed that the mine contract was with Chandler Macleod and all payments from invoices from the mine went to Chandler Macleod, ABN 052. On this basis, I can’t see how it’s possible at all for your Fair Work Ombudsman investigator to arrive at a decision that is in direct conflict with all of this evidence.

Mrs Volzke: Again, Senator, I think you’re quoting that particular court case, which was in relation to another individual, and drawing conclusions. I would reiterate what Ms Parker has already said. We are doing the most thorough investigation that we can. We understand the concerns that have been raised. I don’t really know—

Senator Roberts: They’ve been raised, alright—with the Fair Work Commission; with the Fair Work Ombudsman; with the CFMMEU in the Hunter; with the local Labor MPs, state and federal; with the Attorney-General’s Department twice; with senators; with coalmines insurance; with Coal LSL; with state departments looking after safety, reporting injuries, workers compensation—

Mrs Volzke: It may well be in those—

Senator Roberts: He’s taken it up with me, and I’m the only one who has persisted. And it’s taken me four years to get to this point.

Mrs Volzke: It may well be that, in terms of what you’ve described, particularly in labour hire industrieswhere there are complex employment and corporate arrangements, it may be easier for there to be complexity inworking out who the employer is. I think these are issues that the government is looking at also, in the context of’same job, same pay’.

Senator Roberts: A hell of a lot of government departments have looked at it, and they just don’t do anything. They don’t come back with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They just don’t do anything, and yet they’ve given him assurances along the way. There have been so many parasites who’ve made money off these people along the way.

Mrs Volzke: Senator, as I’ve told you as well, it’s our job as the regulator to apply the law, and that’s what we’re doing our very best to do here.

Senator Roberts: Well, it’s a bloody slow process. This man and one of his mates, who’s in a similar position, have been to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations recently and had two briefingswith their senior people. The last was two weeks ago, and they still haven’t got back to him—not even anything.They were impressed with what he said and what he gave—but nothing. So I’d like to table this document, Chair.It’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley.

Chair: You have another four minutes, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: That should do it. This is a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District. That’s Hunter Valley CFMEU, if you like, with a few mines outside the Hunter Valley. I’ll read out clause (c), which is at the top of the second page:The CFMEU and Chandler Macleod would present this EA—that’s enterprise agreement—to employees for their consideration, noting that both parties support the approval of the proposed EA and a vote would beheld as soon as possible, and as early as 7 May 2015 seeking employees to endorse the proposed EA—There’s an understanding of an agreement between the CFMEU in Hunter and Chandler Macleod, the employer. Clause (d) states:The CFMEU would agree—this is what the employer is saying, in their understanding—to cease from any current and future actions and claims (in its own right or on behalf of members) directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coal mining production work may be entitled to “leave and other entitlements” associated with permanent employment or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their “lawful terms and conditions”. The union obviously agreed with this, because it went further. The union and Chandler Macleod are clearly colluding to strip entitlements and pay off workers at Mount Arthur mine. If it is the case that unions, purporting to represent miners, are actually colluding with employers and if all these government agencies are not doing their job over many years, what the hell does this man do?

Ms Parker: I have not finished, and we have been—

Senator Roberts: I certainly haven’t. I’ve got three aims. I’ll tell you about them later, if you like.

Ms Parker: We anticipate being in a position to finalise these in the near future, as we’ve said, and we’re still working on this. I’m sorry it’s so frustrating, but we have not stopped looking at it.

Senator Roberts: It’s more than frustrating. It’s damn painful. It’s hurting a lot of people in Central Queensland and in the Hunter and elsewhere.

Ms Parker: We understand, but we do have to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what we’re trying to do.

Senator Roberts: Are you aware of the many connections between various involved entities? For example, the lawyer representing the CFMEU in a case was Jennifer Short, who’s on the Coal Long Service Leave Board. She was employed as the CFMEU lawyer. These are just some of the interactions. There are many interactions between mining industry groups, mining companies, labour hire companies and the CFMEU in the Hunter. Are you aware of the many interconnections? You are now.

Ms Parker: Well, I think so. Certainly it’s not particularly relevant to our investigation, but it’s context.

Mrs Volzke: Certainly. Senator, the two clauses that you read out from that Chandler Macleod letter—when an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, which I’m assuming is what occurred here, then we take it as a given that it’s gone through the processes that need to occur within the commission. I know that Mr Furlong—

Senator Roberts: Mr Turner’s evidence shows that it hasn’t gone through correctly. It could not have gone through correctly, because it doesn’t comply.

Ms Parker: We heard our evidence this morning with the Fair Work Commission on that, which is theirresponsibility. We did listen to that.

Senator Roberts: Minister, quite clearly, the Fair Work Act has failed. It needs not just comprehensive reform; it needs replacement. We need something that is short, simple and clear, that workers can understand, that small businesses can understand and that is actually useful not to the industrial relations club but to the actual workers who need to be protected. Workers like these guys that we’re protecting in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are without any protection right now. What’s going on with these people is stuff that would come from a Third World country or Australia 100 years ago. It’s unfathomable. I was shocked when I saw it. What is even more shocking now is that no-one can address it. That’s the Fair Work Act and its systems.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you’ve heard from Ms Parker that the ombudsman is investigating thesematters. But, as I said to you before, the government agrees that the Fair Work Act needs a major overhaul tobetter protect the rights of workers and to close loopholes that exist at the moment, many of which you havetalked about. I think, Senator Roberts, you know that I’ve spent a fair bit of time in coalmining regions inQueensland where we’ve seen a lot of exploitation of coalminers, and that was allowed to go on under the formergovernment. So we hope that we can count on your support when it comes to the amendments that we’re puttingforward.

Senator Roberts: You’ll get my support for amendments that actually fix the issue, not prolong it and add more complexity. The problem with this Fair Work Act is its inherent complexity. That’s what has enabled the IR club, some union boss, some large unions, industry groups, employers, consultants, HR practitioners, lawyers and bureaucrats to feed off this monster. It’s the loopholes in the details. If you keep addressing loopholes, you’ll just create more loopholes. We need something that’s gutting the Fair Work Act and replacing it with something for workers and industrial productivity.

/1 Comment/by

Labor’s War on Freedom of Speech

Labor’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a direct attack on freedom of speech.

With the government taking aim at free speech and threatening the very foundations of our democracy, it’s vital that we stand against this bill. We must fight to protect our fundamental right to express ourselves.

There is a major problem with this bill and it is far more than just a slippery slope for our civil liberties. It is highly subjective in its definition of what constitutes ‘misinformation’ – in fact, ‘misinformation’ will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. That’s why it is being called ‘Orwellian’ with references to ‘The Ministry of Truth’ which featured in the novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell.

The information censorship being sought by this bill could easily include legitimate criticisms of the government, questions about the science underpinning climate change ideology, questions about high immigration, questions about gender dysphoria, and the ‘no’ campaign against the voice to Parliament. When the ‘truth’ becomes a subjective tool for the government of the day, you have to ask, who will be fact-checking the fact-checkers?

Petition (scroll down to sign)

https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech

Free Speech Conference

Reserve your seat here: https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech-bne

Transcript

Fight Labor’s War on Freedom of Speech.

Freedom of Speech is an essential human right and the fundamental principle of Australian democracy.

Labor’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a direct attack on freedom of Speech.

This legislation targets everyday Australians, independent media and non-government political parties while carving out protections for government, mainstream Big Brother media and approved organizations.

It would give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) draconian powers to silence critics of the government and impose fines up to $6.8 million on social media platforms if, in ACMA’s opinion, they have not done enough to prevent the dissemination of what ACMA considers to be misinformation or disinformation.

The big problem with this bill is its highly subjective definition of what constitutes misinformation. Basically, misinformation will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. This could easily include legitimate criticisms of the government. Questions about the so-called science underpinning climate change ideology, questions about high immigration, questions about gender dysphoria, and statements for the No campaign against the voice to Parliament.

Don’t believe for a second the senior Liberal-Nationals Coalition figures opposing Labor’s bill, because when they were in government the coalition proposed very similar legislation just before the last election. The major party’s hidden agenda is the protection of their two-party system. They’ve watched votes leaked to minor parties and independents over the years and they’re desperate to close down our communication efforts.

If this bill is passed, you could even be saying goodbye to the Please Explain cartoon series.

We must take a stand for freedom of speech, we must fight for it. As Thomas Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time. Freedom requires constant vigilance.

Making sure that hard won individual freedoms endure in our society requires constant vigilance.

You can help defend freedom of speech in Australia by putting your name to One Nation’s petition against Labor’s anti free speech censorship bill.

We urge you to sign our petition and make this the biggest in Australia’s history, this issue is that serious.

Yet it goes well beyond that. We’re gathering One Nation members of Parliament and esteemed independent speakers from around Australia for a conference in Brisbane on August 26th. More details are to come.

We’re energized and ready to take this to the Liberal-Labor Uni-Party.

Let’s help Pauline Hanson’s One Nation protect the most important of individual human rights.

/16 Comments/by

WHO has been Bought by Predatory Billionaires

What went wrong?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) was established in 1948 to improve health outcomes in developing nations. Since the appointment of Tedros Ghebreyesus as Director-General in 2017, WHO has undergone a complete change of direction.

The WHO is now a means to advance the wealth and power of predatory billionaires like Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies who make huge sums out of the health responses WHO promotes.

At the same time, its staff are unsupervised, with some engaging in child sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation. I have spoken about this in Parliament (links to those speeches are below).

Now the WHO and its billionaire backers are ramping up their profiteering by promoting new powers that will allow the WHO to increase the use of products these billionaires make.

The proposed treaty

In September 2022 the United States, supported by Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, proposed a Treaty enabling the WHO to have the power to take over member states’ health measures, allowing the WHO to mandate health measures directly on everyday Australians.

Proposed measures include compulsory vaccination through mandatory detention and forced medical procedures. Other measures include the power to order border closures (including internal borders such as between Australian states), shutdowns for businesses & schools, international vaccine passports, restrictions on product sales (such as those which may compete with approved pharmaceuticals) and much more.

The Treaty would also elevate the billionaire owners of the WHO to full member status as “stakeholders”, meaning Pfizer for instance could vote on declaring a health emergency and mandating Pfizer vaccines.

Fortunately, the constitution of the World health Organisation prevented their executive simply signing off on these new powers. The only body that can change the rulebook at the WHO is an assembly of all 194 members states, called a World Health Assembly (WHA).

International Health Regulations (IHR)

Tedros Ghebreyesus responded to the proposal by appointing the IHR Working Group to oversee the changes from a procedural perspective, and an IHR Review Committee with leading WHO health experts from around the world to flesh out the actual detail.

In December of 2022, Ghebreyesus called a special meeting of the World Health Assembly to adopt these measures. However, resistance from the African bloc prevented the changes from passing.

It is important to understand the WHA does not vote, they work off consensus. While the 42-strong African bloc are only 24% of the membership, a measure which only has the support of 76% of the Assembly does not have “consensus”, so the proposal was not voted in – instead it was deferred.

The IHR Review Committee was then tasked with refining the proposal for discussion at the May 2023 WHA before a final vote in the WHA set for May, 2024.

The Committee initially reported in January 2023 that the amendments to elevate the WHO as ‘world health police’ should proceed. However, their report was greeted with such strong opposition they immediately backtracked.

In February 2023 the Committee issued a final report which withdrew the onerous parts of the regulation changes that impacted human rights and dignity and left behind just the commonsense recommendations based on lessons learned during COVID.

The Committee also pointed out the WHO charter explicitly calls on the WHO to be a voluntary organisation that must be invited in by host nations. Giving WHO powers to compel is a direct breach of their charter and should prevent the proposed changes from passing.

The Committee went on to say the proposal has cost the WHO significant loss of goodwill and would take them away from their core business of providing health support.

This is the “victory” I mentioned in a video in early February 2023, which is being posted up by some people on social media 6 months later as though it were current news and without the context I provided. This is misleading people for clicks and subscriptions.

The one part that was left in the IHR amendments was the section that allowed for a global digital health certificate. However, the current wording only allows the WHO to co-operate when someone else introduces a digital ID, it does not allow the WHO to introduce one. This is why the WHO are partnering with the EU Digital Health Certificate, which nations around the world are adopting of their own accord.

So please be clear, the fight over a digital health passport is not with the WHO, the fight is with any national government that introduces a digital ID or digital vaccine passport.

The WHO has no power to mandate the use of digital ID or vaccine passports, our own governments are doing this to us by themselves, with the UN cheering them on, of course.

Australia has not announced plans yet. One Nation will campaign strongly against any form of digital ID/Health passport should the Labor Government attempt to introduce one.

Where to from here?

This is where the good news ends. Undeterred by the Committee’s change of heart the pharmaceutical lobby has pushed forward with their attempts to use health as a weapon against the people. A new proposal was introduced – a “World Pandemic Treaty” which would give the WHO the same powers their own Committee just recommended against.

The treaty actually goes further than the regulation changes by expanding the definition of “pandemic” to mean health, social or environmental emergencies. This would without a doubt include climate change and allow global health powers to be exercised across multiple events on a permanent basis.

The other issue with the Treaty is that it comes into force the minute it is signed. This is a new concept, previously any UN treaty had to be ratified by the Parliament in each member state first. This change leaves us exposed to the whims of our representatives in Australia’s permanent mission to the UN.

The evolving pandemic treaty

In May of 2023 the World Health Assembly (WHA) met and considered the two proposals – the International Health Regulation (IHR) changes and the Pandemic Treaty. The result was no decision. The Assembly kept to the published timetable which was a final vote in May of 2024.

To be clear, the WHO have no new powers. The IHR amendments are not in force and the Pandemic Treaty is not in force. The Treaty has been re-named as an “instrument” to make it sound better, but the powers to compel nations to follow WHO mandates are still in the proposal.

For those who ask, “how could the WHO force us to do anything?” the answer is through sanctions. Russia was recently sanctioned by the UN using the UN-adjacent SWIFT payment system, effectively blocking Russia from making or receiving payment for exports and imports. The SWIFT charter requires it to follow sanctions received from the UN. Iran was sanctioned in this manner in 2012, at great cost to their economy.

Looking ahead – the Committee is being called back to consider the feedback on all these changes that came out of the recent WHA. They resume work in November 2023. We can expect to see a working document by January 2024 and a final recommendation by March 2024, which will then be decided at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. That timetable has not changed.

I also note that Australia’s Chief Medical Officer has called this timetable “ambitious”, so there is no guarantee the matter will be resolved within this timetable.

The United Nations must feel the proposal faces an uphill battle because they have now introduced their own version of a Treaty. At this stage it is only a treaty “framework”, which sets out how the actual Treaty will be written.

With almost a year to go before the 2024 WHA it is too soon to start a campaign given the proposal may (and I expect will) change when the Committee resumes their work at the end of the year.

For now, it is important to make the public, media and our elected representatives understand that the WHO is a corrupt, festering cancer on world health and should be disbanded or at the very least, purged of Tedros Ghebreyesus and his henchmen.

One Nation strongly opposes signing away our national sovereignty to an unelected and corrupt United Nations agency.

Feel free to use the information in this article and in the videos below, and let your local member and Senator know what you think of the WHO and the terrorist in charge.

About the IHR: https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1

Proposed Amendments: WGIHRDownload

Critical committee report: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Recommendations accepted at the May WHA: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic

Zero draft of the Pandemic Treaty: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf

All the changes that were agreed to in May of 2023: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA76/A76_9Rev1-en.pdf

Full agenda of WHA76 – https://apps.who.int/gb/e/e_wha76.html

Some of my recent speeches in Parliament on the UN’s WHO

/8 Comments/by

Does the ADF really think electric vehicles can defend our nation?

,

I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.

I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments.  The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.

Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?

Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —

Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.

Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.

Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.

Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.

Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.

Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.

Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.

Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?

Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.

Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?

Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.

Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.

Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.

Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?

Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.

Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?

Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.

Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—

Senator Roberts: Solar panels?

Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.

Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?

Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.

Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?

Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.

Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.

Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.

Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.

/21 Comments/by

The Outrage Brigade Strikes Again 😉 😲

,

The left are trying to cause fake outrage with an edited video of me quoting the bible in a speech, falsely claiming I’ve called for the execution of trans people. It’s absurd, given I’ve already talked about trans people I call my friends.

As Labor tries to implement its new “ministry of truth” against misinformation, you can bet the wave of victimhood claims will drown out any of the real truth.

Voltaire said “Truly, whoever can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities”

/14 Comments/by

Stop the Lies and Dirty Deals Stealing from Miners!

My letter to Tony Burke MP, Minister for Employment & Workplace Relations, dated 26 June 2023 is clear on the facts that workers were deliberately exploited.

When union bosses collude with dishonest multi-national employers and unaccountable government agencies, workers are left with no protection.

I have been working for four years to reverse the serious violations stripping workers of their rights, protections and entitlements.

That’s why I continue, after almost four years, to champion tens of thousands of workers across Queensland and in the Hunter Valley, NSW.

Why have Labor & Liberal-National federal and state governments ignored basic questions?

Stop the rot, Minister Burke. The ball is now in your court.

230626-HonTonyBurke-1Download
/2 Comments/by

Election Integrity FAQ

We receive many questions about the integrity of elections and observations from members of the public and volunteers at polling booths.

We investigated the many concerns that people have and provide answers to the most common questions asked.

If you have further questions, please feel free to contact us.


Click Here for FAQ

Q1: The count for elections and referendums is undertaken by over 100,000+ temporary election workers. Is it possible that political activists can work their way into responsible positions in the AEC to interfere with ballot box content? 

A1: This is true, however the degree by which this affects the result is likely to be small, if at all, for two reasons: 

(a) The ability to make a significant change in results is limited by AEC procedures. 

(b) Activist involvement is compensatory. This means one party may influence a booth in one location, whereas an opposing party will do the same elsewhere. This is not ideal but it renders such fraud pointless, which is why little actual proof exists of such things occurring. 

Q2: The AEC claims its processes are open and transparent. Surely this can only be true if all staff are honest, which in the present highly charged political environment is unlikely. Is election integrity being assessed on a staff basis? 

A2: The behaviour of the AEC over the three years my team has been scrutinising their operations is anything BUT open and transparent. It is because the AEC refuse to answer in a full and honest manner that there is a lack of confidence in their operation. 

In a booth of any significant size however, the AEC staff are most likely to keep each other honest because of those competing political sympathies.  

We do not believe the integrity issue is a staff-based one, rather the issue is in their systems and specifically the quality of the voter roll and security over ballots and electronic records during counting. 

Q3: AEC supervisors leave temporary election workers without direct monitoring despite claims by the AEC that this does not occur. Supervisors are seen chatting outside polling stations leaving temp staff unsupervised. Why is this not addressed? 

A3: It would be unlikely that the booth Supervisor was the only experienced person there, however any specific examples of this should be reported to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.

Q4: An AEC supervisor was seen with a bundle of ballot-box sealing zip-ties all with the same serial number and was seen taking ballot boxes home from the pre-poll. Why are they getting away with this? 

A4: Zip-tie numbers are logged and, we are told, reconciled. There should only be one number per box and numbers should only be used once. Anyone with specific information to prove otherwise are invited to contact our office via contact us

Transport of ballots in private vehicles is allowed by the legislation, but it is our view that it should not be happening. Secure transport should be used and this secure transport should include time logs and surveillance cameras on the cargo, with point-to-point transit. 

Q5: Auditing means the count is undertaken at least twice and is done by different counting teams. What if the ballots were swapped for different ballots on the kitchen table of an activist employee’s home when the pre-poll closed for the night? That is still a rigged election, isn’t it? 

A5: The initial count is compared back to the final count by the AEC and party scrutineers. There is no evidence of a major variance capable of affecting a House of Reps or Senate outcome. Indeed, the closer the electorate the more effective the scrutineer system becomes. 

One Nation has not received any proof such rigging is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us,

As a general discussion though – can ballot boxes go astray and ballots be substituted? Theoretically this is possible given that ballot boxes are not securely transported and the quality of the seals is an issue. One Nation supports secure, point-to-point transport in a vehicle with video and GPS surveillance to remove any chance of ballot substitution. 

Q6: The AEC’s rigorous chain-of-custody mechanisms are open to abuse, as the last pre-poll supervisor out of the building can simply double back and load up his private car with sealed ballot boxes. 

A6: One Nation has not received any proof this is happening. If you have any information that proves otherwise, this can be provided to the AEC here. If no suitable response is received, please let us know via contact us.

We believe video surveillance and alarms with a check on “arm” and “disarm” times should be the absolute minimum requirement for a secure pre-poll or regional counting centre. We use the same venues election after election, so the cost of this is justified by the magnitude of the task these venues perform. 

Q7: Although all AEC staff are required to sign a declaration of political neutrality, this in reality means nothing. Activists don’t care about declarations, contracts, laws, fairness, justice, or the will of the people. Is there a way to ensure no activists are employed during the election? 

A7: It is not possible to find 100,000+ poll workers with no political allegiance. What matters is a multi-faceted secure system to ensure political loyalty does not affect their work.  

In my early days in the workforce I received some great advice about security – ‘opportunity creates its own temptation’. It is a basic responsibility of management to ensure staff are protected by removing temptation from them.  

We do not believe the AEC has done this to a sufficient degree. 

Q8: The AEC systems are incredibly easy for activist employees to defeat because the security is far too weak. How can this be improved? 

A8: The AEC provides many layers of security and integrity in their processes. Recent legislation, which was authored by One Nation and passed by the LNP Government, added auditing of the count and auditing of the computer system to eliminate computer fraud. These were important reforms. 

One Nation will pursue video and alarm surveillance of pre-polls and regional counting centres, an audit of the voter rolls and secure transport of ballot boxes. More detail on this can be found in this FAQ. 

Q9: Can procedural changes be made that ensure only Australian citizens vote and they vote only once, that ballots cannot be swapped once lodged and that the ballots are properly counted? 

A9: This is already a requirement of our law. The question is to what degree is the law being complied with? In practice, this would require an audit of the voter roll (which One Nation is calling for) to ensure accurate rolls.

Voter ID is essential to voting integrity.

Refer to answers 4 and 6 above around ballot security and transport.

One Nation believes the actual count itself is conducted as accurately as is possible, given the issues that arise around human error on the part of counting staff and voters. This is often made worse by the shocking state of some returned ballots.

Q10: Would it be better if voting was paper only, in person, with ID and on the day? 

A10: Yes. Yes. Yes. No. If pre-poll is conducted properly, it is not an issue for voting integrity. We have some concerns around current pre-poll systems – refer to answers above.

One Nation would like the AEC to take a serious look at blockchain-based online voting. There are some University Academics who propose a very good way for this to be done without the possibility of fraud. 

Q11: Could postal votes be restricted to those that are overseas, in hospital or care homes, with all ballots to be received by election day? 

A11: Postal voting needs to be replaced as soon as possible with secure online voting. There are ways to do that accurately and without opening the door to fraud. 

Q12: Current ballot boxes are not fit for purpose. What would it take to ensure ballot boxes are large, heavy and constructed of transparent material, kept under strong lights, continually videoed online, stored in the National Archive for any citizen to access in the future, and under constant observation by party scrutineers and members of the public? 

A12: The cardboard boxes you place your ballot in are not used to transport ballots. Once full, they are switched out to sealed, transparent plastic containers. This is safe to transport, however One Nation are still investigating issues around the accuracy and tamper-proof capacity of the seals, current use of private cars to transport ballots instead of secure transport, alarms and video monitoring of pre-poll and regional counting centres.  

Q13: How can we provide a system where the ballots must be counted with the same uninterrupted security and scrutiny, and continue until finalised? 

A13: This is just not workable. Many voting places are school buildings which need to be accessible for teaching staff and children on the Monday. The use of regional voting centres is necessary. Counting 24/7 is expensive and it may be very hard to find staff willing to do that. 

An accurate count relies on accurate systems with foolproof security, not continuous count. 

Q14: Wouldn’t it be better for elections if computers or scanners were not used in the counting, tallying, or reporting? What if counting was done by accountable individuals? What if there was always at least two different candidate scrutineers or members of the public per staff member. 

A14: This is actually the system now with the sole difference being that the Senate preference flow is provided by a scan of the voting paper. Thanks to One Nation legislation passed by the previous LNP Government, there is now an audit on that count and for some months now an audit has been underway into the AEC computer system to ensure integrity in the next election. 

The preference flow is also checked by a third-party group comprised of University Academics and they have not found errors that affected the result. Indeed, they show the preference flow is very accurate. 

Q15: The AEC “disinformation register” is an affront to the Australian public. A transparency system would be far more useful. When bureaucrats exceed their authority as public servants paid from the taxes of hard-working Australians, what mechanisms can we put in place to ensure these petty tyrants are removed from their positions? 

A15: The disinformation register is an area One Nation are investigating. The idea had some merit, but its implementation seems biased against minor parties.  

Q16: What has changed since these findings below? 

  •  “the electoral system is open to manipulation is beyond question  … Fraudulent enrolment is almost impossible to prevent.”  (NSW Electoral Commissioners, Messrs R. Cundy and Ian Dickson, in the NSW Government Inquiry 1989.  
  • “Electoral fraud, malpractice and errors are a common feature of the Australian electoral system,” Alex Howen, Metropolitan  Vice-Pres of the NSW Liberal Party 11/9/1999. 
  • 78% of several thousand people voted “Yes” on www.publicdebate.com.au in year 2001 to the question “Should a Royal Commission be held into Electoral Fraud?”  
  • The Shepherdson Inquiry in Queensland found that ALP members had done Vote Frauds in 1986, 1993 and 1996.  This was an evidential finding by a Judge 

A16: Historical cases are unlikely to inform current electoral process, although it does show that the ALP and LNP will cheat if an opportunity arises. One Nation is calling for further electoral reform.

Q17: Recent data showed that millions of dollars of corporate “donations” continue to fill the coffers of the major parties and that 40% of money received is not disclosed at all. I would like to see the following reforms legislated ASAP, including real-time disclosure of all donations over $2,500, banning big political donations altogether, and limiting electoral spending by parties and corporations. How will you ensure that these reforms are part of the recommendations made in the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters?  

A17: One Nation supports improving electoral disclosure laws and extending those to cover third party financing such as the Teals used in 2022. However, be aware that both the LNP and ALP vote together to maintain the status quo in this area. 

Q18: Should voters stop using a pencil when filling out a ballot paper? 

A18: There is no reason you can’t use your own black ball point pen (please ensure it writes clearly). Pencils are used simply because of cost and can be stored and used again without the ink running dry.

Q19: The AEC says that “Staff are obligated to report any suspicious activity to their supervisor.” – but this doesn’t mean a group of activist employees would do so. How can we ensure the AEC is free from infiltration by activists? 

A19: The AEC certainly harbours activists, however it is impossible to hire 100,000 people and not get activists. There is no system in the world that can stop that. The “people” factor is the wrong way to look at it. If the systems are properly secure, remote monitored and alarmed, ballots transported securely (not by AEC staff), and the voter rolls audited with rolling audits, then the few “bad eggs” that creep in will not be able to do any harm. 

Q20: It seems obvious that the main parties won’t fix the mess the AEC has become even though the commission itself says, “The AEC runs elections and referendums in accordance with legislation, and I note that many of the suggestions that you have made would require legislative change. I suggest raising them with your local member of parliament and/or senators.”  How do we get this legislation changed? 

A20: One Nation was successful in authoring election integrity legislation that was passed by the Morrison LNP Government. As a result, Australia now has election auditing mandated by legislation. That auditing is currently underway. 

Other reforms require support from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM) and One Nation is not a member. The review is underway into the 2022 Federal Election. Submissions have now closed. The next step is to see the recommendations and then prepare a further integrity bill to respond to the many issues raised.

Q21: Current AEC chief, Tom Rogers, is quoted saying “Citizens have the right to express views about democratic events that are a contest of ideas – the AEC does not restrict those freedoms.” Despite this, the AEC inappropriately took to social media in a ‘war’ against so-called ‘misinformation’ which amounted to suppression of free speech. How is this not illegal? 

A21: There was a lot of disinformation in the last election and I understand the AEC wanting to deal with that. Confidence in the result is essential for democracy. Having said that, the operation of the AEC around “disinformation” attracted a lot of criticism. One Nation is pursuing this matter to get a better balance into the process for the next election. 

Q22: Has the AEC got an opinion on the “Yes” campaign having a flood of taxpayer’s money to support it while the “No” campaign gets stuff-all? AEC states, “While we’ll be active in communicating about referendum processes, it’s up to voters to stop and consider information they see, hear or read from ‘yes’ and ‘no’ campaigns.” Isn’t that the sort of “mistruth” Mr Tom Rogers should be “prebunking”? What do we hear from the AEC about the Yes-biased campaign? Crickets. 

A22: The AEC has so far followed it’s enabling legislation. It is the Albanese Government that is immorally trying to influence the referendum outcome by funding the ‘yes’ vote and not the ‘no’ vote. Please direct any feedback on this to the Albanese Government. 

Q23: Electoral reform needs to happen and it appears that while we run with the 2-party preferred system, we will never get another party into a majority position for change or reform. Minor parties will fight over the scraps. Reform will be difficult and part of the issue is the AEC. The question is who regulates the regulators? 

A23: The Australian people regulate the regulators by way of elections and referendums. If any Australian is unhappy with the outcome, please get involved – sign up as a candidate or poll worker and exercise your democratic rights before we lose them. 

Q24: The NSW Electoral Commission confirmed that no ballot boxes were to be removed from polling stations until after they were counted. Why were NSW Electoral Commission vested staff removing ballot boxes from booths? This is alleged to have occurred at 8 booths. AEC-vested staff are said to have walked around hospitals with iPads asking if people would like to vote. Country polling stations were being closed and electors asked to submit mail-in ballots.  

A24: One Nation has examined every video that was provided to us, or viewed on social media. Each of the videos show ballot boxes being removed from pre-poll centres correctly sealed and in the custody of AEC staff. We believe that no staff of the AEC should be moving ballots and instead, secure couriers with video surveillance on the load and GPS tracking should be used.

Can the seals be defeated? We are looking into this following multiple reports that this is possible, however we have not seen a video or statutory declaration indicating it is actually possible. 

Voting in nursing homes on iPads is acceptable if there are scrutineers in place. Based on our information, there were scrutineers and the count was accepted by those scrutineers. 

Closed voting centres are probably due to staffing issues, but if you have information regarding specific centres, please let us know via contact us.

Q25: At the 2023 NSW election, ballots were being mishandled. As confirmed by the NSWEC, they are only responsible for what occurs to the ballots up to and including 6 metres from the polling booth.  

A25: The AEC does not run NSW elections. As this is a state matter, you will need to contact the NSW Electoral Commission: https://elections.nsw.gov.au/contact-us

Q26: Why were there blank boxes above the line in the Senate ballot? 

A26: The wording of this section of the Electoral Act is poor and can be read to allow a blank name, which is what the AEC have done.

This decision disadvantages grouped independents as people are reticent to vote for a blank box.

The videos and audio recordings of AEC staff advising voters to not vote or worse, that they cannot vote in that square, are real and call into question training of the AEC staff. 

One Nation supports amending that provision of the Electoral Act to require grouped independents to be labelled as “grouped independent” and not be left blank. 

/24 Comments/by

Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines

,

It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.

In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.

I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.  

People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.  

I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.  

Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities. 

Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability. 

The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project? 

It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables. 

Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue. 

One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.  

The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling. 

This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’ 

I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment. 

/7 Comments/by

Is the Reserve Bank in Denial?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned the Reserve Bank about the effect of the ascendant BRICS alliance on the Reserve bank’s holdings of US Dollars (USD) and US Treasuries (UST). I also asked Mr Lowe about his expectations of the US Economy’s movement in the next few years and how this may affect Australia. Mr Lowe avoided any pessimistic projections regarding the US economy.

I then asked if the Reserve Bank was increasing its gold reserves as a precaution against the BRICS group releasing a gold-backed currency. The RBA has actually reduced our gold reserves from a peak of $5.2 billion to $3.9 billion now. The answer I received was also negative.

I think this is a mistake. Australia should be increasing our gold reserves as a hedge against international currency fluctuations in the uncertain times ahead.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: I have a question about the Reserve Bank’s reserves. Let me get to it by giving some background. At the BRICS meeting in Cape Town on 2 and 3 June, 13 nations will formally apply to join BRICS, which is currently Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa—and Saudi Arabia, with an each-way bet. Candidate nations include Mexico, Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Indonesia and Iran. BRICS is now the world’s largest trading bloc, accounting for 25 per cent of world trade which is expected to grow to 50 per cent by 2030. And it’s big in oil. BRICS member states are abandoning the US dollar in favour of using their own currency or the Chinese renminbi in an environment where other countries, including Australia, are doing the same thing. Pakistan is now buying Russian oil and renminbi. The US dollar is now denominating just 58 per cent of all world trade. The United States has printed $10 trillion over the last seven years, doubling their M2 money supply. That increase has been absorbed in part by an increase in international trade. As the world moves away from the US dollar the value of the US dollar may fall. The Reserve Bank holds United States treasuries and dollars. Have you modelled the effect on your balance sheet from that probable fall in  the value of US holdings.

Mr Lowe: Not as a result of these other global changes you’ve talked about. We spend a lot of time and part of our risk management processes looking at volatility in currencies, because currencies move around all the time, don’t they? That affects the value of those assets on our balance sheet, so we model that from a risk-management perspective. Despite the developments you’re talking about, most countries still hold the bulk of their foreign reserves in US dollars. There’s diversification going on, which is good, but the US dollar is going to remain the dominant currency for some time.

Senator Roberts: What is the value of Reserve Bank holdings of US dollar and US treasuries in Australian dollars?

Mr Lowe: Our total foreign reserves at the moment I think are the equivalent of U$35 billion. What’s the share, Brad?

Dr Jones: I think it’s 55 per cent.

Mr Lowe: Roughly half of that $35 billion is allocated to US dollars, and then we have holdings of yen, Korean won, euros and rmb.

Senator Roberts:  What about treasuries?

Mr Lowe: When we hold US dollars we invest it in US Treasury securities. We don’t invest in bank deposits or any other securities. We invest in US government securities.

Senator Roberts:  What’s the reverse holding of Australian government currency and bonds held by the US government or their agencies?

Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on that.

Senator Roberts:  Could you get that on notice?

Mr Lowe: No.

Senator Roberts:  You don’t have it?

Mr Lowe: We don’t have data on specific holdings of other countries.

Dr Jones: If I understood your question correctly, Senator, the US holds euros and yen, from recollection, but not in large quantities.

Senator Roberts:  While that arrangement helps with international stability across holdings, it is a method for backdoor quantitative easing. Does the Reserve Bank expect to increase your holding of US treasuries in the next 12 months?

Mr Lowe: We’ve just done an exercise where we were looking at how much of our balance sheet should be held in foreign assets. We said we’ve got $35 billion at the moment. As the size of the economy grows you would expect that to gradually increase. But, no, nothing dramatic. As the economy grows and the nominal value of the Australian economy gets bigger, then you would expect a bigger portfolio in US dollars and foreign currency.

Senator Roberts:  The Reserve Bank has a mission to anticipate movements in major trading partners and in world markets. As it affects your provisioning and portfolio, does the Reserve Bank anticipate being affected by any out of the ordinary moves in financial markets in connection with the US economy or the US dollar over forward estimates?

Mr Lowe: We’ve recently been focused on the US debt limit issues in the US. If an agreement had not been reached there, that would have had implications for currency markets and economies around the world. So that’s one thing that we’ve looked at carefully. It looks like that has been resolved, thankfully. And, just as part of our general risk management exercise, we’re looking at developments in other economies and their implications for currency markets in own economy.

Dr Jones: As a general rule though, the way the bank has operated its reserves has changed quite a bit over the last, say, 25 years, and now the bank effectively sets key benchmarks and sticks to them. There are not big discretionary decisions going on every day. There’s wild speculation going on at the Reserve Bank, I can assure you, about the future value of exchange rates.

Senator Roberts:  I wasn’t implying that. Worldwide purchases of US treasuries by central banks has fallen $600 billion in 2022 as compared to a baseline year of 2013. That’s just arbitrary—2013. Purchases of gold have increased $300 billion. So something is going on that Australia would be prudent to hedge against. Is the Reserve Bank increasing its gold reserves as an each way bet against BRICS introducing a gold brick currency of some form?

Mr Lowe: No, we’re not. We’ve got our gold reserves. We haven’t bought and sold for a long time and we have no intention of changing that at the moment.

Senator Roberts:  Thank you, Governor.

/5 Comments/by