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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

This bill is seeking to provide biosecurity officers with increased powers. With everything we’ve been through over the past few years, I decided to ask for clarification on the bill. I questioned how these new powers could be used and whether there was a risk of discrimination against arrivals into Australia, particularly those who have chosen not to receive medical procedures such as the COVID-19 injections.

I am concerned these amendments would ensure the collection of data from all incoming travellers to support intelligence-gathering and evidence-based predictions of potential biosecurity risks.

Minister Watt offered assurances in the Senate Chamber that there is no intention of using the bill to discriminate against people based on medical status or ethnicity. He also assured me that this bill did not allow for collecting or retaining health information.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I have two questions. The first is of the minister: could this bill be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections related to COVID-19 measures? As part of that, does this bill allow travel documents to include information based on vaccine status?

Senator Watt: I’m just seeking some further advice on that, Senator Roberts, but I’m certainly not aware of any intention to use these powers in that way or even whether the powers could be used that way. I know that there were some concerns raised by a couple of the parliamentary committees about how these powers might be used and the risk of discrimination that might be posed. I think we were certainly able to persuade those committees that there would be no such ability to discriminate. You may have seen, Senator Roberts, that one of the things this bill is doing is providing biosecurity officers with increased powers to seek passports from people, but that’s really about trying to check where they have been and whether they’re repeat offenders when it comes to biosecurity risks rather than checking on people because of their particular racial background, their COVID vaccination background or anything like that. It’s more about, as I said, allowing biosecurity officers to trace when people have been to very high-risk locations or if they’re repeat offenders with biosecurity, in which case I’m sure you’d agree that they’re the people who we really need to focus our biosecurity efforts on.

Senator Roberts: Minister, have you received that advice yet about my specific question?

Senator Watt: The proposed amendments are intended to ensure that the data collected in relation to biosecurity interventions with all incoming travellers can be recorded and analysed consistently to support a more intelligence- and evidence-based approach to predicting and managing the biosecurity risk posed by future traveller cohorts. As such, the requirement to provide a passport or other travel document to a biosecurity officer upon request would apply to all persons regardless of their ethnicity, their national or social origin or their vaccination status. The powers that are being granted here cannot be, or are not intended to be, used to go after particular people based on any characteristic about them. They can be applied to all people, regardless of their vaccination status, their ethnicity or anything like that. I think that you can be confident that your concerns would not be carried out as a result of these powers.

Senator Roberts: You said ‘could’ and then hesitated. So that means these powers cannot be used to discriminate against arrivals who have chosen not to receive injections for COVID-19?

Senator Watt: That’s right. The powers cannot be used to discriminate against anyone for any reason, including their vaccination status.

Senator Roberts: My second question is: should there be time limits on the time which health information about an individual is retained?

Senator Watt: In fact, Senator Roberts, this bill does not provide for the retention of data at all. That being the case, the concern that you have does not even arise. It’s not a matter of—sorry, I’ll just clarify this. There’s nothing in the bill that allows data to be retained for health purposes and so the issue of how long data could be retained for health purposes doesn’t arise, because it can’t be retained for that purpose at all.

Join me with Anthony Dillon as we talk about his history and why he believes the Voice will not help Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders.

Financial statements show an ABC fact check partnership with RMIT received grants from an organisation that receives funds from George Soros funded foreign organisations, foreign governments and shadowy foundations.

Instead of taking these issues seriously, Minister Watt treats the questions with contempt, rabbiting on with meaningless waffle.

If the ABC has been co-opted into “fact checks” that have been influenced by shady foreign money, then Australians deserve to know.

Follow up to these questions here.

Update: ABC has ended its partnership with RMIT Exclusive: ABC ends seven-year partnership with RMIT Fact Check (crikey.com.au)

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Why is the ABC receiving funds from potential agents of foreign influence for its fact-checking partnership with RMIT?

Senator Watt: I am not actually aware of the suggestions that Senator Roberts is making. I’m a little wary about taking them at face value, because I know Senator Roberts has a certain view of the ABC that is not a view I share. And I’m not sure Senator Roberts has always accurately represented the situation when it comes to the ABC. I would invite Senator Roberts to present further evidence of that, if he has that evidence available.

What I will say is that this government is a very strong supporter of the ABC. We recognise that it has a very important role as the national broadcaster. It has an important role not just in our big capital cities but also, particularly, in regional parts of Australia. It is often the only way of having local, regional stories told at the national level, and that’s why we are supportive of the ABC. It also plays a very important role during natural disasters as a sort of critical information for people seeking to stay alive during emergencies. They are some of the reasons that we support the ABC, and they are some of the reasons why we were so concerned by the budget cuts that were imposed by the then coalition government on the ABC, because those cuts removed or reduced the ability of the ABC to broadcast those regional stories in some of those areas that Senator Roberts and Senator Hanson like to say they care about. Those cuts reduced the ABC’s ability to provide some of that emergency information that is so vital to rural and regional communities. So we’re very proud of the fact that we’re strong supporters of the ABC. We don’t join in the regular attacks that we see on the ABC from the conservative side of politics, because we think that the institution plays a very important role in our national democracy. We will always remain strong supporters of the ABC.

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator Roberts: The International Fact-Checking Network’s financial statements show that that foreign organisations gave the RMIT-ABC Fact Check partnership multiple grants. The International Fact-Checking Network receives funds from the US government, a private Norwegian foundation, foreign headquartered tech giant Meta, and a handful of private, shady organisations and foundations. Why didn’t the ABC declare that it was receiving funding from private, foreign organisations and governments for its RMIT fact-checking partnership?

Senator Carol Brown interjecting—

Senator Watt: That’s a fair point, Senator Brown. If there were a fact checker for some of the things that come out of One Nation, they’d be very, very busy. As for Senator Canavan, you wouldn’t even start trying to check facts from Senator Canavan. You’d want to have more than a decade if you wanted to check facts from Senator Canavan.

As I say, I’m very wary of entering into propositions that are being put by Senator Roberts when it comes to foreign interference and foreign influence. He is prone to saying various things about those issues, which don’t always bear fact checking themselves. Again, Senator Roberts, I’d invite you to provide any hard evidence that you have to support the claims that you’re making, but I repeat my position that we are strong supporters of the ABC. In fact, I think the public regard the ABC as the most trustworthy news agency in the country. That is regularly shown in surveys. (Time expired)

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

The government’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill does not define the terms ‘misinformation’ and ‘disinformation’ in specifics. It would likely be left to biased and foreign influenced fact checkers. Facebook has suspended RMIT FactLab services after accusations of bias in fact-checking the Voice referendum and reports of lapsed accreditation. Minister, will the government abandon its Orwellian misinformation and disinformation bill given that the fact checker’s credibility has been destroyed?

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, thank you for the question. I know that you and a number of members of the Liberal and National parties have a strong position, you say, in relation to matters of misinformation—

The President: Senator Watt, I remind you to direct your comments through the chair.

Senator Watt: Okay. I know that there are many senators from the Liberal, National and One Nation parties who say all sorts of things about misinformation. It doesn’t seem to prevent them from presenting all sorts of misinformation about certain referendums that we’re about to have in this country. It doesn’t seem to prevent them joining in on misinformation and disinformation campaigns telling people that we’re going to be facing parking tickets being legislated by the Voice and all sorts of nonsense like that. If you want to have a discussion about misinformation, I’d suggest that you keep your own house in order and come to this parliament in good faith rather than providing the constant misinformation we see from the other side.

Related:

Pristine Australian bushland environments are being torn apart for metal monsters.

Short-lived and resource-hungry wind turbines are going up all over Queensland as part of Australia’s Net Zero 2050. These monstrosities are nothing more than a pipe dream for ‘free energy’.

Wind does not and cannot provide baseload power that coal provides cheaply and reliably.

To ensure coal mines restore the environment, coal mines pay a hefty bond for land disturbed. This bond is only returned after restoration is completed after mining.

Wind power companies pay NO environmental bond to make good afterwards.

I guarantee, if the government stopped propping wind and solar up with ‘free money’ the investors would run a mile and that is exactly what is happening overseas.

When will Australia acknowledge what a green-washed white elephant these wind projects are and back out before more birds disappear and more of the environment is destroyed?

I bet Andrew Forrest wouldn’t put one in his own backyard. Would you?