Tax Reform in Australia

,

Tax is one of the biggest costs to this country and governments are not spending it wisely. Tax reform is in the ‘too hard’ basket for both parties but the country is dying without it. Take for example the GST. When it was introduced, the State Governments promised to abolish 6 different taxes to make up for it. Every single one of them is still being slugged on Australians.

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts] G’day Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right. Did you have a steak in the last couple of days up there in Rocky for beef week?

[Malcolm Roberts] I had one of the best steaks I’ve ever had, mate.

[Marcus Paul] Really?

[Malcolm Roberts] I had beef in the Rocky Sports Club two nights ago. Absolutely delicious. Just melted in my mouth.

[Marcus Paul] Oh, nice. Now, that’s a really big event up there, of course.

[Malcolm Roberts] It’s huge. I don’t know how much it costs to support this and organise it, but it must be millions. It’s really well done. Very professionally done. It’s a really, really big credit to Rocky.

[Marcus Paul] Well, it attracted everybody including the prime minister of the country. He was there as well the other day.

[Malcolm Roberts] That’s right. They’re all taking credit for it. Whereas it’s really the beef graziers and the beef associations that need to take credit for it. And Rockhampton.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah. Well look, so long as we support the industry, that’s I think what’s vitally important now. Malcolm, as you know, there’s a couple of things certain in this life. One is death, the other is bloody taxes.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah. The tax levied on families in Australia is completely unreasonable. I mean, Joe Hockey himself, the former treasurer, said in 2015, a typical Australian works from January to June just to pay taxes. You lose half your money in taxes, that’s what he said. In 2000, I think it was the Australian Bureau of Statistics, you can no longer get these figures but I’ve got to confirm them. A person, the ABS, I think it was, said a person earning the average income pays 68% to government in the form of rates, taxes, levies, fees, special charges. That means that a person on the average income, which today is $80000, works from Monday to mid-morning Thursday paying for government. So, we’ve been fed a line that’s a complete lie. We’ve been told that the biggest purchase of our life is a house. It’s not. The biggest purchase by far of our life is government. Who sees value for money in that purchase in Australia?

[Marcus Paul] So you work Monday to Thursday mid-morning paying government, not only obviously in income tax, but all the other levies, charges, etc.

[Malcolm Roberts] Rates, fees, that’s it. That’s it, Marcus. That’s far too high. People don’t mind paying tax, because they see that’s the cost of government. We’ve got to have defence, we’ve got to have police. Okay, we all get that. But tax also represents, when it’s wasted, when that money is wasted, Tax represents the cost of government waste. And that’s what people are paying for in this country. The abuse of their taxes by a government that is not accountable. That’s the problem.

[Marcus Paul] Why is it unfair, this tax levy? Why is it unfair? I mean, we’ve got multinationals that avoid paying probably their fair share. And I’ve discussed this at length with politicians from both sides of politics, but nobody can seem to come up with the right answer. I don’t understand why the burden falls on those most, I don’t want to say vulnerable. I mean, we all need to pay our own way and nobody can expect to get a handout for their entire life. Sure, from time to time, you might need a hand up. And that’s what the social service network is for. That’s why we have social security. But I mean for goodness sake, if we’re paying, as you say, you’re telling me we’re working Monday to Thursday mid-morning paying government in fees. Why is it then that big multinationals, why do we allow our administrators, our governments allow these big companies to avoid paying their fair share?

[Malcolm Roberts] You’ve nailed it. Let me give you some figures here. The deputy commissioner of taxation in 1996 and 2010, and his name was Jim Killaly, and I’ve met the man, I met him in early 2015, he said publicly in the media, that 90% of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and since 1953, have paid little or no company tax. Jim Killaly, 1996, 2010. Now why is that? Well, it goes back to 1953 and the so-called double taxation legislation that was introduced by liberal prime minister Menzies. He made sure that legislation, that foreign companies don’t have to pay company tax. Bob Hawke, the labour prime minister in 1987, passed the PRRT tax, Petroleum Rent Resources Tax. The largest companies in the world and the worst tax avoider in the world, Chevron, other multinationals, are not paying tax and the Australian government gets virtually nothing for the gas that they tap into in the Northwest shelf and send overseas. We’re the largest exporters of gas and we get the least for it in the world.

[Marcus Paul] There was some figure that I think we talked about recently, where in, I can’t remember, it might’ve been WA, there was a gas exploration venture that was being undertaken whereby 5.3 billion dollars, I think that was the figure, worth of gas was shipped off overseas. Our gas prices haven’t come down as a result of it but the company involved, I won’t name them, but the company involved, paid a paltry, 300 odd million dollars in tax compared to taking away five point odd billion dollars worth of our natural resources. How on earth, Malcolm, do we allow this to happen?

[Malcolm Roberts] Exactly Marcus. The Japanese government levies an import duty on Australian gas coming into Japan. The Japanese government makes three billion a year on taxing Australian gas. So, they get that income. We get bugger all. And that’s the fact, because both the liberal party and the labour party over many years, it’s not just a few, it’s decades, over many decades, have allowed this to occur. And they do that despite 90% of Australia’s large companies being foreign owned and paying little or no tax. And what that also means is that Australian companies that are working in this country have to pay 30%, their company tax. That means they’re immediately behind the eight ball when it comes to competing with these multinationals. So, it’s just completely unfair.

[Marcus Paul] All right, well, maybe that is a short term fix to tax foreign multinationals more appropriately. I mean, tax reform is difficult. We know that the liberal Howard government introduced GST in return for states dropping six taxes, yet all are still being levied, including in my opinion, the most ridiculous crippling tax of all, payroll tax. I mean, that hits employment and it penalises those taking the risk by setting up business and in fact, people, these businesses employ people. Why on earth are we penalising businesses for employing Australians?

[Malcolm Roberts] Exactly, Marcus. We all know, everybody knows, you don’t need to be well educated to understand that when you tax something, you get less of it. So, why are we taxing payroll? Because that’s a tax on employment. When you tax employment, you get less of it, but let’s have a look at some of the so-called tax reform in this country. As you said, in 1999, liberal prime minister Howard introduced the GST, in return for the states promising to drop six state taxes. Every one of those taxes is still levied. In 1985, Paul Keating first called for a GST, the labour treasurer at the time. He almost got it up and Bob Hawke went wobbly at the last minute and they dropped the GST. Later, despite being the first person to talk about a GST in this country, Paul Keating reversed his position to belt John Houston on the GST. And he won the unwinnable election.

[Marcus Paul] Yeah, of course.

[Malcolm Roberts] In 1998, there was a transaction tax proposed by somebody. Quite, quite good thinking going behind it. Peter Costello, the treasurer. He did a pretty good job in my opinion. Peter Costello, even he, when it looked like they could smash this politician over the transaction tax, he turned around, and even though he said earlier, that it was… Well it had quite a bit of merit and it looked good, he then used it to belt that politician. So, he trashed that opportunity. So, what the point is here is that both the parties attack someone else whenever they raise a system of proposed change for taxation. We all agree, right around the country, that the taxation system, it needs to be reformed completely around. It is the most damaging system in this country. Australians pay far too much tax, multinationals pay bugger all, but the point is this, every time someone puts forward a tax reform system, the party politics is played and it’s smashed. What we’re seeing is the liberal and labour and national parties too busy protecting themselves and they’re sacrificing the country to the worst and most destructive system in the country. What we need to do is to approach this in a far more effective sense, because we can’t continue as we are. So, what I would suggest is what we need to do is make sure we have agreement that the tax system has failed and must be changed. And then, instead of getting into the details, agree on the basic principles, things like fairness, equity, transparency, efficiency of taxation. Our taxation system is so inefficient. And then once the principles are established, out pops the solution in the form of a system. We’ve got to front up and be honest that this system is so bad at the moment and we’ve got to come up with a new way of addressing this politically.

[Marcus Paul] All right, Malcolm, good to have you on the programme as always. We’ll chat again next week.

[Malcolm Roberts] Look forward to it, Marcus. Thanks, mate.

[Marcus Paul] All right, One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts.

/by

The Drums of War – 2SM with Marcus Paul

,

Governments are destroying our country which is making it harder to stand up to China. I talked to Marcus Paul this morning about that and how I was reminded over the weekend about just how good Australian manufacturing used to be.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Hello, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right, thank you how are you?

[Malcolm Roberts] Very well, thanks.

[Marcus Paul] What do you make of it all, the drums of war beating and all this rubbish?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I think you summarised it very well, when you said marketing. It’s about pretending that the government is strong. Whereas in fact, I’ve just finished an inquiry report for the Northern Agenda. You know, what’s happening in our country, Marcus, is that the North is being held back along the same issues that the South is destroying. Energy, water, taxation, the basics. And the fundamental point about security is you have to have a strong economy. And the wombats in Canberra are destroying our economy through pandering to overseas bureaucrats, and selling our country out. It’s treasonous. So the fundamentals: we have to have a strong economy, a strong country, and that’s what we need to get back to.

[Marcus Paul] All right, with the fact that the, you know, the whole issue of quarantine during the pandemic, which is a federal responsibility, is being completely ballsed up, and palmed off by Morrison and his mates, with the fact that that’s completely being stuffed up. Be, you know, some of the reasons for the distraction, do you think?

[Malcolm Roberts] Possibly quite possibly, because you know, these politicians in Canberra have a habit of distracting, as you just said. But the whole pandemic has not been managed well. What we’ve got is an absence of data, that’s driving the plans. And we don’t have a plan, actually. We don’t even have a strategy. It just seems to be lurching from one thing to the next. One moment, one message to sell. Every single week, different message. There’s no coherent plan, that’s based on data. And I’ll talk more about that in a few weeks time, at senate estimates. But we need a plan for managing our economy, because that is fundamental to health. What we’re doing is destroying our economy, with some of the responses. I mean, people, you know, the Premiers of the States talk, and the Prime Minister talks about going and spending money in your state, and travelling. How the hell can people make plans when they could fly to Western Australia for example, and get locked down because they’ve got one positive test. They’d have to come back and spend $3,000 in quarantine. It’s just capricious. It’s destructive, it doesn’t consider the people.

[Marcus Paul] Your mates up there in the upper Hunter, might be as unhappy as what labor are at the moment, because I’m sorry, Pork-Barrelarow is out there with his chequebook, story this morning. And they’re promising funding to a number of women’s business organisations. While you know, there are other areas, probably should be prioritised. There’s a bit more pork barreling going on by the Berejiklian Barrilaro government, to sort of like keep your heads up on that, mate.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not surprised, are you?

[Marcus Paul] Well, of course not.

[Malcolm Roberts] But you know what these people are going around. What we have in this country is a system of having options every four years at the state level, every three years at the federal government level. And people don’t seem to realise that these promises have to be paid for. And who’s gonna pay for them? The very people who have taken part in the election, the voters. So, it’s a disrespectful way of running government, but it seems, the people seem to fall for it quite often. So we’ve gotta get more people aware of what’s going on in government, so that people realise that these promises are just hollow, and that they’re wasting money, quite often

[Marcus Paul] Aussie ingenuity and initiative, what’s happened to it? We used to make engines and wonderful pieces of technology.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, you’re absolutely correct, Marcus. A lot of your listeners, the older listeners will remember names like Lister, Southern Cross, Cooper, Sundial, Barzakov. These are just some of the names on old engines, old diesel engines that were purring and puttering along at the Dalby, I went out to the Dalby Show. You know, you would have gone to shows when you were a kid.

[Marcus Paul] Oh yeah, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, Royal Easter, where did you grow up?

[Marcus Paul] Sydney’s West, the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Show. You know, they were wonderful.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, and so what we saw at Dalby, which is west of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, beautiful Darling Downs, it’s definitely a rural town. And we saw one whole field dedicated to 400, more than 400 engines, old engines. Had to be more than 30 years old. Some of them are a 100 years old that were puttering along, and they set a record for having the most engines running concurrently in a small area. But could you imagine this? Hundred metres long, five lines of engines, all with the enthusiasts with them, tinkering them along. You know and these engines, as I said, had to be more than 30 years old. But they worked across our country. They were essential in farming industry. Many were designed and built in Australia, highly dependable, highly reliable. Some were built under licence from overseas countries. We make none of these engines now, none at all. Yet we have great people like Jack Brabham, for example. He’s the only person ever, to have been an owner of a Formula One team, a designer of a car, and the driver, the only one ever. And he won three world champions. He’ll never be repeated. We’ve got the talent in this country. We’ve just destroyed our capacity to be productive.

[Marcus Paul] Ah, gee. All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on the programme, mate. We’ll catch up again next week. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Marcus. Have a good one, mate. One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the Morning.

/by

ANZAC Day 2021

One of the best things about ANZAC Day this year was seeing the thousands of people come out to celebrate it. I have a huge respect for ANZAC Day. I still marked it last year at the end of my driveway but being able to attend the Dawn Service at Dalby and then a march at Toowoomba reminded me that there’s nothing better than the real thing.

In the lead up to the day this year, I saw some in the media trying to claim that Australians’ passion for ANZAC Day was dropping. Not from what I saw. There were thousands at Toowoomba and hundreds in the march itself.

For all of our fallen diggers, those who have served and those that still are, thank you for what you have done for this country.
Lest We Forget.

/by

Christine Holgate and Vaccination Bungle – 2SM with Marcus Paul

, ,

From last week on 2SM with Marcus Paul: why Christine Holgate was unfairly treated, how the government has bungled the vaccine rollout, the untapped potential of Queensland agriculture and more.

Transcript

[Marcus] G’day, Malcolm, how are you mate?

[Malcolm] I’m very well, thanks Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Well, I don’t have a $5,000 Cartier watch, do you?

[Malcolm] No, I don’t. And I’ll never buy one, but you know, that’s not the issue really at Australia Post. That’s what you’re talking about?

[Marcus] What is the issue, Malcolm? I mean, the whole thing in my mind, is really become a gender thing, which is a concern to me. Christine Holgate by all accounts, seems to be a pretty good operator, has she been unfairly punished here, do you think?

[Malcolm] Definitely there’s no doubt about that, Marcus. She did a remarkable job. She turned that, Australia Post around, from a big loss into, quite a substantial profit. And what surprised us, we were about to start holding the Government accountable about these Cartier watches.

[Marcus] Yeah.

[Malcolm] But we noticed that Angela Cramp, she’s the head of the licensed post office operators. You know, not all Australia Post, post offices are owned by the post office. They’re licensed out, to the licensed post office representatives. And Angela Cramp-

[Marcus] Franchisee’s, franchised.

[Malcolm] That’s it, thank you, thank you. So Angela Cramp jumped in strongly to support that and we thought, hang on, what’s going on here? Because we’ve worked very closely with the licensed post office operators and they’ve been really hard hit by, by Australia Post. What we found out, was that Christine Holgate, when I held her accountable in Senate estimates, when she first came on board, she actually took note of what I said.

And she followed up with Australia Post licenced post office operators and she helped them and started sorting out their problems. First time, in a long, long time, these guys have had any support. So they jumped in and supported Holgate, that alerted us, because we knew that that the LPOs weren’t in favour of the Australia Post executives normally.

And so then Pauline and I, both spoke with Holgate separately and then Pauline got the inquiry up, into what’s going on now after negotiating successfully with Labor, Greens and all the cross benchers. You just cannot treat people this way. I believe the Prime Minister is not telling the truth. Holgate is telling the truth. Holgate’s very competent, there are other issues here driving this.

The Prime Minister should apologise at the very least. And some of the statements from Australia Post, the Chairman of Australia Post and the ministers, just don’t add up. And I think the Prime Minister, if this keeps going the way it is, should resign, and you know at the very least Marcus, he must apologise. He must apologise.

[Marcus] Well, he doesn’t know how to say the word, sorry, Malcolm. We know that. He doesn’t take any responsibility for his actions. He likes to obfuscate. He likes to lay the blame elsewhere. He got fairly close yesterday by saying that he regrets any hurt, that Miss Holgate may well have felt, but he’s certainly not apologising.

[Malcolm] Yeah, exactly. And look, what does this say about the taxpayer funded empathy training? It’s gonna be a complete waste of time. The empathy training that the Liberal Nats have going on and what a lot of rubbish.

[Marcus] All right. Now, the vaccination rollout. Boy oh boy, you say it’s falling apart, mate?

[Malcolm] It is. There’s a critical thing here, that the Government has forgotten. It’s called informed consent. Before someone puts anything in my body, they need to get my consent. Now, the vaccine, there are two vaccines out there at the moment, the Astrazeneca and the Pfizer one.

We were told by the Chief Health Officer, that no one would know what vaccine was being distributed at which outlet, because they didn’t want people to come up and have a choice about the vaccine. I want this vaccine. I want that vaccine. That is completely unethical in my view. That’s the first thing.

The second thing is that they have rushed these vaccines. Both of them, they both have serious questions about them. Both, have bypassed some of the details in the testing procedures. The testing procedures have been accelerated, and now we’ve got problems. So, It’s the process here. The problem is the way the vaccine has been introduced, before proper trials.

[Marcus] All right.

[Malcolm] It’s a lack of data and there’s a lack of clear aims. And even the Minister for Health now, Greg hunt, has admitted that even with the vaccine, it won’t stop the restrictions. So what’s the point?

[Marcus] Fair enough. All right. Now, you’ve been out and about you’ve been in western Queensland, well, north and western Queensland. You’ve been to Townsville, Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond, Julia Creek, Cloncurry, You’re in Mt Isa as well. You’ve been looking at water infrastructure and potential for agriculture up there.

[Malcolm] Yes, and Marcus, what an amazing place this is. It’s untapped really. Big skies, big horizons, rich soil, plenty of sunlight, regular rain. And that’s what’s surprised us. The regular rain up here, at Richmond. And what’s really stunning up here, is that the local councils, the shire councils, have got off their backsides and started to stimulate thinking about irrigation projects, because they can turn this black soil and sunlight into bountiful production.

Richmond has now got, the Shire of Richmond, led by John Wharton, has got a project, that’ll cost a total of $210 million. Tiny amount, tiny amount of money. 8,000 hectares of irrigated land will come out of it. No dam, no dam whatsoever, just a diversion channel. Off flood seasons. ‘Cause the surprising thing is the rainfall is huge, but it comes at very short intervals and it’s very regular.

So they can basically get a diversion channel, take the flood water, harvest across the floodplains. So you’ve got no environmental impact of a dam and this whole area is buzzing. But what it needs is, is the government will, to actually get off their backsides and do it. The State Government is holding things back at the moment and the Federal Government is a bit lost. There seems to be a lack of vision in this country.

[Marcus] Well, I mean, look at the Murray-Darling basin. I mean, that’s been a complete and utter schmozzle. You would’ve thought lessons have been learned, mate?

[Malcolm] Well, you know, that’s really interesting. We’ve got the Murray-Darling basin has been decimated, by the Turnbull-Howard Water Act of 2007, which brought in the Murray-Darling basin authority. And it’s interesting. They changed from a highly successful, Murray-Darling basin commission in 2007, to the Murray-Darling basin authority.

That tells you what it’s about. The primary aims of the Murray-Darling basin of sorry of the Water Act in 2007, included the compliance with international agreements. What the hell are we doing that for, in our country? So they’ve made a mess of the Murray-Darling basin and it’s helped the corporates, destroyed farming communities, destroyed family farms.

And we’ve actually got people up here now, with a tonne of energy, from the northern New South Wales area of the Murray-Darling basin, and they’re making a go of things up here and just getting in and rolling up their sleeves and tearing into it. They’re doing a wonderful job.

[Marcus] Good to hear, Malcolm and great to have you on the programme as always. We’ll talk again next week.

[Malcolm] Thank you very much, Marcus. Have a good week mate.

[Marcus] My pleasure, you too mate. There he is, One nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Somebody sent me a note yesterday. Marcus, “Why just, why oh why,” “do you speak to people like Malcolm and Pauline” “and also Mark Latham?” Well Malcolm Robert’s, just explained it perfectly this morning.

I mean he and Pauline Hanson, spoke to Christine Holgate initially, when she took on the job at Australia Post and she took their advice, turned things around. You know, these people, do hold the balance of power. Quite often, they are voting and the government depends on their votes, to get important legislation across the line.

So I would argue they’re actually, some of the most important politicians to speak to on the programme, because ultimately they have to weigh everything up. They have to listen to all sides of politics and then decide which way they want to go. That’s why we talk to people like Malcolm Roberts.

/by

What is APRA doing about anti-competitive banks? Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Senate Estimates

, ,

De-banking is the process of blocking a certain person or business from having accounts at banks. Banking is central to everything we do. If a person or business is de-banked, they are essentially shut out from society. The banks claim that they have de-banked certain businesses based on their money laundering risk, but anti-money laundering enforcers AUSTRAC have said that no one should be de-banked based on this.

Digging a bit further we find that many of the business being de-banked; bullion dealers, third party ATM operators, cryptocurrency exchanges and cash transport; we realise that many of these are direct competitors to the banks. Something smells fishy to me here. APRA needs to do a better job of investigating and not just take the banks word for it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] Thank you all for attending today. Last October, I raised with you the issue of de-banking and use the case of Paul Thomas’ cash in transit business commander security and AUSTRAC and AML compliant organisation that had their business accounts closed by Westpac and then was refused business banking across the whole banking sector, Wayne Byers, chair, you promised to look at it, look into it, two weeks after estimates, Westpac gave notice that they were now closing his personal account with St. George bank, which he’d had for 30 years. A joint account, they’re also closing his joint account he has with the business partner and ending withdrawal rights he has on a major, on a joint venture, sorry a joint mortgage account he has with a relative. Did you look into his case, as you said?

[Witness] So I think the issue is one in which you have a bank that has been found to not be adhering to its AML responsibilities. The bank has therefore looked very closely at it’s frameworks, it’s standards, its controls around detecting and preventing anti money laundering and has made some decisions about whether it thinks customers, including, probably the case you’re referring to, but, can be safely banked and allow the bank to satisfy itself that it is meeting its obligations and they have come to the decision that is a customer that they don’t think they can meet those obligations.

[Senator Roberts] He’s AML compliant.

[Witness] Yeah. I can only tell you that’s their decision.

[Senator Roberts] So it looks like Westpac really got him, well and truly. Now all banks use the same risk management company. Being de-banked by one bank means being de-banked by all the banks, even the Coba banks. So what is this man Paul supposed to do now? His customers need him to resupply their non-bank ATM’s in clubs and pubs. Where is the appeal mechanism in these de-banking cases? Who do they turn to? We’re seeing a bank competitor here being de-banked. Wiping out a competitor.

[Witness] So I’m not sure if your reference, Senator, to all banks use the same risk management company?

[Senator Roberts] Same, same company that assesses their risk for money laundering and so on.

[Witness] I think there’s more than one and, and ultimately it’s an individual bank’s responsibility. It can’t outsource that responsibility. Yes there are suppliers of systems that help banks do that, but there’s more than one. So it’s a difficult, it is a difficult question. And I don’t pretend, I don’t pretend that there’s an easy answer to it. But banks do have their obligations, they have to adhere to them. And they do need to, and it’s quite clear there will be significant penalties if they do not.

[Senator Roberts] And APRA has its responsibilities too because these banks are shutting down whole industries potentially.

[Witness] Yes, but in this particular case where we’re dealing with a bank that is seeking to comply with the law that’s administered by another agency, it’s difficult for us to intervene in that issue.

[Senator Roberts] Well AFCA refused to hear these cases. They don’t hear anti money laundering cases. So I wanted to discuss this issue with AFCA at estimates, but they refuse to attend estimates. The concept of anti money laundering, sorry, the concept of being held accountable for their actions was too much for them to handle apparently so I repeat my question. What do these businesses and their employees do now?

[Witness] I don’t have a, I don’t have a, an answer to that question other than to, other than to try and seek to understand what are the issues of the nature of the business that has caused the concern.

[Senator Roberts] Could, could my office contact yours?

[Witness] Yeah Absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When I look through the company–

[Chair] Senator Roberts needs to be the last question.

[Senator Roberts] When I looked through the companies that are being de-banked, I see their competitors of the banks, remittance companies, Bitcoin and digital currency vendors, gold bullion dealers, cash handling companies that supply non-bank ATM’s with cash. Why is APRA allowing the banks to increase their market power by de-banking their customers?

[Witness] Well, it’s not, we’re not allowing banks to do, or disallowing banks from doing anything. The issue that is at the heart of this, and as you say, it’s not just this particular company, but it’s remittance services and other things is the potential for cash transactions, or transaction sorry, to be occurring anonymously. And that make it difficult therefore for the banks to satisfy their obligations to AUSTRAC and therefore they have to make a business decision about whether they wish to bear that risk. And in many cases, in the light of the experience of two major banks who’ve had very large penalties levied on them. Clearly they are making sure they are compliant with the law.

[Witness] Senator can I just add one little one.

[Chair] Very, very quickly.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, chair. Even Paul, Jeff Devic at AUSTRAC has said don’t de-bank these people in the name of AUSTRAC. If this is in response to AML legislation, why have you not asked treasury to review that legislation to correct this unintended consequence? And isn’t this unconscionable conduct?

[Witness] Well senator, we can comment on what’s in our purview. And as the chair has indicated, we don’t make directions for banks to have particular customers or not have particular customers but they do have to adhere to the laws that abide all entities.

[Senator Roberts] Isn’t it unconscionable conduct to wipe out a competing industry?

[Witness] Well unconscionable conduct is an issue for ASIC, not for APRA.

[Chair] We do need to move on Senator Roberts.

/by

The Great IR Debate – 2SM with Marcus Paul and Joel Fitzgibbon

I had a debate with Joel Fitzgibbon last week about Industrial Relations and what One Nation has done to improve certainty and cut administrative burdens for small businesses.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] All right now, this was something different this morning. We normally on a Thursdays, you know catch up with One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Now Malcolm has been targeted by Labor MP Joel Fitzgibbon. Joel, who sits on the back bench these days. Joel’s always stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think when you’ve got Labor, possibly going down a probably a far greener future, than what some would like. And there are many suggesting that Labor have forgotten about the grassroots of the party and that is looking after coal miners and workers. Anyway, the story, and I think it was in the Herald up there in Newcastle, “Miner shaft the hunter coal industry in uproar over One Nation backing the government’s controversial IR bills” Both the gentlemen in question are on the programme. Good morning to you. First of all, Joel.

[Joel Fitzgibbon] Good morning, Marcus

[Marcus] And Malcolm Roberts from One Nation morning Malcolm?

[Malcolm Roberts] Good day Marcus. Good morning.

[Marcus] All right. Now gentlemen.

[Malcolm] Good morning Joel

[Joel] Good morning Malcolm.

[Marcus] All right. Class action lawyers and the CFMEU are considering the possibility of a high court challenge to the gutted IR bill that passed through parliament on Monday with its clauses on casual employment. The only sections to survive. Now Joel to you first you’ve come out in the press and it’s been reported basically saying that Scott Morrison has no more reliable vote in the Senate. And that of One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts, you say it’s a slap in the face for coal miners in the Hunter. Joel?

[Joel] Well, that’s true Marcus and it’s not just Joel Fitzgibbon saying it. It’s the Coal Miners Union and it’s coal miners themselves, including Mr. Simon Turner, who Malcolm has been using as a very fine example of those who’ve been disadvantaged by the law as it stands but Malcolm has been using as a person. He says he’s been trying to help but Simon Turner himself today is in the financial review saying that he’s disgusted and feels betrayed by One Nation’s actions in the Senate in supporting this industrial relation bill which is not going to make it better for coal miners. It’s going to make it worse for our coal miners.

[Marcus] All right. Malcolm ,respond to that.

[Malcolm] Sure. The greens have no better and more reliable asset in the in the parliament than the labor party. And Joel is wearing the consequences of that because they’ve lost touch with the working workers all around the country, lost touch with small business. And what we’re doing here is we’re protecting workers. We’re protecting small business. Now, Simon Turner, I’ve had a wonderful relationship with him. He is a wonderful person. Yet I recognise he’s under enormous pressure. He went silent on us a few weeks ago. Silent on a lot of people in the Hunter, under a lot of pressure. We then kept working for him in the parliament and in public, and he was energised again. And we actually we actually drove a solution for him, a settlement that’s that’s that’s given him a substantial benefit.

[Marcus] I think we’ve lost. Hang on for a second Malcolm. I think we might’ve lost Joel there. We might’ve lost Joel. We’ll just go back to, is that you you still? No, we’ve lost them both. All right. For some reason, Justin we’ve lost them. So we’ll take a break and come back to that.

SM super network news, news, wake up, get up, Marcus Paul in the morning.

[Marcus] All right? It’s quarter to eight. My apologies to, to our listeners. So obviously I think Joel’s calling from the Hunter this morning and there’s obviously a lot of water in the area. I think we’ve got both gentlemen back. Joel, are you there?

[Joel] Yes I’m here Marcus

[Marcus] Perfect. And Malcolm you’re back.

[Malcolm] Yes, mate. Ready to go?

[Marcus] All right. So, I think we were halfway between what you were responding with Malcolm. So please go ahead.

[Malcolm] Yes. You know, it’s very important to understand that Simon Turner has been bashed around for six years by the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley. And I always say Hunter Valley CFMEU because the rest of the union is fine, but Simon tells me and he’s said it very emotionally and strongly. The Hunter Valley CFMEU is disgraceful. He dislikes Joel intensely because he’s written to Joel six times to help him with these problems. And I can get through the problems in a little while but six times never once has Joel responded. I’ve written to Joel personally in parliament and asked him to get involved, come and understand the issues, refuse to even acknowledge me. Plus Joel has now misrepresented this situation several times. I don’t know why he keeps hiding what the Hunter Valley CFMEU has done.

[Marcus] All right. What has the Hunter Valley CFMEU done? Malcolm

[Malcolm] Very simple. They’ve gutted mining in the Hunter Valley because first of all, the Hunter Valley, the award for the black coal mining industry does not include, it was signed in 2010, does not include casuals. Now the union, what they did they used to be a hirer of casuals. They used to be a Labor hire firm themselves the Hunter Valley CFMEU, they sold that, made a profit but they stayed in the business. And by made the enterprise agreements that cut out the award, cut out award provisions. They created a casual within the enterprise agreement. That’s the first thing they did. now because that went against the award. There was no casual conversion. The union itself created casuals. The union itself locked casuals into permanent casualization. And not only that, they undermined the pay of these casuals by creating a category that was 40% under…

[Marcus] All right.

[Malcolm] The same, the enterprise agreement unbacked by the owners on the same mine, same job, 40% less pay.

[Marcus] Okay. Joel, your response to that?

[Joel] Well, that’s just all rubbish. Marcus, why would I respond to Malcolm? Malcolm Roberts’ calls for me to work with him, when I know that he’s walking both sides of the street as proven with his vote in the Senate last week. And I did respond to Simon Turner and who, by the way he’s not a constituent of mine. That doesn’t matter because I’m here to help anyone that I can. But all this is very simple. The courts have ruled in both the skene case and confirmed, and the rossato case, that the mining companies have been doing the wrong thing by mine workers, paying people different pay rights for the same job. By using the usual use of, by using casualization. Now these court cases effectively representing the situation.

[Marcus] Hang on Malcolm, just let him finish.

[Joel] And now the decision and Malcolm Roberts voted for the bill which overturns effectively the court’s decision. It’s as simple as that Marcus.

[Marcus] All right. So just, just in a nutshell, in relation to what it is before the government, at the moment in relation to the industrial relations bill your main concerns in a nutshell, Joel please about why Malcolm has sided with the government on this.

[Joel] My main concern of course, is that after the union spent a lot of money representing coal miners in the courts. To fix this problem, Malcolm has now used his vote in the Senate to back a government bill which now effectively nullifies the decision of the court putting our coal miners back in the position where we started. And that’s a slap in the face for our coal miners. Not my words, the words of the coal mining union. And of course, Mr. Simon Turner, who Malcolm has purported to represent but now says he feels betrayed by Malcolm and One Nation.

[Marcus] All right Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Well, it’s very simple. The coal mining union in the Hunter Valley, actually undermined the workers award and the workers’ entitlements. They signed off on the enterprise agreement. Joel cannot run away from that. That is fact. They’ve done it repeatedly. 300, more than 300 enterprise agreements that the union has signed. That’s the first thing, the second thing is that the rossato case did not, is not going to be affected. Cause the decision is not going to be affected by this legislation that was passed last week with our support, what we’ve done. I made sure that we protected mine workers. That was the first thing I did. Then the second thing I did… we even called the class action lawyer who’s leading Simon’s class action to get his take on it. What we also did then was we, we understood that the legislation cannot cannot reverse the the written entitlements of miners at all. It can use an offset, which is, which is absolutely fair. We can’t have people being paid for entitlements and then get those same entitlements back. So that’s absolutely fair. And then you get the other thing that drove us was that small business is going to be gutted by this, because what will happen is, small businesses will have to pay twice for basic entitlements that are already protected in awards. Most of the awards in Australia, all but 12 have these provisions already in them.

[Marcus] All right. Joel?

[Joel] Well, what really disappoints me is that the Senator, the good Senator, seems to have suggested that the only reason Simon Turner the person he purports to represent has turned on him is because he’s been intimidated by the union. That’s a pretty, no that’d be charged. So I said that, your listeners either believe me, the union who represents the workers and Simon Turner who Malcolm purported to represent that now feels betrayed or they believe Senator Roberts. And I’m pretty confident Marcus your listeners will conclude that we are on the side of the workers. Malcolm Roberts has betrayed them and they should not trust him in the future.

[Marcus] You see, the big concern is that every new job could be casual. I mean, that was the main concern on the issue. What we’ll do is I’ll let both of you gentlemen have another couple of minutes each just to finish. So we’ll go first to you, Malcolm for your final comments.

[Malcolm] Well, they won’t betray miners because what’s actually happened is this bill that we supported with some amendments to protect workers further and protects small business further actually gives people a pathway to permanent employment. The union sold out the workers in the Hunter Valley because they eliminated any chance of that because they bodgied up an enterprise agreement in an award under an award that didn’t have a classification. So what means, what that means is that people under the EA are locked into lower pay rates than their work mates doing the same job next to them. Thanks to the union. They’re locked into being a permanent casual thanks to the union. And we also know that small business cannot afford the double dipping. So what we’ve, which is when a person gets paid for in lieu of his entitlements and then later claims those entitlements. All that’s happening here is that that is clarified now. So the small business can be protected. We’ve had many, many compliments from from small businesses, small business organisations because we have saved the day. We need some certainty here. We need some, some confidence back in business and back in and workers protections. And that’s what we’ve done. We’ve ensured workers are protected. We’ve put in extra provisions to make sure that we’ve also put in the bill, legislated in the bill is a 12 month review to see if there are any unintended consequences but we’ve also made detailed changes within that. And there’d be more coming out from us in a in a few weeks time, because we are going to be chasing BHP. We have chase BHP. We have chased Chandler McCloud. We’ve chased the Hunter Valley CFMEU and Joel is sat on his backside doing nothing. Stuart Bonds has been to Canberra more times with Simon Turner and with us and advocating for, for Simon in the in the parliament and in in my office than Joel has ever done.

[Marcus] All right. So Joel, to finish your points.

[Joel] Well, Malcolm can check the parliamentary hansard and my speeches in the parliament. Marcus I’ve been very active on this subject, but look I started by saying Malcolm’s been walking both sides of the street and listen to what he just said. He kept mentioning business business business. Now this is what he’s trying to do. He’s trying to stand, straddle this divide. The fact here is that a number of workers have signed enterprise agreements non-union enterprise agreements which we’re paying them less than the union members working alongside them, notwithstanding including Simon Turner. The fact that they weren’t union members the union took this to court to get it fixed because it believes it was unfair that people should be doing the same job and getting different. Pay rights. The court fixed the problem. The Morrison government didn’t like the outcomes. So they legislated to overrule the courts. And that bill on that bill used to overrule. The courts, Malcolm Turnbull put his hand. high, not Malcolm Turnbull sorry. Malcolm Roberts put his hand high in the air in the Australian Senate and said, yep. I’m with you Scott Morrison. And in doing so he did over the miners. And that’s what Simon Turner is saying in the Australian financial review today.

[Marcus] All right, gentlemen, thank you both for joining us. It’s been interesting. Let’s do this again sometime.

[Malcolm] Oh, Marcus, by the way the union signed the enterprise agreement.

[Marcus] All right, gentlemen. Thank you. Have a wonderful day. Joel Fitzgibbon., Hunter MP, Malcolm Roberts, Senator.

/by

Should we let bad banks keeps abusing virtual AGMs? Australian Securities and Investments Commission at Senate Estimates

, ,

Annual General Meetings of large companies have almost always been held physically. This changed with COVID when the use of Virtual AGMs was authorised. Virtual AGMs were necessary when the country was plagued by lockdowns, but now as restrictions ease big companies such as banks are desperately trying to hold on to them.

Virtual AGMs allow the big banks to shut down investor questions and avoid scrutiny on important topics like the huge salary bonuses of top executives. AGMs that used to take an entire day because of questions from investors are now being sailed through in just a couple of hours.

I believe in the free market and to have that we must have confidence in the stock market. Physical attendance at AGMs for those investors that want it is a fundamental part of maintaining that confidence in the stock market and the companies in it.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. The corporation’s coronavirus economic response determination number three, 2020, provided the basis for virtual AGMs. ASIC have replaced that determination, which expired this week with order 21-056 MR, which takes a no action position on virtual AGMs. Does this mean that corporations can run a virtual AGM with no restrictions coming from ASIC?

[Commissioner Melina] Senator, hopefully I can help you with that. In relation to this, there is a bill that parliament is considering about a full-time permanent change to the law to allow virtual AGMs, but that bill is still in committee and being considered.

[Senator Roberts] That was the rule of the Senate to extend it.

[Commissioner Melina] Yes, exactly, exactly. So in light of the fact that the pandemic, whilst we’ve operated very effectively nationally in the pandemic, but there is still some uncertainties about the pandemic for companies whose balance dates, for example, after December 31, this year, they have five months to have their AGM. In light of that fact, we think that it is reasonable given that there are still some restrictions of movements for companies to temporarily, until we hear, and it is temporary, but until we hear how parliament intends to pursue that matter, have an opportunity to, if they need to hold a virtual AGM to comply with various restrictions, wherever they may be located. Now, it is only a no action position. We don’t have the power to amend the law in this area or make any more permanent situation. But we are intending to give guidance to companies about what’s important. If they do need to take advantage of having a virtual AGM to ensure really the safety of their shareholders, their employees, and their staff. We are working to ensure that we give enough guidance about what’s necessary, so that people have an opportunity to ask questions of the chairs.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re saying this is temporary.

[Commissioner Melina] Temporary, absolutely.

[Senator Roberts] When will it expire?

[Commissioner Melina] We intend to revisit it once we, one, if the pandemic conditions change dramatically and two, once we hear more how the Senate and the parliament are considering this particular issue.

[Senator Roberts] So why couldn’t you’ve extended it until September 30th?

[Commissioner Melina]Well, we weren’t feeling comfortable about doing that because we were, my understanding and please correct me because I’m not so familiar with parliamentary time-tabling but my understanding was it’s possible that this bill could be determined before then. I understand the committee that is considering it is due to report at the end of June. So we did want to take our lead from the decisions of parliament. We’re not interested at all in-

[Senator Roberts] So the intent is temporary, but there’s no deadline.

[Commissioner Melina] And we could announce in a month or two, you know, it’s no longer applicable, but we want to give companies the opportunity to plan. These events do require a bit of logistics.

[Senator Roberts] Were you happy with the outcome of the trial of virtual AGMs?

[Commissioner Melina] Generally, there were some instances where we received complaints about how those, on some occasions, how questions were dealt with, but generally we were reasonably happy, and we’re able to go back and talk to chairs and companies about the particular issues.

[Commissioner] Senator, I just wanted to emphasise what Commissioner Melena just said, that the dialogue, the ongoing dialogue, which we had with the director community and the corporate community was very constructive so that we saw improvements taking place, as this was operationalized by companies in that initial no-action period.

[Senator Roberts] Okay my experience and the feedback we’ve got is quite the opposite. Companies are using virtual AGMs to disenfranchise activist shareholders. And these tactics include sending activist shareholders a wrong entry code. So they can’t access the virtual meeting room. Accepting questions on notice and then not reading them out, not calling on shareholders who they know will ask difficult questions and switching off shareholders, who were asking difficult questions. So this is why virtual AGMs went to an inquiry. So you’re basically invalidating the process.

[Commissioner Melina] Well, Senator we would be very happy to take those points on board and review them ‘cos that sort of feedback is very helpful.

[Commissioner] Yeah, we are interested in following up that sort of feedback.

[Senator Roberts] It does become a great way to manipulate annual general meetings and shareholders. American shareholder organisations are stating just that. So I understand the benefit for small companies to have virtual only AGMs, if shareholders agree before every AGM. But are you really saying that 100% virtual is acceptable for large companies like the banks and Crown Casino, who featured strongly in complaints to my office? And in addition, it seems like some of these companies want to shut down the problems, but that only defers it, because they eventually pop up, and then it becomes more embarrassing.

[Commissioner] Senator the points that you’re raising, we will certainly take on board, but just to confirm and this is explicit in your question. This is a temporary relief, we’re waiting on parliament. And certainly we will take those points on board but it strikes me that these are issues for Parliament’s consideration.

[Senator Roberts] Okay, thank you. Going to Banking Code of Practise. The enforceable code provisions, particularly, how close are we to seeing which provisions of the Banking Code of Practise will be enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] Morning Senator. Sean Hughes-

[Senator Roberts] Good morning.

[Commissioner Hughes] Commissioner at ASIC. Thank you for your question. The current version of the code, which we approved in January, which came into effect on the 1st of March does not contain any enforceable provisions. The changes that were approved by us in January are essentially minor in nature. We are however waiting to see the outcomes from the ABO’s triennial review of the code, which commences in June, that will also include a consideration of the small business threshold definition with the reviewer recommending an increase of that definitional threshold from $3 million to $5 million. At that point in time, I’d suggest Senator that we would revisit to the issue of enforceability in relation to any provisions of the code.

[Senator Roberts] So what date after June?

[Commissioner Hughes] So they’re commencing the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So at the moment, ASIC doesn’t have any provisions it wants to see as enforceable?

[Commissioner Hughes] The position in relation to enforceable code provisions, Senator is that the relevant body in this case, the ABA needs to apply to ASIC to say whether any provisions should be made enforceable. No such provisions were nominated to us and having considered it, we didn’t believe that any needed to be made enforceable at this point in time. As I say the changes that we approved in January were relatively minor and technical in nature. We would prefer to revisit the question of enforceability post the triennial review in June.

[Senator Roberts] So basically at the moment ASIC is waiting for the banks to tell them what to do.

[Commissioner Hughes] That’s not the case at all Senator. We have not identified any enforceable provisions in relation to the minor and technical changes to the code made in January.

[Chair] Senator Roberts, two more questions.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, exactly that, two. Going to unconscionable conduct. My question relates to this week’s judgement of the full bench of the Federal Court in the Kybolt Case which saw a substantial change in the definition of unconscionable conduct. Unconscionable conduct is contained in section 12CB of the ASIC Act. Will ASIC assist Corporate Australia to meet the lower standard of proof this offence now carries by way of a regulatory document or note or report?

[Commissioner Hughes] Senator I’ll take that question as well. We are aware of and have followed the decision of the High Court in relation to that proceeding that was commenced by the ACCC. And we’re revisiting the extent to which that may have an impact in enforcement actions that we are running. But as you rightly point out, Senator, that’s a very fresh judgement from the High Court. And I can’t make predictions as to what we will do in relation to future litigation matters at this stage.

[Senator Roberts] Will you be assisting Corporate Australia though to understand this component?

We will certainly continue to inform and educate Corporate Australia as to the impact of that decision. As I know, the ACCC will do, and we will be discussing with colleagues across the law enforcement agencies the benefits and the implications of that judgement .

[Senator Roberts] Last question. Well, it’s not a question, actually it’s a statement. May I compliment ASIC for its enforcement history on unconscionable conduct cases against the major banks. And I look forward to this judgement making your job even easier.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

[Commissioner] Thank you, Senator.

/by

How can small business operate with so much red tape?

, ,

Small businesses are going under across the country because of the amount of red tape they have to get through to earn a dollar. I was proud to have removed some paperwork requirements for them with my amendments to the recent IR reforms but the Fair Work Act is still six inches thick.

How can we really expect smaller operators and employees to be across the mountain of complex laws that govern how we go to work? The Fair Work Act must be simplified. Small Businesses are the backbone of this country but they are starting to crack under the weight of red tape.

Transcript

[Chair] Senator , we’re gonna move on to Senator Roberts

[Man] I’m done.

[Chair] Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you chair and thank you for attending today. This is the Fair Work Act. I’ll refer to it in a minute. The root of many complexities, what can be done to reduce industrial relations complexity for small business. And is there a better way for small business and for workers?

[Witness] We believe there’s great scope for simplification. My predecessors had quite a bit to say about that. And I think Senator O’Neill might’ve been referring to some work I did on that subject for the Fair Work Commission about how to make the regime work better for small businesses, his Honour Justice, Iain Ross asked for some views within the current law about how you would make it more small business friendly. So there’s quite a, quite a range of options there. The agency has done a piece of work on that and I’ve got some of the things around loaded rates and streamlining the enterprise bargaining process for businesses and workforces that are inclined to do that. There’s quite a number Senator and some reports around.

[Senator Roberts] I know your predecessor committed to taking part in, in simplifying industrial relations in the country. I had a lot of respect for your predecessors as senators around this table have said–

[Woman] Can I just clarify adviser?

[Man] Yes.

[Woman] Thank you, Yep.

[Witness] I presume that was what you were referring to earlier Senator. And that was with the Fair Work Commission.

[Senator Roberts] And I note the Japanese miracle after the Second World War, Peter, I’m sorry, W. Edwards Deming was introduced by Macafa.

[Witness] Yes, can’t measure what you can’t manage and can’t manage what he can’t measure I think was one of his phrases.

[Senator Roberts] Yes, but the key to Deming’s work was that instead of focusing on the level of production and tinkering with the process, focus on reducing variation and when people reduce variation in the process, the process becomes more efficient. And this introduces a whole lot of variation and destroys because of the complexity. So we need to get back to simplicity. I mean, it’s proven in every industry, so what else needs to be done to support small business and workers?

[Witness] We think there’s some scope to look at reg tech, we’d use some technology tools.

[Senator Roberts] Red tech?

[Witness] Regulatory technology to help businesses navigate the rules. It’s, it’s interesting that small business men and women can create, conceive and grow their own business but really feel they need expert advice to navigate that pile that’s in front of you. And it seems to be why, why does it need to be so hard? Why can’t it be more surefooted? So there’s been some ideas put forward around reg tech, helping with that simplification even having annexures or a stripped down version of awards for smaller enterprises. They’re the sorts of ideas that the agency has, has brought forward previously and some of which are in that report.

[Senator Roberts] It’s very difficult for workers to find their entitlements in here and know when they’re getting ripped off. This is harmful for workers. It’s led to a decline in union membership in this country, I believe. And it’s led to small businesses not knowing what they’re doing and being frightened all the time of breaking the law. I believe it’s led to large businesses, large companies being very poorly managed because they focus on rules rather than on the core workplace relationship between employer and employee. So I can’t see how this favours anyone. We’ve had senior officials of the largest unions in the country. We’ve had employer groups all saying that this needs to be tackled for the sake of Australian business, not just small business, but especially small business.

[Witness] Well our view Senator is if it’s easier to get it right, that’s in everybody’s interests.

[Senator Roberts] Especially the workers.

[Witness] Absolutely. It would help inoculate against employees under payment, if there’s ability of employers to be able to understand and make it easier to do the right thing and know what that is, we think that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Senator Roberts] And the other thing, another thing about this is that it focuses on trying to prevent the bad doing things. Whether it be poor workers or, you know bad workers or bad employers. I mentioned this to COSBOA’s head, Peter Strong.

[Witness] Yes.

[Senator Roberts] And he said, of course, what a wonderful idea, focus on the positives, to enable good workers and good employers to get on with severe punishments for those who break the law. So simplify the law, make it focused on enhancing the employer, employee relationship, and then punish anybody who goes against it, really severely. At the moment, this is a game for lawyers to just act out in courts and workers and small business are left in the dust because they haven’t got the deep pockets for lawyers. On the point of improving small businesses, what can be done to support medium sized businesses as well?

[Witness] Well, we think the proposition we’ve put forward is that if you can have a framework that’s small business friendly and built with smaller employers in mind, that’ll improve the prospects for larger businesses If you build it from the ground up was the argument that was put forward, rather than build for assuming there’s 10 people in a workplace relations team.

[Senator Roberts] So you’re coming back to the primacy of the workplace relationship.

[Witness] And keep that as understandable, as straightforward and simple, so it can be implemented and people can focus on the success of the enterprise that’s in everybody’s interest

[Senator Roberts] Now this is based on reinforcing the IR club, the lawyers, the consultants, the um–

[Witness] Yeah. I must confess in the report that Senator O’Neill mentioned, I did refer to the club that thrives in the complexity.

[Senator Roberts] So it needs to be, needs to be made for workers and employers.

[Witness] Yeah, I think so, and that people can confidently navigate it knowing what the right thing is and that’s in everybody’s interest.

[Witness 2] And, and.

[Witness] sorry, Senator.

[Witness 2] And just on the medium business side, our definition of what a small businesses is, is up to a hundred employees on an FTE basis. So we actually do get well into that sort of middle territory as well.

[Senator Roberts] And the Fair Work Act defines a small businesses as 15 or less full-time equivalent.

[Witness 2] It’s, that one’s different.

[Witness] I mean, we also had some ideas around the fair dismissal code, you know, addressing it, just making sure it was, it’s functioning as, as was understood to be its intention when it was introduced. And even some structural reforms where there’s, you know might be a small business division within the Fair Work Commission that has processes that are right sized for smaller workplaces. And perhaps the club is less necessary, less necessary to be involved. So, I mean they’re just some of the ideas that have come forward, both from the agency and referring to the report that said–

[Senator Roberts] Well the Industrial Relations Club is focused on perpetuating its power and control.

[Chair] Senator

[Senator Roberts] can I just make one comment about Kate Carnell please? She reached out to people, including us. She came with solutions, not problems and she was always proactive and she always was happy to listen and engage and meaningfully listen.

[Witness] It’s a good formula.

[Malcolm] Thank you, Chair.

/by

Australian Signals Directorate

, ,

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you Chair and thank you all for being here. I have a few short question mostly about elections. My questions are about the Australian Cyber Security Centre, in Senate estimates on the 19th of February 2019, Tom Rogers, the Deputy Director of the Australian Electoral Commission said, “We work very closely with our partner agencies, the Australian Cyber Security Centre from the Australian Signals Directorate,” and then he went on and then said again, “We work with them closely and we are very confident,” pause and then, “That there has been no breach of the AEC systems,” is that an accurate statement?

[Rachel Noble]

It absolutely is, we work very closely with the Australian Electoral Commission and actually as we do with all State and Territory electoral commission equivalents, particularly focused together in partnership in the lead up to an election, during the election and then post the election, where we’ll partner on looking for any cyber security or threats to the proper running of the election.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. Last night, the Australian Electoral Commission advised they have never used the Scytl software they purchased and instead used a bespoke system. They further commented that the internal code had been audited and reviewed. Has your office conducted a code level and server level audit of the Australian Electoral Commission election software?

[Rachel Noble]

Unless Ms. Bradshaw knows the answer to that specific question or Mr. Hanmore? No? We might have to take that level of detail on notice, Senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay. So, if you don’t know who did this mysterious audit, and do you also know if the software passed the audit? So, if you could, let us know that.

[Rachel Noble]

I could take that on notice, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you. During the election period, is the Australian Cyber Security Centre responsible for securing the data systems used by the Australian Electoral Commission?

[Rachel Noble]

Our functions, which are set out in the Intelligence Services Act allow us to provide advice and assistance, the ultimate accountability and responsibility is for the organisation, in this case the Australian Electoral Commission itself.

[Senator Roberts]

So, are you saying then that the Australian Electoral Commission itself secures the data systems that it uses?

[Rachel Noble]

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you. Last question, are you 100% confident the software and systems available to the Australian Electoral Commission for the 2022 election are fit for purpose?

We will partner, continue to partner with them but it would be unwise to sort of project into the future, we will, as I said in the lead up to that election, during and after, be working in, you know, the contemporary environment both based on the state of their systems that they in place at the time, our understanding of the threat environment that we will provide to them and we’ll work in a contemporary, agile and current environment at that time, but it would be unwise for me to provide guarantees about what may or may not happen in the future.

[Senator Roberts]

So, you don’t work with them on a regular basis more just around the elections?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right, We’ll stay in partnership with them like we do all Australian government entities at all times, so, if we become aware of a specific threat to any Commonwealth or State and Territory or private entity for that matter, we will reach out with them and engage them on that, so, we’ll do that at any time throughout the year but we will have a particular, dedicated, focused effort with them, pre, during and after an election on top of that.

[Senator Roberts]

Okay, so, you will assess the situation at any time, and any time you might hear some potential threat and you get involved, but other than that you will only get involved just before during and after the election?

[Rachel Noble]

That’s right.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much.

[Rachel Noble]

Thank you.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you, Chair, see, it was less than five minutes.

[Chair]

Senator Patrick, you could take a leaf out of Senator Roberts’ book in relation to timeliness, but over to you.

/by

Is the Government considering mandatory vaccination? Questioning the Department of Health Senate Estimates

, ,

Even though the government says they don’t want to mandate vaccination, they haven’t ruled out attaching it to everyday activities. That means they won’t rule out that you might have to be vaccinated to go to the pub which sounds as good as mandating it to me.

I believe in the vaccine being available to anyone who wants to take it, but it should be every individual’s choice whether they take it or not. I do not believe they should be government mandated. Where do you stand?

Transcript

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you chair. And thank you all for attending. What percentage of the population, that will, will receive a COVID 19 vaccine? Do you expect or plan?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, we were, our target at present Senator, is to vaccinate all the adult population, the over eighteens off by the end of October, give them a first dose. So that’s I think approximately 20 million, I think?

About, about 20 million going on.

Yeah. Now we may then go on and vaccinate children. If we have vaccines that are registered and approved for children. And if they prevent transmission and that helps us with herd immunity, but there are no vaccine. There’s no trial data on children at the moment. So the vaccines are only registered for adults.

Or 16 to 18 in the case of one. But no nobody under 16 has a registered product at this point.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Will that include the elderly, the frail?

[Brendan Murphy]

Absolutely. Unless there is a medical contraindication which is very rare. So if someone is very close to end of life it may be decided that it’s not appropriate. But in general, absolutely. That’s what we’re doing in residential aged care. Vaccinating a lot of very elderly and very frail people.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Do you have the constitutional or legislative power in your opinion, to impose mandatory vaccination?

[Brendan Murphy]

The government policy is very clear that we’re not. We’ve never imposed mandatory vaccination in Australia. We take the approach that we want to encourage, promote and provide the evidence for vaccination. There have been situations where, for example, with flu vaccination last year in aged care where there was a public health order that the States and territories made. That decided that you couldn’t enter a facility unless you had proof of flu vaccination. But that was that’s very different from, from making, from mandating a vaccine. It just means that you have to make a choice about whether you go into an aged care facility. And obviously for childhood immunisation similar rules have applied. With again, mostly enforced by the States and territories, with no jab no play and government policy with no jab, no pay. But none of those have said that you are by law required to be vaccinated.

[Malcolm Roberts]

In the States?

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, In the States. Nobody can force a medical intervention on another citizen. We can do a lot of things to encourage, promote. And in some cases to restrict situations of risk if you’re not vaccinated. But we have never taken the view that we can force a citizen to have a medical intervention.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And you won’t be taking that view.

[Brendan Murphy]

I, I can’t imagine. That’s not, we wouldn’t recommend it.

[Witness]

There is absolutely no proposal from the government to make any COVID vaccine compulsory for anybody.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So are there any policies or plans or ideas or has it been discussed to make something unavailable without the vaccine? Effectively making it compulsory?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well, again, there has been discussion at HBPC. About whether, and Professor Kelly can comment on that, whether, at some stage we might use the same approach that we used for flu last year. To say that if the COVID vaccine is really effective at preventing transmission, that to say that to work in aged care or to enter a facility you need to have a vaccination. But HBPC has decided that; A, there isn’t enough evidence on prevention of transmission at the moment. And, B it would be silly for such a public health order to be introduced until such time as all of those workers and community members who might visit aged care have had the opportunity to be vaccinated. So that is, that’s a live matter for consideration that will be reviewed as the evidence evolves.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay.

[Witness]

No, I’ll just be very clear here though, that the current position of the government is that this vaccine is voluntary and not withstanding that the HPCs work and the, and the health departments work. But the government’s position is very clear, that the vaccine is voluntary.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. And thank you, Dr. Murphy. I’ll just jump outside of vaccines for a minute. To understand the overall context, and then come back to vaccines. What are the main factors in managing a pandemic? I’ll just test my own knowledge with you first. Is isolate and arrest the vaccine, which is called a lockdown, I understand. Then there’s number two is, identify the location and the spread to get on top of the quickly. What’s that? testing, tracing and quarantine. Then there are attempts to reduce the transmissibility through restrictions like masks, gatherings, criticism, movement of people, sorry, not criticism, movement of people. Then the fourth one would be cure and prophylactic areas to try and prevent, to try and cure people of the virus. For example, antivirals. Number five would be vaccine. Have I, have any, have I included any that are wrong? Have I missed any?

[Brendan Murphy]

Well you’ve missed international borders, which is probably…

[Malcolm Roberts]

Isolate and arrest.

[Brendan Murphy]

Yeah, well, certainly that has been one of our most successful interventions. Was to prevent the importation of a virus from, despite all the impact that it’s had on our citizens overseas. It has been one of the most singularly important parts of our success in controlling COVID.

[Malcolm Roberts]

So there’s just isolate and arrest, which I include international borders. Identify the location and spread through testing, tracing, quarantine. Reduce the transmissibility through restrictions. Cure and prophylactic approach and vaccine.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That seems pretty complete Professor Kelly?

[Professor Kelly]

individual behaviours.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sorry?

[Professor Kelly]

Individual behaviours. So the hand hygiene, cough into your elbow, that sort of stuff.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Okay. Thank you.

The following line of questioning occured after the end of the attached video clip (see HANSARD)

[Chair]

The last question.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Can I get, on notice, an assessment of the characteristics of the virus? We were told initially it was a respiratory disease and we shoved ventilators at people. Some people were telling us that it hinders the blood absorbing oxygen or uptaking oxygen. We were told about various treatments. Perhaps you could tell me, on notice, what are the characteristics you measure to assess the virus’s mortality and
transmissibility, and any other characteristics of the virus, and perhaps rank it relative to, for example, the decreasing order of impact. We’ve had the Black Death, the Plague of Justinian, smallpox, the Antonine Plague, the Spanish flu, the third plague, HIV/AIDS and now COVID-19, which is a fraction of the population affected. Is it possible to get that summary?

[Brendan Murphy]

We can certainly provide it. This virus is now well studied. Essentially, as we’ve said on many occasions, for most fit, young people it’s a relatively mild disease, but 126,000 people have died in the UK, a very similar country to us. We have avoided a very large death rate by controlling this virus, and we’re very proud of that achievement, Senator. Whilst it may be a mild disease, that means it transmits wildly. Older people and people with underlying conditions are at risk of getting severe respiratory disease and dying, as they have done in their millions around the world.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

/8 Comments/by