One Nation Senators preparing amendments to rectify flaws in the IR Bill

,

The government is on notice that One Nation is expecting due consideration of its amendments to the Industrial Relations Bill next week in Parliament.

Senator Malcolm Roberts said, “I have doubts about the government’s commitment to comprehensive debate on the Industrial Relations legislation with the committee report due Friday and a vote expected next week.

“This is critical legislation and Senator Hanson and I will not be rushed into a vote before we have had time to consider the report’s recommendations.”

One Nation is proposing a range of amendments including casuals, greenfields, protections for workers in enterprise agreements, awards and compliance.

Senator Roberts stated, “I will not support the Bill in its current form and the government needs to be prepared to embrace One Nation’s amendments to rectify and remove the legislation’s flaws.

“Good industrial relations is about restoring the primary workplace relationship between the employee and employer, and stop the money flowing to the IR club that profits from complexities.

“If the Industrial Relations legislation isn’t doing that, and this current Bill doesn’t, then it isn’t good IR and I am committed to amending the Bill for the betterment of employers and employees.”

One Nation will be seeking a review of this legislation in twelve months to address any unintended consequences and a commitment from the government to undertake comprehensive industrial relations reform within two years.

One Nation’s commitment is to protect honest workers, protect small business and restore Australia’s productive capacity.

“I have written to more than 80 stakeholders including union bosses, peak union groups, employer and industry groups and welfare agencies and listened to their feedback on the legislation. “It’s time to sort this out and Senator Hanson and I are ready to work with the government and all parties,” added Senator Roberts.

/by

In support of Peter Ridd and Science

I had the honour of speaking in support of Peter Ridd and his High Court challenge. James Cook University sacked Dr Ridd in circumstances that should send a shiver up everyone’s spine.

The free discussion of ideas, even those we disagree with and especially at University, is fundamental to the scientific method. The scientific method has led to untold wealth and prosperity for human civilisation.

We will bring on our own downfall if we discard it.

Transcript

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Well, good evening everyone. It’s lovely to be here and thank you very much to Jewel for organising this event. And let’s put our hands together for Jewel because of that. Now, I also want to thank everyone for being here because this is important for Peter Ridd support. Peter is what Peter is doing is much more than just scientific integrity, much, much more. It’s costing us all trillions of dollars.

It’s costing each of us in this room, thousands of dollars. And I’ll explain why in a minute but it’s costing us enormously in terms of the values it’s undermining and destroying in this country and freedom. So I want to also mention and acknowledge our party’s leader Senator Pauline Hanson. I do this not because she’s our party leader but because she’s so damn good at what she does.

When we were looking at the government’s previous bill that went through the Senate late last year Dan Tehan was the education minister. And Dan put forward the bill and Pauline said we will support this providing you do something about Peter Ridd and about the destruction of our universities and freedom of speech.

What would you like us to do? And Pauline rattled off a list. And she got a lot of it from Peter. So I want to acknowledge that there are people in federal parliament, Dan Tehan is one of them and his success minister Tudge is another. They are going to come forward with a bill to restore some of those freedoms in the near future.

But let’s get back to science. It’s ironic, isn’t it? That Pauline Hanson didn’t go to a university but she knows what’s happening in the universities better than vice-chancellors do. That’s appalling that the vice-chancellors are that way. So let’s think about science. What has science brought us? Come on,

[ – ] Electricity.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Electricity, yes.

[ – ] Progress.

[ Malcolm Roberts ]Progress, in what way?

[ – ] Better living standards.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Better living standards, what else?

[ – ] Nice things.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Nice things, comfort, ease, security, lighting, safety, and also long longer living and safer living. It’s brought us material wealth. Look how far we’ve come in the last 170 years despite the last 20 years of reversal. Look how far we’ve come in the previous hundreds of thousands of years and in the last 170 we’ve come so far materially. Enormous it’s staggering. Everything in this room has come as a result of science making a discovery, either in the manufacturing of something or the actual harvesting of something, everything.

And we’re living longer, safer, happier lives but science is much more than just the pure dry knowledge or even the practical knowledge. It’s much more than that. That’s what I’d like to discuss. A scientist is defined as someone who follows the scientific method. Now I won’t go into that in detail now, but the root, but the end result of the scientific method is objectivity. And that’s extremely important because objectivity frees us from the bullies’ control.

Many people think it’s just about coming up with new inventions. It’s not, it’s about freedom in our society. Freedom in all forms, economic freedom. You know, when my grandfather was born he was pretty much tied to a job in the, in the Valleys of Wales, in his Valley, he didn’t go very far, but now someone in Australia can go almost anywhere in the world and work. So if you’ve got a bully in charge of the mine or your factory in your Valley you’re stuck there 150 years ago.

Not anymore, you can go anywhere. Science did that for us. It ended physical intimidation because no longer did the strongest person, the financially wealthiest person, the politically connected person, the economically powerful person no longer did they have sway over our lives because we had objectivity. This is only been with humans for about three or 400 years.

The Greeks had some touches of it but three or 400 years since the enlightenment. So it’s the freedom now to control our resources. We have control over our land our property because of science, but much of our journey is about control versus freedom. When I say a journey, our journey here in our lives, on earth as humans much of it is about control versus freedom.

And that’s a theme that I quite often go to. Who’s read Von Mises work, Ludwig Von Mises work. Well, you probably will hope you read the book where he talked about the way that the word liberal was captured. Liberal is someone, a tag given to someone who believes in liberty and espouses liberty and fights for liberty. What does liberal mean these days? Not the party. What does liberal mean?

[ – ] Lefties.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] Lefties, that was deliberately hijacked to destroy that libertarian argument. It was deliberately hijacked. Ludwig Von Mises was one of the best economists ever couldn’t get any tenure in American universities because they didn’t like his argument because they were fighting freedom. The human condition is the development of our ego. And as a result of that our fear and it leads to human behaviour which is quite often driven to control people. Whether we control our kids, control our parents, control our neighbor, control the local sporting club we’re in.

But it leads to suppressing of human progress. So the human condition the ego drives sometimes counterproductive behaviours even though at our core, humans are caring people are we? We at our core are caring and that that holds back human progress. And at times it seems especially in federal parliament as though everything is about control versus freedom, control versus freedom. Look at our energy sector. That is what determines our productivity. We have destroyed our energy sector. And I’ll talk about the cost of that in a minute.

Due to so-called science? We have destroyed our Murray-Darling basin due to so-called science and it’s rubbish as Jennifer will know. We’re destroying agriculture in this state as a result of reef science, which is rubbish. And Peter has led the charge on that. Now and this is what’s so significant that I want to bring to your attention. Now, those who seek to control and there are people who want to control. They want to capture science to control us and I’ll show you how. They want to actually capture control the very concept of science. And these are the substitutes for science.

Some of the substitutes of science. No longer does data and objectivity rule at universities, claims of consensus. The 97% consensus. When you look at the figures from John Cook’s rubbish paper it’s actually 0.3% of scientists, academics are in agreement 0.3. But even if it was a hundred it doesn’t matter because consensus is anti-science. It’s not about objectivity. Or they appeal to the name.

The CSRO is the top 100 top 1% of scientific organisations in the world, but they can’t give me data. They’re hopeless, they are rubbish, or they smear us, ridicule us, derogatory hurtful labels. Or implied smear like, Oh, Jewel you would believe in, you wouldn’t believe in the moon landing. Would you, I know your a lot. So that’s what they do. And that’s how they live. Or they come up with catastrophic consequences.

Great barrier reef’s gonna be dead in 12 years. Sea levels are going to claim us all, rising sea levels, ocean alkalinity, storms, insects, ticks malaria, droughts, floods, species extinction. My God, we’re getting overwhelmed. You haven’t got more than five years to live. I’ll tell you a joke later on about Al Gore. Computer models, their output is falsely called data. They actually say that the output of a computer model is data.

That’s how desperate they are due to using these unvalidated computer models, unvalidated and erroneous, Or they say if statements. Jennifer, if antarctica melts it’ll arise 20 metres. What’s the chance of Antarctic melding. And all people remember is the sea levels are going to rise 20 metres. It was a rubbish statement in the first place. Peer review, another logical fallacy. Somebody who we don’t know who hasn’t really looked at the paper their opinion is worth something when there’s no data, this is insane. Celebrities including a socially awkward 16 year old take their word for it.

UN has got so desperate that they’re now using an awkward well, she’s now 18 years old. Greta Thumberg hopeless. Where’s the science. Great, I can’t tell you that. Emotion, fear, guilt, pity, lies, and distortions. And these are the things that are now anti-science but they’re passed off by our opponents as science. And so what we have now is that distortion of freedom, academic freedom and claim of ownership of what is a scientist.

Scientist is an advocate who espouses the control side of politics. That’s what a scientist is these days and it’s rubbish, complete rubbish. They consign real scientists like Peter Ridd, Professor Peter Ridd to the dustbin. That is what’s really going on here. And the whole pseudo-science is to control our policy. And this is where it leads us to governance that is not based on data. I’ve been in federal politics now about three years in total in the Senate and instead of data.

Well, let me put it this way, in my experience every single major problem in our country has its roots in Canberra. I’ll challenge anyone to name a problem that hasn’t got its roots in Canberra. Covid came from overseas. But the roots of our problem on how it’s managed came from Canberra. Their restrictions basically were paid for by Canberra allowing the States to go against competitive federalism. Every major problem comes from Canberra.

Why? Because government is not based on data. It’s based on ideology, emotion, vested interest, fear, uninformed opinion and quite often policies in Canberra contradict the science. They contradict the empirical evidence and the costs. Listen to some of these costs. I commissioned Dr Alan Moran to come up with the first analysis of the extra costs of climate policies and renewable energy policies on our electricity costs.

The figure I’m about to give you is the additional cost on electricity, on electricity prices due to renewables and climate policies, $13 billion a year. That’s the additional cost. That works out at an average of $1,300 per household per year. That’s adding all the costs through the supply chain. Does anyone know what the median income is in Australia? 49,000, what is it after tax? I haven’t done the calculation, 34?

How can we afford people on $34,000 take home paying an extra $1,300 on top of their electricity bill. That’s the first time anyone’s done that study And I commissioned Dr Moran to do that. Previously, the figures were in consolidated form. Now they’re scattered across various budgets and agency reports.

Because the government is telling us six and a half percent of your electricity bill is due to solar and wind, rubbish. It’s 39% and all the other inefficiencies that get stacked on top of that. For every so-called green job due to solar and wind It’s costing us 2.2 jobs in the real economy. We’re going backwards and it’s costing our nation trillions of dollars. Literally I’m not exaggerating if you look at not just the cost but the opportunity costs trillions of dollars and poor governance is destroying our country. Is anyone surprised?

[ – ] No.

[ Malcolm Roberts ] You can see it can’t you, you can feel it. So what we’ve come up with as one answer and it’s just one answer. There are many things to do, is an office of scientific integrity and quality assurance. And we’ve worked with Peter Ridd on this. Wasn’t our idea. We got it first from the American Environmental Protection Agency. We’ll have questions later, Jeff but Peter has jumped right on board with this.

He pushed it himself independently and we joined forces on that. So that leads me in a few minutes to talking about Peter. You can see why his quest is so damn important, can’t you? It’s about freedom, it’s about governance, it’s about the very security and future of our country. So what do we see in Peter? We see someone who is absolutely objective. We see some on who is honest. We see someone who can’t be bought.

We see someone who is faithful to the science. He honours the science. He protects the science because it’s giving us so much. He is a good person to be with. He is courageous. He is determined and he gets belted time and time again but he gets up every time and away he goes again and look where he’s gone. He’s got to the high court and his dishonest University has cost him a lot of money and a lot of time, but he’s still going.

He is still going. So he’s determined, he is courageous and he has enormous integrity. What more do we need? Wanna come to Canberra, Peter? We need that down there. Look, I’m going to end by saying that first of all, Peter is much more than a great scientist. He is a great scientist. His inventions have gone around the world and used in his field in other reefs in Australia as well. So he is much, much more than a great theoretical scientist.

He is a practical scientist. He’s solved problems. He’s given good advice. Maybe in the questions I can answer more comments about what he’s done. But his cause is much more than about science. Peter’s cause applies to every single one of us in this room. And to everyone who’s watching this video, everyone. Peter’s cause applies to everyone in Australia. Peter’s cause applies and I mean this sincerely starting to get little bit teary.

It applies to everyone on this planet, everyone on earth, it applies to our whole planet. People who value freedom will support Peter. It’s not sufficient for me that Galileo was vindicated after he died. I want this professor, Peter Ridd to be vindicated now. That’s what we need. I’m going to leave you with two quotes.

One from the Dalai Lama ”In order to exercise creativity freedom of thought is essential” It’s not only thinking freely and independently but then exchanging ideas, ideas exchanged are enormously powerful. The second one is Steve Jobs and I hope that James Cook university who employed Peter is listening. Steve Jobs who built, he’s dead now. He built a remarkable company said ”It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do.

We hire, He said we in Apple, we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do” This man is very smart, but he’s more so, more important, He’s practical and he’s a real human and he’s got an enormous ticker. So please support Peter Ridd.

/by

Legalise Vaping in Australia

,

It is currently illegal to purchase any e-liquids or e-cigarettes containing nicotine in Australia. It shouldn’t be. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. I support e-cigarettes being available given the evidence that is available.

Transcript

One Nation opposes this motion. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll explain why. Vapes and e-cigarettes are as safe as the vaping solution’s contents. E-cigs should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for schedule 3 pharmacy-only medications. This would allow local producers to submit their products to the TGA for testing and approval. Those approved devices and solutions would then be made using good manufacturing process right here in Australia. This would offer complete assurance to Australian consumers that the product they’re using is safe. The approval process is quick and cheap, as compared to potential sales revenue. Distribution should be limited to pharmacists.

Our policy follows a review of both academic research and empirical data from around the world. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. A peer-reviewed article published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Drug Policy found there was no support for the argument that vaping is a gateway to smoking, no support. The article produced empirical evidence that clearly shows e-cigarettes have accompanied a reduction in smoking rates in countries where quit rates had previously stagnated.

What is wrong with paying attention to the science and the reality? It’s debates like this debate around e-cigarettes and vaping that leads One Nation to call for an office of scientific integrity. These matters are far too important to be decided by a selective quoting of reports so as to support any pre-conceived position. Good government requires the truth—not duelling reports, not fear, not ideology, not vested interests, not uninformed opinion, not emotions—facts and data. An office of scientific integrity and quality assurance would allow independent scientists and advocates to test these important issues and from that process the truth would have the best chance of emerging.

/by

Rule of Law must prevail

https://youtu.be/gF9ofK-WnqA

We have to leave the investigation of criminal offences to the police. If the presumption of innocence is abandoned in this country, many things will fall in this country. Also in this interview: Labor proposes giving preference to gay, lesbian and trans refugees, Woolworths backs down on proposed cash ban in stores and Nationals join One Nation in support of vaping.

Transcript

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

[Malcolm] I’m well, thanks, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus] Good, thank you. It’s been a very busy morning. Ministers are like all people, entitled to presumption of innocence. Parliament is not a court. It should not get into police work other than holding police accountable when police have failed the people. I mean, in your opinion, is there a problem with the culture under, you know, one of our most sacred roofs, Parliament House in Canberra?

[Malcolm] Marcus, I think there’s always a problem with where there’s an imbalance of power. Senior levels of corporations, we’ve seen some union bosses in strife over these kinds of things, and it really comes down to the human condition, and people having that ego, and let’s face it: there’s a lot of power in Parliament and a lot of people there for the wrong reasons that have come to exercise their power.

I’m not just talking about politicians, I’m talking about staffers, and so wherever you’ve got something like that, there’s potential for the people who want to exercise their power to have power over other people. So that’s the real issue, and that does come down to culture, but it’s not going to be fixed by a law.

Culture is up to people like myself, for example. We had a cultural statement that guided all of our recruiting, and we made that very clear to everyone who was interviewed for a job in my office that they had to abide by that culture, and we wanted their commitment before they even started. And so that’s how we sorted things out, and we have systems in place to make sure that people abide to that way, but what we really need is to understand that culture is so important.

It’s the most important driver of productivity in any company, Marcus, and so we know it’s that important. So it’s a huge driver of behaviour, so it’s up to individual politicians, and I think the media should be chasing people, but ultimately, it’s the law that convicts someone, no one else. The police officers, the courts, that’s the process we need to follow.

[Marcus] All right. What about the government or Parliament as a whole? I mean, if the prime minister himself, and Anthony Albanese a short while ago, again, repeated calls for the prime minister to launch an inquiry into this culture, into the whole Christian Porter affair, et cetera, I mean, if the prime minister feels there is a culture that needs addressing, then of course he should address it, but I don’t think he has.

I’ve got to be honest, I do not believe Scott Morrison has done the right thing, this is just my opinion, by the women of Australia. I think he’s a victim blamer, I think he’s almost misogynistic, and I think that he’s lacking in empathy.

[Malcolm] I don’t agree with those verdicts that you have, but I do agree that he’s a facade builder and he’s a marketing person. He likes to look good, not do good. And he had a– Remember when Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop retired as ministers, and they went straight into cushy jobs, each of them, that looked to have conflicts of interest with their past work as ministers.

Now he appointed, after a lot of pressure Scott Morrison appointed an internal investigation, and it was headed by Martin Parkinson, who was, at the time, the top bureaucrat in the country. He was the Secretary or Head of Prime Ministers and Cabinet office.

Now, the Labor Party and I, and a couple of liberals, pursued him in an inquiry into the investigation, and I got pretty relentless and held him accountable Martin Parkinson, the top bureaucrat in the country, and eventually after a lot of questioning from me he said, “Hey, I don’t have any power to investigate,” and I went, “What?! You’re investigating this, “but now you tell us after relentless questioning from me “that you don’t have any power?”

So what Scott Morrison has done has appointed, I believe Gaetjens, I’ve forgotten his first name, to investigate this, and that’s not adequate, but we need to leave it in the hands of the police. Now, if it comes to investigating culture, then we need to have a proper committee, an external committee. But you know what, the best thing of all? If we had an independent corruption inquiry committee that looked into corruption in Parliament.

That’s what we need. And so Scott Morrison has run away from that, the Liberal Party has run away from that, the Labor Party is not that powerful about it either, but ourselves, the Greens, and the independents are pushing for that a, fair dinkum one.

[Marcus] All right. What about Grace Tame? I mean, you’ve mentioned her this morning. Well, on the notes that I’ve got here, callers have mentioned her as well. What did you make of her commentary yesterday? Am I reading right here, saying that you think she’s hijacking this issue?

[Malcolm] No, no. I think she’s criticising. She’s really done a great job, full credit to her. No, as I understand it, Marcus, I haven’t seen the actual note, but Grace Tame has criticised the media for using victims and hijacking issues.

[Marcus] Sure, okay.

[Malcolm] And I watched that young lady’s speech when she accepted the award for Australian of the Year for 2021, what a remarkable woman.

Did you hear her criticism yesterday of the prime minister?

[Malcolm] No I didn’t. What did she say?

[Marcus] Well, she basically turned around. There was a really good question that was asked of her. I’ll play it for you, I’ve got a bit of time here. I’ll just make sure I get it up on my screen. She basically turned around and said that the prime minister, well, she called him out on a little bit of the language that he’s used in this whole debate, I’m just trying to find it here. Sorry, mate. I’m just trying to– anyway, what we might do, we might– have you got time to hold on till after eight?

[Malcolm] Yeah, sure.

[Marcus] Yeah, I might do that, ’cause I think I want to talk further with you on this issue and the news is, we’re about to bump into it. So Malcolm, just hold on there please, mate, and my apologies for today, holding you up, because I want to get onto your thoughts on Labor’s immigration policy as well, the Woolie’s cash ban that’s been defeated, and also we’ve had some conversations recently with Matt Canavan, good conversations on this programme about vaping and e-cigarettes.

I want to get your thoughts on that as well. So I’ll just get you to hold on there, mate. Thank you for being so patient and understanding.

[Malcolm] You’re all right, Marcus.

[Marcus] Just hang on there. Malcolm Roberts, he’ll be back after the eight o’clock news, some other issues I want to get into. All right, Malcolm Roberts, welcome back, mate, thank you.

[Malcolm] You’re welcome, Marcus. All right, now I’m going to play you the audio that Grace Tame was involved in yesterday. Australian of the Year Grace Tame was asked what she thought of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s use of the phrase “as a father”, referring to a chat that he had with his wife Jenny when he responded to the allegations by Brittany Higgins, this was her response to it yesterday. I’ll play it now.

[Grace Tame] It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience. And actually, on top of that, having children doesn’t guarantee a conscience.

[Marcus] And it’s been reported widely this morning that she didn’t miss. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] I’ve got goosebumps listening to it. What a wonderful lady, what a very bright young woman, admired. I agree with her totally. You know, conscience is a matter of what our inner guidance says, and that is what should be driving this, and that should be about values that are tied to Australian values.

And you know, Marcus, in many ways, rape is the most horrendous crime there is because it invades someone. I mean, it’s just sickening because that person has to live with that for the rest of their life. Now, murder is terrible too, obviously, you can’t take away someone else’s life, but a murdered person, that’s the end of it for them, but a raped person has to live with it for the rest of their life, and it’s just, it’s never– it’s always been something that has just repulsed me. It’s just beyond it.

[Marcus] Let’s move on to another issue here. Labor’s immigration policy of–

[Malcolm] Before we do Marcus, I think that, you know, there is a need to understand something else that drives Parliament.

[Marcus] Right.

[Malcolm] Parliament is no longer driven by data and facts. We don’t have policies and decisions coming out of the Liberal and Labor Parties based on data and facts, and when that happens, fantasy takes over. It’s okay to fudge things. It’s okay to tell lies. It’s okay to wield power over people.

But the people who pay the price are the everyday Australians. That’s who pays the price, and what we need to do is call out the voters, because voters are putting up with this nonsense. We have family law that’s been an issue for 50 years.

[Marcus] Mm, very true.

[Malcolm] It took Pauline Hanson to get stuck into that, ’cause that drives a lot of the abuse. We have energy prices that are being driven on an insane whim, that carbon dioxide affects the– that human carbon dioxide affects the climate of the whole world, it’s absolute nonsense.

There’s never been data presented to Parliament for that. Then we have question time. I mean, you look at the behaviour of Parliamentarians in question time by Senate and House of Reps, absolute disgrace. There is no respect for the institution of Parliament amongst those MPs, there’s no respect to the voters who put them there, and the voters need to say, “I’ve had enough “of the Labor Party and Liberal Party playing games.”

These are too important. We need to see people being held accountable for data and facts and decisions based on data and facts. While ever the voters keep putting these two parties in, they will keep getting the crap being dished out to them.

[Marcus] All right. Immigration has been a volatile topic for the Labor Party in the past two decades. In the 2021 draft platform, the party proposes giving more government support to asylum seekers, especially gay, lesbian and trans refugees, while maintaining support for offshore detention.

Obviously like, look, I don’t need to really go too far. I mean, I’ll probably speak tomorrow to your colleague, Mark Latham, about this. He’s been very critical of this, but what do you say?

[Malcolm] Well, you know, the ultimate– the first thing we need to take care of is our own Australians, put them first. We’ve got veterans currently homeless in our country. Then we need to accept sensible, genuine, sorry– genuine refugees in sensible numbers, and not accept them based purely on what gender or sexual orientation they currently claim to be or identify as.

Australia has a very generous refugee intake and welfare. We have very strong welfare systems that look after people. They can come here and they get a lot for nothing. Now, Labor’s policy, as the Australian reported, is based on giving preference to gays and transsexuals. Well, it’s entitled to have that policy, but I don’t think that reflects the everyday Australian.

Entry to Australia should be on the basis of merit, and how people fit into Australian culture, values, laws. When someone, you know, a gay man in an Islamic country where they throw gays off roofs and kill them, or a white South African farmer, if they’re the two options they should be treated objectively. They shouldn’t be treated on the basis of race or religion or colour or anything else.

They should be treated on how they will contribute to our country and the values they uphold. But why are we discussing this when we can’t even allow people into the country right now? It’s just beyond me.

[Marcus] That is true. All right, but again, that’s– I dunno, look, maybe, the cynic in me says, because, well, you know what’s happening this weekend. It is Mardi Gras time, and it’s a time when this community does get a lot of the spotlight.

I’ll agree to slightly disagree with you there, Malcolm, I think we should be welcoming people who are sadly objectified and vilified and even worse in other countries around the world. But one thing we do have common ground–

[Malcolm] Well, we should be welcoming them but we shouldn’t be discriminating against them, we shouldn’t be discriminating in favour of them.

[Marcus] Fair enough.

[Malcolm] We should be treating everyone on the merits of the case.

[Marcus] The Woolie’s cash ban. It’s a bit of a win. We know that in a number of cities, they’ve been trialling you know, card only terminals and all the rest of it. I think it’s bad enough that these big corporations are sacking checkout operators and replacing them with machines.

I don’t go to do my shopping to replace workers. I shouldn’t have to scan my own groceries. They say, it’s all, you know, to save you time and so we can keep our prices low. Well, that’s bullshit. What they’re doing basically is trying to save or cut back on their costs. Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Yes, that’s an interesting perspective. We just looked at the cash ban as something that was brought in for the wrong reasons. They told us it was about anti-money laundering, which is complete nonsense, and we’ve got the facts to show that. Initially, when the government brought this into the lower house, the cash ban bill, Labor supported it in the lower house.

It got through to a Senate committee. We went to work very strongly. We convinced the Greens to join us, We convinced in opposing the cash ban. We convinced the crossbench senators, who weren’t aware of it at the time, to jump in.

Then we actually embarrassed Labor into it, and then the government realised it was dead, so we moved a motion to get that bill, cash ban bill, off the books in Parliament, and that’s what happened, so we won. Then we put pressure on Woolie’s with our recent petition. But the real thing here is that there’s people power, and we listen and work actively with people, and what the people have done is told Woolie’s, “Stick your cash ban.”

And so while it is an interesting argument you make about preserving jobs, people will go to whoever gives them the best service, you know, and so it’s important to let people have the freedom to decide whether they will use cash or not. It’s not up to some government implementing an IMF policy from overseas globalists to tell us we can’t use our cash because they want to control us. That’s where it’s headed.

[Marcus] Well, it’s current tender, and to be perfectly honest, if you turn up somewhere and you’ve only got cash, you know, you should be able to use it regardless.

[Malcolm] Exactly.

[Marcus] All right, finally, e-cigs and vaping, we spoke to– who did we speak to on this last week, Scruff? There’s so much going on at the moment. Oh, Matt Canavan, we spoke to Matt about it. He’s been doing a little bit of work on this issue. Senator Stirling Griff’s motion in the Senate against vapes and e-cigs has been defeated.

Your position is that vaping and e-cigarettes are as safe as the solution that they’re in. They should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for Schedule 3 pharmacy-only medication.

[Malcolm] Yes, we’ve been pushing this issue for a number of years now, and it’s very good to see Senator Matt Canavan at last join us. I pushed a bill with David Leyonhjelm when he was in the Senate back in 2016-17, but, you know, e-cigs have been shown to be a way of getting people to cut smoking altogether.

They have reduced smoking rates. They do not introduce people to smoking. That is nonsense. They have been very effective in cutting down the use of cigarettes, which are harmful. E-cigs look as though they’re not at all harmful, at all, and a good way of getting people away from harmful activities like smoking.

So that’s why we’ve been in favour of it, and it’s pleasing to see that Matt’s joining us on this as well as some other policies that they have long opposed, they’re changing as a result of the pressure we’re putting on them.

[Marcus] All right. Thank you, mate, great to have you on the programme as always. We’ll talk again next week.

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

/by

Woolworths backtracks on cash ban

Supermarket giant Woolworths has abandoned a controversial trial of cashless stores following complaints from shoppers who still want to use notes and coins to buy their groceries.

6,000 people signed a One Nation petition calling on Woolworths to ditch their cash ban. It followed on from One Nation successfully defeating a proposal in parliament late last year to completely ban cash transactions over $10,000.

International banks might try to push everyone further to a cashless society, but Australians know better.

Cash is legal tender and I will continue to fight against any attempt to make it illegal.

/by

One Nation doing more for workers than Labor

,

Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.

Transcript

In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that Labor is fixated on the problems not the solution. The facts are that the government listened to One Nation’s legitimate concerns for employers and employees and it booted out the BOOT. One Nation achieved that. One Nation is doing more for Western Australian workers and employers than Labor. That is, in part, thanks to our Western Australian team, Robin Scott, an ex-Freo sparky who works hard for the people of the mining and pastoral region in WA, and Colin Tincknell, the One Nation WA state leader who proudly represents the South West region. Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.

I have stood up to put a stop to these abuses for casual workers that the unions, the Labor Party and politicians like Joel Fitzgibbon knowingly ignored for years. Recently, the CFMEU mining division agreed with me that their union has ignored casuals for many years. I applaud that person in the CFMEU for having the courage to do that, and lawyers for the ETU and CFMEU confirmed that, in their opinion—and I agree with them—the IR system needs to be free from lawyers. For Labor to say that it’s going to be easier for employers to cut wages and conditions is not enough. Labor need to step up and show everyday Australians what Australia’s IR problems are and what they would do better. Labor, like Joel Fitzgibbon, are all talk and no action.

One Nation wants genuine industrial relations reform for the benefit of employees and employers, especially for small business and their employees, and the best way to do that is to listen and contribute to a better system. We have been listening widely and hearing the concerns from industry, union bosses, employer and employee groups, welfare groups, casual and injured workers, and small business. I care and I will fight to protect workers’ legal and moral entitlements, just as I am doing in Queensland and I am doing in the Hunter Valley, even though it is not in my state. One Nation stands for the workers that Labor and Joel Fitzgibbon continue to ignore.

/by

Corruption in Local Government must be investigated

,

The government voted down my inquiry into local government corruption despite concerning evidence being presented to them.

Recent royal commissions into aged care, institutional abuse and banking practices only came about after much opposition. Look how much evidence surfaced when people were able to come forward to tell their stories. This inquiry is urgently needed.

Original Inquiry: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/government-dodges-corruption-investigation/

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to further discuss the corruption that continues in Queensland local government. This corruption is ripping off hundreds of millions of dollars of Commonwealth and state taxpayers’ money. These moneys are being redirected, not spent on their intended purposes, not spent at all or corruptly provided to persons in exchange for overvalued materials and services. Emergency Management Australia, EMA, administers the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements, the NDRRA, and the Disaster Recovery Funding Arrangements, the DRFA, funding on behalf of the Australian government. Seventy-five per cent of the funds are from the Australian government, and the remainder is reimbursed by the Queensland state government. The Queensland Reconstruction Authority, QRA, and Emergency Management Queensland, EMQ, coordinate disaster funding in Queensland. Queensland councils received $5.4 billion in NDRRA funds from 2011 to 2019. This may be a billion-dollar scandal.

Recent royal commissions into aged care, institutional abuse and banking practices only came about after much opposition. Look how much evidence surfaced when people were able to come forward to tell their stories. This inquiry is urgently needed. The councils and the Local Government Association of Queensland facilitate a system where contractors make huge profits from road-building by fraudulently claiming payments and stripping 40 to 60 per cent out of NDRRA funding as private profits. These practices are widespread across Queensland. At the heart of this local government corruption has been the Local Government Association of Queensland, the LGAQ, a private company that has a special relationship with the Queensland government and is not obliged to go to tender when contracting with councils.

This lack of transparency breeds corruption. What makes the LGAQ unique is the special statutory provisions that make the LGAQ virtually unaccountable for their actions. Under rule 234 of the Local Government Regulation 2012 a council is exempt from calling contracts to tender or calling quotes if the contract is entered into under an LGA arrangement. Can you imagine that? This includes a contract made with the LGAQ. Every contract the LGAQ enters involves a substantial fee being paid to the LGAQ. I will say that again. Every contract the LGAQ enters involves a substantial fee being paid to the LGAQ. It is classic cartel arrangement prohibited in any other state except Queensland, where it is legalised by rule 234.

Some of this information has been disclosed in the Queensland state parliament and directly to the CCC, which inexplicably declined to investigate. Many complaints to the CCC about a council are sent back to the council to investigate itself; actual CCC investigation is rare. A research paper prepared by Professor Timothy Prenzler into the complaints sent to the CCC found that less than two per cent of complaints were investigated and the other 98 per cent largely disappeared. Why?

After I alerted the Senate that I wished to put a motion to support a Senate select committee inquiry into this corruption, the LGAQ sent representatives to Canberra to try to stop the inquiry. Some mayors contacted the office of the local government minister, Mr Coulton, objecting to the inquiry. What are they afraid of? What do these mayors all have to hide? What do they think an inquiry will reveal? Is this an admission of guilt? A council with nothing to hide would welcome an opportunity to show how well it uses public money. Yet, when the motion was put to the vote, the government, Labor and the Greens voted against this anticorruption motion.

This was quite stunning. The government wishes to introduce an integrity bill, yet voted against an anti-integrity motion. The Greens believe the lies that complaints brought to the CCC had been investigated and found to be without substance. This is false. Key witnesses were never contacted, let alone questioned. Key locations were never inspected or visited. How could the Greens say this constituted an investigation? Crossbench senators Jacqui Lambie and Rex Patrick know I’m right and supported my motion. I thank these senators for their integrity. The mechanics of the corrupt practices are known and have been brought to the attention of the authorities. I call on the Senate to do the right thing. I will continue exposing this corruption and continue to seek a Senate select committee to protect taxpayers’ money and to restore integrity.

/by

Labor has no solutions for IR problems

,

Labor has no claim to the high ground on industrial relations, they have abandoned the working class. A graph of our median and average wages over time is untroubled by changes in government.

Liberal, National, Labor or Greens, it makes no difference; workers just keep going backwards. Only One Nation has a vision for the future that returns our productive capacity, manufacturing and better wages for Australians.

Transcript

This motion is one of the least self-aware that I’ve seen out of the Labor Party. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the median wage has not increased in real terms over the last 30 years after adjusting for dramatic increases in the cost of housing, health care and education, yet Australia’s gross domestic product per capita has increased over that period from $13,600 to $65,400 in real terms—as are all my figures today. Gross domestic product is up by a factor of five, and the wages of everyday Australians have not increased. Where’s the money gone? Average wages for Australians at the upper end of the scale have seen an increase of 50 per cent, and at the very top end the increase is over 100 per cent. A graph of our median and average wages over time is untroubled by changes in government. Liberal, National, Labor or Greens, it makes no difference; workers just keep going backwards.

Wages as a share of GDP have fallen from $116 billion to $96 billion over 30 years. The share of our gross domestic product being paid to Australian workers is at an all-time low yet corporate profits have grown from $20 billion to $120 billion—six times. Globalist economics has crushed the wages of everyday Australians and deposited the spoils from an expanding economy into the pockets of the big end of town in salaries, bonuses and dividends. Globalist free trade agreements have seen more than one million high-paid, skilled manufacturing and heavy industry jobs moved overseas. Labor is a big fan of globalism—voting in favour of every one of these free trade agreements.

Recently the Senate voted for a UN funding bill to direct money into funding economic development in countries with which we have a free trade agreement. This facilitates increases in their productive capacity to take yet more Australian jobs. One Nation was the only party to oppose the funding bill. The Labor Party voted in favour—in favour of losing yet more jobs overseas.

COVID restrictions have had a role to play as well. The government’s COVID restrictions measures have moved consumer spending away from small businesses who employ everyday Australians to corporate retailers who pay minimum wage. Online growth has gone to Amazon, owned by the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos. Social media are calling the COVID restrictions on businesses ‘a war on capitalism’; it is no such thing. In corporate Australia, the biggest crony capitalists have record sales, record profits and have paid higher dividends and bonuses. As a result of government coronavirus restrictions and measures, the world’s 400 richest people have increased their wealth by $1 trillion. Much of this new wealth is money that was once spent in local communities—in hardware stores, community supermarkets, butchers and grocers. This was money that held up real wages paid by local businesses to their loyal staff. Now those businesses have been forced to close or to sack workers. So the real outcome from coronavirus measures has been the largest transference of wealth from small businesses to foreign-owned or controlled corporations in Australian history. We expect this sort of thing from the globalist Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks—the Nationals—yet this has been brought to you by Labor in Queensland, Labor in Western Australia and Labor in Victoria. Almost every government measure during the COVID period has been waved through the Senate by the Labor Party, working in conjunction with the Liberals and Nationals.

Labor don’t get to complain now; they should have seen this coming. The only thing that was not in this profligate spending was a permanent increase in JobSeeker. The constant pressure from One Nation in this place directly with the government across many years has today had a result. One Nation will continue to stand up for everyday Australians. The destruction of wages and entitlements for Australian workers has many other causes. At the heart of the problem is supply and demand for workers. At the same time that Australia is sending jobs overseas, we are importing workers. Over the last 30 years, Australia has added 10 million new Australians. While many of these do not go into the productive economy, the bottom line is simple: we are importing workers for jobs that have already been exported to lower-cost destinations, especially China. There are more workers than jobs and that can only have the effect of reducing wages. Labor defend Australia’s high immigration rate and suggest One Nation are racists for wanting a reduction in the rate of arrivals. The use of the word ‘racist’ means they have no argument to counter us. All One Nation are doing is standing up for everyday Australians who will never get a decent pay rise a as long as the government keeps bringing in more new arrivals than there are jobs. The Rudd Labor government and the Gillard-Rudd Labor-Greens government increased permanent migration from 160,000 in 2007 to 205,000 in 2013. Labor cannot pretend to care about workers when it was Labor that initiated the largest spike in arrivals in the last 30 years.

The other issue around stagnation in real wages is foreign temporary workers. The Senate inquiry into temporary work visas found temporary migrant workers experienced widespread wage theft and gross violations of Australian minimum work standards including: failure to pay minimum wages, long work hours and lack of health and safety training leading to workplace injuries. Temporary work visa holders are being exploited to drive down wages and conditions. Indeed Bill Shorten, as minister, set the record for temporary work visas in this country, a record that Labor still holds. I don’t hear Labor complaining about this.

This may be because their beloved free trade agreements facilitate foreign workers. The Indonesian free trade agreement section 12.9 removes labour market testing and allows additional contract workers across 400 skilled occupation. It allows for 4,000 temporary working holiday-maker visas per year, and these workers are highly exploited because they’ll be deported if they lose their jobs. Wage theft is not entirely restricted to vulnerable foreign workers, although it does account for most of the cases. The problem of falling real wages, job insecurity and wage theft, which Senator Walsh mentions in this motion, results from Labor Party policies. One Nation is accused of wanting to wind the clock back. Well, on this issue we do want to wind the clock back, back to when workers got a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work. We need to start putting Australia and Australians first, back to when workers settled here, became Australian citizens and contributed to the future of our marvellous country.

Full Motion: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Hansard/Hansard_Display?bid=chamber/hansards/c18a4b03-69cc-4413-9438-08e33693f884/&sid=0102

/by

GOVERNMENT VS. FACEBOOK – News Media Bargaining Code

,

I have little sympathy for big tech, who have been systematically censoring and silencing conservative voices for years.

However, the government has no place getting involved in a fight between the billionaires in legacy media and the billionaires in new media, yet it looks like that is exactly what our parliament is doing.

Transcript

The Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 is a masterclass in self-interest from both the tired old parties. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my view is that this bill should more rightly be called the ‘Getting the News Media On Side Before the Next Election Bill’. It’s apparently co-sponsored by every party in this place that seeks to replace data based policy, fact based policy, with cynical political expediency and public gutlessness. The government has no place getting involved in a fight between the billionaires in legacy media and the billionaires in new media, yet it looks like that is exactly what our parliament is doing.

One Nation spoke with Google and we spoke with them again this morning, and it seems now that this matter has been resolved in private meetings with the government where assurances were exchanged. So Australia is now governed behind closed doors, and the people’s house, the house of review, the Senate, is simply here to rubber-stamp what is put in front of us. One Nation does not own a rubber stamp. Our many reservations about this bill remain, even if Google has found a way to work with them. It’s true that there are no clean hands in this debate.

When Facebook banned conservatives last year, the Left, or the control side of politics, applauded the move as the legitimate actions of a private company. Left or Right are useless terms; really it’s control versus freedom. The Left likes to control. Yet, when Facebook banned Australia’s left-wing news media last week, there was outrage. ‘They’re a public utility; they can’t do this to us,’ shrieked the left-wing commentariat. Perhaps Facebook got the idea of deplatforming from Channel 7 and Channel 9, who deplatformed Senator Hanson last year. Conservatives must now deal with the political Left and with a left-wing media that is so convinced of its own moral superiority that the suppression of dissenting opinions is now celebrated. The Left, the control side, have clearly not considered the norms they have created to destroy their opponents and that those same norms could one day be used against themselves.

Google is right on board with this agenda, demoting conservative websites in Google search results simply because they advocate values that everyday Australians still share and value. YouTube has cancelled thousands of conservative channels and demonetised many more to suppress our voice. Google has decided that conservatives and patriots are the enemy of their brave new world and must be silenced. Google propaganda is clearly on display in image search, where they operate to portray our world not as it is but as they wish it to be and judge that it should be. That is not their job. It’s no surprise, then, that many Australians, especially on the conservative side, have left Facebook and Google. They had it coming.

Let me be clear: One Nation is a trenchant critic of the Orwellian nightmare social media has become. Our left-wing legacy news media, though, are no better. Some sections of the left-wing legacy media print very little material that could be described as journalism and a great deal of material that could be described as propaganda. The ABC spent two years conspiring with a foreign power to prepare a story that misled viewers as to the intent of One Nation’s visit to the United States. We demanded the raw footage from the ABC to prove the story was manipulated, and the ABC refused. Truth and honesty are strangers to left-wing controlled media in this country.

One Nation is concerned about the small businesses this bill will hurt. Two examples are the Glasshouse and Maleny Country News and the Koondrook and Barham Bridge Newspaper—small businesses that are resisting the takeover of country news by the media oligarchs and printing truth without fear or favour. These papers are not protected by this bill, which is only concerned with protecting large media organisations, who will receive extra money to continue their buy-up of country news. The National Party seem to be happy with this, once again turning their backs on their rural constituents to woo the urban bubble, marching to the Liberal wets.

Australian Associated Press—AAP, as most people would know them—are not protected by this bill, since their model is copyright based and this bill only concerns itself with financial outcomes. AAP, though, employ 80 staff, and their newsfeed supports 250 rural news organisations. The increased revenue from Google will remain with the legacy media services and not feed back to AAP. This might have something to do with the Murdoch news media’s new wire service, NCA NewsWire. They are just waiting for AAP to fall over so they can have a monopoly on news wire too. This will lead to a further consolidation of news ownership in Australia and yet more power to News Corp. Labor are supporting a process that will lead to more power for Rupert Murdoch. Kevin Rudd will be upset, won’t he! When The Betoota Advocate sounds more like a real news site than an actual real news site does, Australian media must accept they are the agents of their own demise.

Television is also on the nose. The highest rating program on television since the Sydney Olympics was the Australian Open final way back in 2005, attracting 4.3 million viewers. The MasterChef final in 2010 rated 4.1 million. In 2020, the MasterChef final rated just 1.6 million—60 per cent less. Tent-pole programming is attracting half the audience it used to despite Australia’s growing population. When Malcolm Turnbull destroyed community TV 10 years ago, it was to force their million-strong audience back to commercial TV. That strategy has been a complete failure and must be unwound.

Print newspaper circulations are also falling. Listen to these figures, Madam Acting Deputy President. Over the last 10 years, the Herald Sun has gone from 550,000 to 303,000, a 45 per cent fall. One Nation’s great friends at Brisbane’s Courier Mail, who bash us, are down from 211,000 to 135,000, a 36 per cent fall. And, wait for it, The Sydney Morning Herald is down from 210,000 to just 78,000. That’s a 63 per cent collapse.

With a lower audience, our conglomerate media companies are in search of more revenue and now want to take Google’s. Is this the business of the Senate? This bill demonstrates a complete failure to understand how the internet works.

Let me give you an example. A startup media company trying to establish a user base would submit their news stories to Google. In return, that company, that startup, would pay Google so much per click for every person who clicked through to the startup news site. News stories cost between 20 and 50 cents a click in the Google advertising network. Over the last 20 years, Google has sent seven billion visitors to Australian news sites who, in turn, have used this traffic to monetise by showing advertising and encouraging subscriptions. If the Australian news media were paying for their traffic from Google, this bill would run into billions. This relationship, though, benefits both parties equally. So the basic assumption of the bill that there is a power imbalance is simply wrong. It is false.

Legacy media could have opted out, at any time, simply by adding a metatag to their header advising Google and other search engine crawlers to not index a page, section or entire site. News sites are not using that metatag, even though they could, because they want Google to index their stories in order to send them more traffic. Rather than paying Google for that traffic, legacy media now wants Google to pay them. We’re only having this fight now because internet search has reached the top of the exponential growth curve. The market has reached maturity, as have digital advertising and online subscriptions. The $18 billion advertising industry is now equally split between digital and real world, with little opportunity for significant growth in a post-COVID economy.

To read this bill, one would think that real-world advertising and digital advertising were interchangeable. That’s nonsense. They’re not. Online advertising is suited to short messages. Legacy media is still king of longer format advertising. For over 200 minutes of advertising consumed online, 300 minutes is consumed in the real world. Both have their role in the economy.

As with any maturing market, Australian media has narrowed ownership so much it has effectively become a cartel. This bill represents nothing more than the billionaires in the media cartel thinking they have more power than the billionaires in the social media cartel, and, with an election looming, the government has decided to pick a side—because Mr Murdoch picks sides and decides who wins. That is the history of elections, in federal parliament, in Australia. The Liberals and Nationals want that, and Labor can’t afford to let them have it. That is a terrible basis upon which to formulate public policy and legislation. The Treasury Laws Amendment (News Media and Digital Platforms Mandatory Bargaining Code) Bill 2021 is a solution in search of a problem and should never have come before the Senate.

/1 Comment/by

Will the government make a commitment to actual IR reform?

,

Instead of propping up the industrial relations club with excessive, needlessly complex legislation, we need to simplify it. Regulations are written at the moment for the few people, employers and employees, who do the wrong thing.

They should be written for the majority of good people, the fine Australians, with severe penalties for the bad.

We need to turn it upside down: instead of penalising the 100 per cent with the ridiculous workplace arrangements, we need to penalise the real shonks, the real criminals.

Transcript

As an Australian who has been elected to serve the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m very proud to say that I have worked in many countries and I am genuinely proud of Australian workers. We have a phenomenal human resource in this country, unequalled anywhere in the world—the initiative, the hard work, the honesty and the integrity of workers in this country, and of many businesses in this country, especially small businesses, which are the engine room of our economy. More people are employed in small business than in any other sector of the economy. We need to get back the dynamism that has been lost in Australia—lost largely because of the decisions that come out of this building.

The MPI is ‘The Morrison government’s failure to address job security is giving companies that exploit workers an unfair advantage against honest employers.’Let me talk about the example in the Hunter Valley of the exploitation, the abuse and the casual discarding of people who are tossed on the scrap heap when they’re burnt out. Casuals have been exploited in the Hunter Valley by BHP, a major mining company, and Chandler Macleod Group, one of the world’s largest labour hire firms, an offshoot of Recruit Holdings from Japan, with the complicity of the Hunter Valley division of the CFMEU. It would not have happened without all three being complicit and working together.

But let’s go back to the root cause. The root of casualisation started in small business because employers were so confused by the complexity of hiring people and so confused by the complexity when there was a problem to discuss, so they went to employing casuals because it became too hard to deal with disciplinary issues in small business.

Quite often we see a small business having problems with an employee who’s stolen something from their business, and the small business owner then simply trying to address that ends up just paying $8,000 or $10,000. We heard last week from COSBOA, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia, about some companies, some small businesses, paying $20,000 in shut-up money for problems to go away. One of the root causes of the insecurity in this country is the highly complex, needlessly complex and destructive industrial relations situation.

Then what we saw was large companies taking the small business model and using casuals for a ‘try before we buy’. In other words, they would watch the casual worker on their mine site, in their business, and if he or she came up with the goods then they would hire them. That has led to extreme abuse of workers in this country. It’s led to safety hazards, which I have complained about in my submission to the Grosvenor inquiry. But in the Hunter Valley it led to miners being intimidated and being threatened with the loss of their jobs if they reported safety incidents. How stupid is a company when that happens? They’re losing that prime source of information about their company.

I want to give Mr Bukarica, the national legal adviser for the CFMEU mining division, a huge compliment. In Townsville he had the guts, the integrity and the courage to acknowledge that the Hunter Valley CFMEU is part of the problem at those mines in the Hunter Valley because they enabled casualisation to happen. I also want to give him praise because he said that the CFMEU has not done enough for casuals. Indeed, they have caused the casual issue in the Hunter Valley and the casual abuse of casuals. And he’s admitted that his union will need to do more about it.

So what we see is the mess that’s been created in the past by labour laws that have become far too complex and by the Liberals not addressing this issue in 2016 when they should have. Casuals show us the pain of people at work. Casuals are also a sign of the failed industrial relations situation—no getting away from it. What the government is doing in its latest industrial relations legislation, proposed to come before the Senate next month, is shifting the liability for that mess from large business to small business. They’re helping a couple of large companies manage their risk.

We’ve approached this differently. We’ve gone out to listen. We’ve written to 80 different organisations—employers, employee groups, unions, union bosses, welfare associations, organisations, small business groups—and we’ve asked them for their advice, their views. They have come and given us their advice. They said no-one else has invited them to do that; we’re the only ones. In addressing this legislation, we have three aims that ensure security for Australian workers, whether they be in small businesses or large businesses, and security for small businesses and large businesses.

Our three aims are to protect honest workers, to protect small businesses and to restore Australia’s productive capacity. We see the employer-employee relationship as fundamental. It is the primary workplace relationship, and that’s what’s needed to empower workers. We’ve got the best workers in the world. What’s needed is for employers and employees to work together—empowered employees and empowered employers—because that is the only way to create jobs. Government doesn’t create jobs. As much as the Labor Party and the Liberal Party talk about it, government does not create jobs. Honest workers create jobs. Small businesses create jobs. Large employers create jobs. The government creates the environment. Labor and Liberal governments have stuffed this country’s workplace environment.

The Morrison government talks about security and recovery from COVID. How can that be possible when we’ve destroyed our electricity sector? How can it be possible when we’ve got one of the worse tax systems in the world? How can it be possible when we’re not supplying the right infrastructure? How can it be possible when we haven’t got the skills development needed? How can it be possible when we’ve got overregulation? Just go and talk to people, not only small or large business employers but also employees, who are sick to death of energy prices, which have gone from the cheapest in the world to the highest in the world under this government and its predecessor, the Labor Party.

Instead of propping up the industrial relations club with excessive, needlessly complex legislation, we need to simplify it. In fact, I put that to Peter Strong when he was in my office last week. I said to him that regulations are written at the moment for the few people, employers and employees, who do the wrong thing. They should be written for the majority of good people, the fine Australians, with severe penalties for the bad. We need to turn it upside down: instead of penalising the 100 per cent with the ridiculous workplace arrangements, we need to penalise the real shonks, the real criminals. Instead of assuming people are bad—employees are bad, employers are bad—we need to free people to produce. We need to penalise and handicap those who deserve it. That’s what we need in this country: empowering, not frightening.

What we see at the moment is an IR club of big employers, big industry associations, large unions, employee consultants, employer consultants, industrial relations consultants and, above all, lawyers. Again I come back to the ETU legal adviser in Townsville, Michael Wright, and Mr Bukarica from the CFMMEU, who both said that we have far too many lawyers involved in industrial relations and that’s why it’s a mess. They both said they want fewer lawyers, that they want to remove the lawyers. Full credit to the CFMMEU mining division and full credit to the ETU for saying that. The big companies and the crooks are the ones who do the best out of the industrial relations club, because they have deep pockets and they can afford to fund the lawyers and others who live off the backs of Australian workers.

What we need to get back to is a simple workplace relationship. Will Labor make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR? Will you? Will the Liberal Party and the National Party make a commitment to properly and honestly reform IR, to free people so that they’re free to compete with the people in Korea, China, India, Africa, Malaysia and Singapore? That’s the way to get security of employment: by empowering people. One Nation is the party of energy security and affordability. One Nation is the party of job security.

/by