University Reforms Package

Transcript

[Deputy President]

Thank you, Sen. Rice. Sen. Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Madam Deputy President. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support the government’s changes to university funding. Firstly, though we agree with the government’s general thrust. Secondly, we want to go further to ensure responsibility among students and to reduce taxpayer load. Thirdly, we want to restore accountability and academic freedom in universities to make our universities better so that our future students will emerge better.

So let’s get to the government’s thrust. It reduces fees for courses that meet needs for future jobs and more practical courses like engineering, nursing, and teaching. We support that. It will make these courses more affordable. It raises fees through humanities courses, and I’ll explain later why that is so effective, because humanities people, well, graduates, are not getting jobs right now.

The government’s thrust focuses taxpayer funds on needed skills, and that is good for our country. So the second point I wanted to discuss was that we need to go further to ensure responsibility among students and to reduce taxpayer load. The current HECS debt is $65 billion and growing rapidly. That’s the outstanding HECS debt. With Australia’s national debt now pushing one trillion dollars, the repaid HECS money could be used productively.

We believe that we need to reinstate the 10% discount for fees paid up front. Now, people who pay their fees up front, people who, sorry, people who can afford university do not need the concessional interest rate. And as things start, do not need to repay debt, do not start repaying debt until earning an annual income of $46,620.

Financially, it is better value for the government and for taxpayers, and we do represent taxpayers, to have a loan paid up front at a discount than paid out over 10-plus years. It takes on average about 10 years for a student to repay a HECS debt. And we need to reduce the threshold for repaying HECS debt based on data and fairness to students and fairness to taxpayers. Remember them?

The people who are paying our salaries? The people who run this country? We need to limit and student entitlement to seven years full time equivalent and stop people on fee free university education with little or no chance of a job. Students cannot continue to live off the taxpayer forever.

We’ve got to get job ready graduates. We have a duty to protect taxpayers and to protect our nation, our community, as well as to protect students. The third area, restoring accountability and academic freedom in universities. Universities monitor student academic progress and students who repeatedly fail, for example, if they do not pass more than half of their subjects, should stop getting FEE-HELP.

This removes a fee free career for university students who keep failing. We also need students to be aware of what they’re getting from taxpayers’ money, and we need job ready graduates. I can give you some examples of universities suppressing free speech. Dr. Peter Ridd was sacked from his position at James Cook University for being critical of poor quality reef science.

He was fulfilling his duties as a scientist to challenge his colleagues and he was sacked. And the recent Senate inquiry, Vit in Queensland, vindicated him when academics admitted facts and data that revealed the Queensland state Labour government does not have the facts to support its recent reef regulations.

Peter Ridd was correct. Professor Bob Carter, the late professor Bob Carter, well known globally as a fine scientist, paleoclimatologist. He was prevented and hindered from speaking by James Cook University. And now just here recently at the ANU, Dr. Howard Brady, a noted geologist and who understands climate extremely well was invited by the staff at the University of Queensland at University ANU to make a presentation on the impacts of the study of climate science and why it’s gone wrong.

ANU prohibited him after the notice was sent out, ANU prohibited him from delivering that seminar. But here’s a welcome sign from ANU, professors and staff at ANU were so disgusted with the ANU’s response that they joined together and Dr. Brady will now be conducting his seminar later this month. And they’ve given him immense publicity internationally.

He’s received support from the University of Sydney’s staff, from the ANU stuff, from other universities within Australia and from overseas universities including Princeton.

The former high court Chief Justice, Robert French, recommended in his government commissioned review of free speech at Australian universities that academic freedoms would be protected so data and research can be put forward. That’s a scientist’s responsibility.

Justice French recommended that as part of academic freedom, academics should be allowed to, quote, to make lawful public comment on any issue in their personal capacities. Universities allow, indeed encourage, far left Marxists, anarchists, socialists, and communists to speak freely on university campuses.

Yet do nothing to stop these same fascists shutting down lecturers with whom these fascists disagree. In not protecting free speech of all voices, universities are complicit in the suppression of speech. Now, I went to the University of Queensland, where I got a master’s in business administration.

And I’m very proud to say that the Dean of that university just recently a few years ago welcomed students with a note saying, there are no free spaces, no free, no safe spaces at the University of Chicago. Basically he was saying, suck it up, discuss and debate freely. That’s what universities were about.

That’s what they need to get back to being about. And recently I was listening with a university vice chancellor, a regional university vice chancellor, who subtly admitted to me that the Capitol City unis have fouled their nests because of their craving for political correctness and their fear of upsetting people.

The media reported Professor Ridd as saying he supported, quote, any moves to improve the disastrous situation at the moment where academic freedom of speech effectively does not exist. At present, universities are applying their vague codes of conduct on top of academic freedom of speech.

And this means academics have to be respectful and collegiate. Any robust debate, as he points out, is likely to seem disrespectful to somebody. So that is a way of shutting down debate. That’s how universities that fear academic freedom or are too gutless to ensure freedom suppress academic freedom and free speech.

And we need practical graduates. And my three years underground as a coalface miner after graduate was priceless for me. So I left university and then I realised I’d better go and learn something. So I worked underground as at the coalface for three to four years. We also only need to remember that In addition to practical experience, universities are not for everyone and should not be for everyone.

We need to rekindle trades, rekindle the TAFE, rekindle apprenticeships, and Sen. Hanson has been leading the way in Australia in rekindling apprenticeships and the government has taken her policy two years ago and implemented it. We need to also stop political correctness at TAFE and get it back on track.

So we’re very pleased then to see that the government is undertaking a major shakeup of university fees in a bid to steer students towards fields where there are skill shortages and jobs for the future. And it’s better for students after graduation. University graduates have been slamming universities for meaningless degrees that have left students with dismal career prospects and crippling debt.

While a university degree leads some students to a bright future, for others, it currently leaves them with nothing but debt and disappointment. Now, I wanna take a break here because I wanna answer some comments from Sen. Murray Watt. His comments disrespect the university students and universities.

And his fabrications require me to respond. He said that since they have entered parliament centre the Hanson and one and Sen. Roberts line up with the LNP to pass legislation. Well, let’s see who lines up with the LNP. Let’s indeed have a good look at this. On climate policies, Liberal and Labour are similar.

They believe the nonsense. On energy policies, Liberal and Labour both believe in our renewable energy target. Both believe in stealing farmers’ property rights, as they have both done. Liberal and Labor both believe in gold plating the networks. Liberal and Labor both believe in a national electricity market that has turned into a national electricity racket.

One Nation opposes all of those. On water, the Turnbull-Howard 2007 Water Act is supported by Labour. Now some Liberals are waking up and some Nats are waking up. One Nation opposes the 2007 water act. And the destruction it’s caused across the Murray-Darling basin.

Electricity price, as I’ve just said, Labour and Liberal support the renewable energy target, they support subsidies to the intermittent unreliable energy sources of wind and solar, they support privatisation, They support the national electricity market which has been, which is a national electricity racket.

Both are anti-coal in their actions. The only difference between the Liberal and Labour is that liberals are positive in their talk, but not their actions. Labour and Liberal have been killing our fishing industry. Foreign ownership, Liberal and Labour have sold out Port of Darwin and other companies and water rights in our country.

Record debt, state and federal, Labour and Liberal join. Infrastructure, a lack of infrastructure and neglect. Taxes, foreign multinationals, tax-free, Labour and Liberal have enabled that over the last six decades. I could go on, but you can get the point that Liberal and Labour are actually closer than One Nation and Labour One Nation and the LNP.

The second point Sen. Watt talked about was One Nation candidates out there, masquerading, these are his words, as the people who are standing up for battlers in our community. Well let’s go through some of our candidates. Michael Blaxland at Gimpy. Sharon Lohse at Maryborough.

Sharon Bell, now here’s a good example, Sharon Bell, a real fighter, she’s out working class girl who’s come up and is now working in the construction industry. She is fighting the member for Bundamba who was parachuted in from a job from a union position in Melbourne, parachuted into Queensland outside the Bundamba electorate.

And then two months before the recent election, served by election, he moved into Bundamba, and he’s doing nothing. And what did the Labour Party do? They got rid of Joanne Miller, a first class true Labour member of parliament, and replaced her with this blow-in parachuted in from Melbourne.

Then I could talk about Deb Lawson, Christine Keys, who wants to restore solid education, Wade Rothery, a coal miner in Keppel, Torin O’Brien, Steve Andrew, an electrician who has got such a good rapport with the people of Mirani in his electorate, because he is a member of parliament.

These are the types of people that One Nation is very, very proud to say stand with us. And they are fed up with the tired old parties, both Liberal and Labour. And so as an increasing number of voters. And that’s why these candidates are standing up, because they’re sick and tired of Liberal Nationals and sick and tired of Labour.

They have been abandoned by both the tired old parties. Labour and the LNP actually make battlers. Sen. White talked about us as standing up for the battlers, that’s correct. And the reason we have to do that is because the Labour Party is creating battlers. It’s taking the middle class and making them poor.

It’s taking the poor and making life tougher for the poor. Look at your energy policies, look at your agriculture policies. They are coming to One Nation because people need someone in this parliament who stands up for them and someone in state parliament who stands up for them.

And Sen. Hanson, and this is something Murray Watt, Sen. Watt has said, ‘Sen. Hanson and her party come down to Canberra. they vote with the Liberal and National parties.’ It’s not us that have the policies that are the same. It’s not us, it’s you guys. Let’s then have a look at, let’s then have a look at what Sen. Watt said.

We’ve seen it, he raised pensions. Sen. Hanson and I have advocated for an increase in pensions. We’re advocated and advocating and got solid policies for decreasing cost of living. That’s more important because to a pensioner, the cost of energy is a highly regressive tax and burden.

Then Sen. Watt raised apprenticeships. Sen. Hanson introduced the apprenticeship scheme into this parliament and the government has taken it.

[Deputy President]

Sen. Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes?

[Deputy President]

I have been listening carefully and you certainly started off talking about the higher ed bill. And I think I’ve given you enough time to respond to other senators in this place. But I do remind you the bill before us is the higher education bill.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thank you, Madam Deputy President, I’m simply responding clearly to everything that Sen. Watt has said-

[Deputy President]

Sen. Roberts?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Because his comments misrepresented the facts.

[Deputy President]

Sen. Roberts, the bill before us is the higher education bill. That’s the bill you need to be responding to. There are other opportunities to respond to other senators. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Certainly, well, in response, Madam Deputy President, I wanna comment that this bill, with One Nation’s amendments that the government has agreed to, protects students, protects taxpayers, protects universities, protects Australians, and protects Australia. Because education is vital to the future of our country.

Education is vital as a source of foreign income. And while Labour is off with the rainbow coloured unicorns on this and many other topics, we are very, very proud to speak for the battlers and to support the battlers.

[Deputy President]

Order, order.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Students must be equipped educationally for a career in and beyond the COVID-19 economy with its focus on digital technologies, robotics, automation, science, and health services, real jobs.

[Deputy President]

Thank you, Senator Roberts, your time-

/by

Ensuring Academic Integrity – 2SM with Marcus Paul

,

Transcript

[Marcus Paul]

All right, it’s now 16 minutes away from 8:00. Malcom’s with us on the programme. Hello, mate, how are you?

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m very well.

[Marcus Paul]

Excellent.

[Malcolm Roberts]

I’m very, very well, Marcus. And, by the way, I understand this is the first time I’ll be speaking to you while you’re in the Grant Goldman Studios. So well done.

[Marcus Paul]

Wonderful. Yeah. Brand new studio. We’re loving it. Everything seems to be working a-okay. Where are you at the moment? Still up north?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Back up north again. Yeah, up in Townsville. And we went through Airlie Beach yesterday, but Grant, with Grant, I enjoyed meeting Grant and working with him. He was a fabulous man.

He really looked after the people because he connected with what was really going on. He had the guts to tackle big issues, and he was just a wonderful character. I know you’ve got a caller called John Mcreigh who told me about the way Grant’s supported Lawrence Heinz and at his own costs. It’s just amazing, the courage of the man.

[Marcus Paul]

Yeah, wonderful, and I know you had that relationship before, and we’re very grateful that we continue to talk to you on this network and certainly on this programme, mate. So thank you very much. Now, let’s talk about changes to the university system. You support the government’s changes. Why?

[Malcolm Roberts]

They’re reducing the fees for courses that will meet the needs for the future of our country, and jobs, practical courses that will, like engineering, like nursing, like teaching. And they’ll be making courses like humanities, which have little direct relevance, sometimes, immediate relevance, and that’s what they’re doing there to make universities more affordable and also to more practical.

And what they’re doing is also making sure that taxpayer funds are based on the skills that the country needs, so that’s why we’re supporting general. But we also see this as an opportunity to go further, to ensure responsibility among students and reduce the taxpayer load. And also to restore accountability in universities and to restore academic freedom. ‘Cause as you know, that’s been smashed.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, let’s look at some of the figures here. We do need to address the growing $60 billion outstanding HECS debt. Australian debt is now pushing $1 trillion and money could be used productively if repaid. We need to limit student entitlement to seven years’ full-time equivalent.

Certainly, it takes on average around 10 years for a student to repay a HECS debt. And if you’re getting people, students into some of these humanities courses, and I’m not knocking them, I did one. I did a bachelor of arts, obviously. I majored in journalism, but we need to ensure that whatever our kids are studying at uni will get them into gainful employment once they’re finished, because we need these debts repaid.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s right. And we’re very concerned. Pauline in particular has been raising this issue for a number of years now that the HECS debt is going up and up and up and it’s currently around 60 billion and growing as you correctly pointed out. I love the way you use data. Pauline has been advocating that we reinstate the 10% discount if fees are paid upfront.

Now that’s because people who can afford university should not be getting a concessional interest rate. They should pay it upfront. Let them do that and that’ll, give the government better use of our funds. And also we want to reduce the threshold for income above which people start paying off the HECS debt. It’s currently at $46,000 per annum income before you have to start repaying.

We want to reduce that so that people start paying it back earlier because we’re all we’re seeing is the HECS debt rising incredibly and people basically on fee-free university education. We also want to raise the standards by which they’re allowed to continue so that if they’re failing, then they don’t continue.

[Marcus Paul]

Well, that’s right. It’s important, I think, to have our institutions, our tertiary institutions, monitor students’ academic progress. And if they are repeatedly failing, well, then they should stop getting fee help. Particularly if they don’t pass half the subjects.

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s right. And we need to make students aware that they’re getting something from taxpayers and they’re getting money that supports their courses. So we need to make students more accountable for that. It’s not just continue to live off the taxpayer. We’ve got to get job-ready graduates.

And so we applaud the government for this initiative, but we want to take it further to bring back that accountability in the universities and also on the students.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, I want to go to this issue here of, the fact that you’re doing a lot of travelling there in Queensland, which is wonderful, Malcolm, because that’s how you get on top of grassroots issues. You speak to the punters out there and constituents. Again, you’re still hearing the businesses can’t find anyone willing to work.

Fruit pickers in southern Queensland, in tourism and hospitality, charter boat operators in the Whitsundays are cancelling cruises. The retail sector is struggling at Airlie Beach. Why can’t we fill these positions? Is it getting down to the fact that job keeper and job seeker to an extent is so generous at the moment?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s really not job keeper, Marcus. It’s job seeker that’s the problem. Job keeper has actually kept some businesses going, kept them afloat. We’ve got to be careful about that.

There are some businesses that haven’t been able to get job keeper and they should be able to, but anyway, that’s another issue, but job seeker is what’s keeping some people on the couch instead of getting off their backside and going and doing some work. Fruit pickers in southern Queensland, but I think we talked about that a couple of weeks ago as well, strawberry pickers, raspberry pickers.

They just can’t get people, and they can’t get locals, can’t get Aussies. And what we’ve relied upon is backpackers to do that job. Just a couple of days ago we were in Airlie Beach in Whitsunday. Yeah, I know. Someone’s got to do it, mate. But anyway.

[Marcus Paul]

Ah, terrible, Malcolm, yes.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But anyway, the tourism and hospitality sector are finding it difficult to get even boat crews they’ve had to cancel charter boat operators in the Whitsundays, cancel cruises because they can’t get people to do jobs because it’s too easy, too attractive on job seeker.

And then retail. We see shopkeepers who are desperate for staff, but we’ve also seen, at a time when we’ve got a massive growing debt and lowering productivity, we’ve also got shopkeepers paying inordinate amounts for electricity, especially government charges.

[Marcus Paul]

Sure.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And they’re saying themselves, all they’re doing is picking up a huge risk and picking up huge stress. They have to work longer hours because they can’t afford it. We’ve got a complete need to look at how we treat people and how we treat businesses, taxation, regulation. We’re destroying our country, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, well, the prime minister today is about to spruik a modern manufacturing strategy. There’s a little bit of renewable energy thrown in the mix. I mean, I dunno, we’ve got a conservative premier in New South Wales who’s gone on the record as saying, we’re not real good at building things, but the prime minister says we are.

I like the idea of it, kick-starting manufacturing and building manufacturing jobs and really investing in the sector in new South Wales and round Australia. But is this more marketing? Are these going to be more slogans today? Can the government really back this up? Are you sceptical?

[Malcolm Roberts]

I am completely sceptical, and you hit the nail on the head. It’s just marketing from Scott Morrison. Look, the basics of manufacturing are electricity charges, and we’re pushing the UN agenda and driving our electricity through the roof. And what we’re doing is exporting those jobs to China, India, Asia, because they’re generating electricity at eight cents a kilowatt an hour using our coal that’s been carted overseas for thousands of kilometres.

We’re selling electricity in this country at 25 cents a kilowatt an hour. And that’s ridiculous because we’re using the same coal, and the only difference is the regulations that the government has put in place due to the UN. And the second thing is we’re over-regulated. We’ve got so many regulations in this country.

The small business just cannot compete. Large business cannot compete. That taxation structure gives incentives to foreign multinationals rather than local companies. And then we’ve had the Lima declaration that both parties signed, Whitlam Labor Party signed in 1975 and Frasers Liberal Party ratified it the following year.

And that has exported our jobs, our manufacturing. Until we start restoring our political sovereignty and national sovereignty, we are not going to restore our economic sovereignty. It’s that simple. And Scott Morrison on October 3rd, I think last year, was talking about the unelected, international bureaucrats and unaccountable international bureaucrats.

And then since then, he’s advocated giving the UN’s World Health Organisation, a corrupt organisation, increased power. So the man says one thing and does another. We will not get anywhere until we stop the UN.

[Marcus Paul]

All right, well said, as always. Great to have you on the programme, Malcolm. Let’s chat again next week. Appreciate it. You take it easy up there at Airlie Beach, Townsville. You’re not taking a little charter boat over to Maggie today to really rub it into me, are you?

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, no, no. We’ll be heading down into the Galilee Basin and the Bowen Basin coalfields to listen, pushing some things on safety there.

[Marcus Paul]

Well let’s hear a little more about that next week when we get you back on. Thanks, Malcolm. Take care.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Thanks, Marcus.

[Marcus Paul]

One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts.

/by

Nationals lied about changes to Murray Darling Basin plan

, ,

Last week the Nationals claimed to have significantly changed the Murray Darling Basin plan for farmers. I want to be blunt. THEY LIED.They are wilting under the pressure One Nation has put them under through our use of facts and in response instead of doing good are trying to look good.

Take a listen to what the Nationals claimed the report said and what the report ACTUALLY says.

Transcript

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m on the road from Rocky to Mackay in Central Queensland. I wanna make a statement about the and ask some questions about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan notice that came out of the government last week.

And I wanna ask a few basic questions after Friday’s media headlines. And I’m gonna read these questions, because I wanna make sure it’s accurate. Sky News called this the biggest change to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 10 years, oh really? The Australian announced buybacks axed in Murray overhaul.

So I asked Minister Pitt for a copy of this supposed landmark report. And this is it, 10 pages, that’s all. The recommendations are two pages and a bit, that’s it. Does it really represent any change in the current policy? No, it does not. It doesn’t say any such thing and yet the Nationals Party and the government has been saying that.

One major issue and this is the first topic. One major issue with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the last 450 gigalitres of water acquisitions called SDLs. Which is to be taken off farmers and given to the environment in South Australia. Since the plan started 2100 gigalitres of water has been taken from farmers.

That’s forced many farmers off the land and reduced our agricultural output by more than $10 billion. This is money that our economy needs especially when we try to recover from COVID. This is food that has been taken from the world’s hungry.

Now Senator Bridget McKenzie, who is leader of the National’s Party in the senate made this statement just a week ago. Quote, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers. Enough is enough, you have taken enough.”

Well, that was clear, wasn’t it? But what does the reports really say? Let me read the recommendations. Quote, this is what the report says. “Work with the states to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitre SDL acquisitions. Not stop the acquisition accelerate the acquisition.”

What of the promise to not take water off farmers? Perhaps Senator McKenzie is talking about this line. Quote, from the report, “Shift the focus away from on-farm acquisition to off-farm infrastructure.” What sort of a promise is shift the focus? These are with weasel words Minister Pitt.

450 gigalitres through fixing leaky pipes and burying irrigation channels, not possible. And for the record irrigation channels are lifelines for native Australian birds, animals and reptiles in a drought. Those canals are an entire ecosystem full of fish, turtles and crustaceans that die when you bury them underground.

This idea is literally killing our environment to save it. Secondly, as for splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two, not so much. This is recommendation six, which establishes an Inspector General of Water Compliance. Now is this a new post?

No, they are simply renaming the Inspector General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources. When he was appointed, the existing Inspector Mick Keelty was called the tough cop on the block. What happened to that? This is nothing more than a re-branding exercise.

And the media has slapped it up the media has fallen for it. Does the media check anything anymore? Or do they just parrot what this government tells them? Thirdly, as for punitive powers, the Inspector General does not have any. Those powers vest with the State’s New South Wales in particular.

Where the most water rorting is going on. Has not even given the Murray-Darling Basin any punitive powers at all. If big Corporate Agriculture builds a new floodplain harvesting dam in the Northern Basin, the Inspector General has no powers to order that demolished nor even issue a fine.

The New South Wales State Agriculture Minister, Nationals Leader New South Wales, Nationals MP John Barilaro, has to make those orders and the government damn well knows it. Minister Pitt I have three questions. Who wrote this misleading press release?

Secondly, show me where in this report it actually says there will be no more buybacks from farmers? Thirdly, how does re-branding one position without any extra powers suddenly become splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two? It doesn’t, does it?

I’ve heard the Nationals talk a lot of rubbish lately. But this takes the cake. These are lies they speak to distract. Under the Nationals, farmers will lose their water and rural communities will be destroyed. The only winner will be the Nationals Corporate Agriculture Mates.

When will the Nationals for a change? Join us in one Nation in putting Australia first.

/by

Policy development lacks scientific integrity

,

The timber industry in Queensland is being decimated by regulations that are not based on robust science. The Queensland Labor party has been captured by the Greens who have an ideological opposition to logging.

Even sustainable logging.In Maryborough, layer upon layer of red tape is choking the sustainable harvesting of timber leading to timber being sourced from overseas. The proposed Office of Scientific Integrity would ensure that policy development would be based on independent, empirically based scientific evidence rather than the loopy Greens.

Transcript

[Rosie]

A senator, a businessman, and a scientist claim this report will unearth lies about Australia’s climate change and renewable energy.

[Senator Roberts]

So over the last four years I’ve investigated the CSIRO, in fact, I’ve cross-examined them. I’ve asked them to present me with the evidence that we’re doing something with climate and we need to stop it.

[Rosie]

Senator Malcolm Roberts says common concepts that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger to the climate and that today’s temperatures are unprecedented, were fabricated for political gain.

[Senator Roberts]

That’s shoddy. So as a result of that, we’ve been recognising that the corruption of science is right across the country.

[Rosie]

According to Tiaro local Curly Tatnell, the impacts of corrupt science is huge for the timber industry.

[Mr Curly Tatnell]

Country that we should normally be able to harvest and things like that being locked up, which means that we’ve got to produce smaller timber.

[Rosie]

He says farmers are harvesting their properties prematurely because of misinformation. It’s led the men to call for the establishment of an office of scientific integrity.

[Dr Peter Ridd]

To check the science that’s being used for making major public policy decisions, whether they’re state or federal.

[Rosie]

The state government is aware of the groups calls. Rosie O’Brien, 7 News.

/by

Where is your COVID19 plan Prime Minister?

Yesterday I spoke in the Senate about the lack of a plan to live with and master COVID19 rather than hiding behind advice from bureaucrats in the health departments. There is no guarantee when or if there will be a vaccine. Where is your plan Prime Minister?

Transcript

I know that there are many grieving families, fearful families and concerned families. I raised the fact that in my correspondence to both the prime minister and to the premier of Queensland.

I expressed concern over their use of insufficient and flawed modelling to lock us all away and cause untold damage to our economy, businesses and jobs. Their responses to my letters avoided addressing the real issues.

Yes. If the federal government and state governments had learned, as I suggested in March from nations like Taiwan and promptly adopted rigorous testing combined with strict isolation of their sick, aged and vulnerable then many Australians could have stayed at work with minimal economic disruption and better health.

The difference is that Taiwan had a plan and relied on solid data. And as a result, Taiwan had seven deaths in the time we’ve had 517. They have a similar population to ours in terms of total population. Yet they are under greater threat because of the highly densely populated country and they’re closer to China.

The honourable John Houston in the Sydney Morning Herald, recently referred to quote, “planning or the lack of it has been the great failure of the Morrison government. It has been building over years of neglect and poor policy, but now it has been laid bare by both COVID-19 and the Royal commission.”

Queensland’s own chief health officer, Dr. Jeanette young, has stated this past week that she is only looking at the health issues. Mr. Acting deputy president. And this is very concerning. Who is looking after the big picture for us all? What about mental health, economic health, jobs, families, businesses?

The Queensland Premier referred us to the website location of her data. We checked there’s no relevant data, weak premier, irresponsibly abdicating, again, hiding behind the chief health officer, abdicating her duties. The Morrison government and the Queensland government need to both step up and to demonstrate leadership and to tell the truth.

They need to show us the data and the plan across all aspects of managing our way out of this pandemic and the resulting recession, and in the process, ensuring security for all Australians.

/by

Letter to Home Affairs Minister: Foreign Departure Ban

Dear Minister

I write in support of Mr Martin Thomson and his son Harry’s application for an exemption from the overseas travel ban to travel from Australia to Scotland.  Separately, and without impinging on that request, I ask the government to adopt a more supportive approach to persons wishing to travel from Australia.

Mr Martin Thomson

I am informed of the following:

Martin Thomson is a UK National with permanent residency in Australia.  I believe it is important to note that Mr Thomson is a non-citizen trying to leave Australia.  Mr Thomson’s father, James, is in Scotland and has prostate cancer.  James is on treatment for his cancer and does not know how long he has to live.  Mr Thomson’s mother, Susanna, is unable to drive and has arthritis which makes caring for James very difficult.  Mr Thomson wishes to leave the country with his son to care for and see his father, in what may be the final stages of his life.

Mr Thomson has booked a one-way flight back to the UK for both him and his son, has resigned from his workplace in Australia and will be freighting his belongings in Australia back to the UK.  He understands the quarantine requirements in the UK upon arrival, due to his stopover in Dubai, and has undertaken to comply with them fully.

I have seen handwritten letters from Mr Thomson’s parents pleading for our government’s compassion on this issue.  Susanna writes, “… my arthritis is making everything harder! I do need them home very badly!  To help!” Heartbreakingly, 80 year old James writes, “I do not know how long I have to live and as you can imagine I am in my later years, I would dearly love to see my son and grandson back home in Scotland before I pass on out of this life”. 

I struggle to think of circumstances that deserve our compassion as much as the one Mr Thomson finds himself in.  We are Australians and we pride ourselves on fairness.  Allowing people to leave this country to take care of dying family members is the absolute least we can do to live up to that pride.

I ask and encourage in the sincerest terms possible that the Government consider favourably the applications of Mr Thomson and his son, and also any others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

Let people leave

Separately to my support of Mr Thomson and his son’s application, I wish to request that the government relax its restrictions on people exiting the country.  Many Australians are not aware the government has currently banned them from leaving the country without a permit.

I understand that of the more than 90,000 applications made to leave the country from 25 March to 31 July, Australian Border Force has approved 22,640, around only 1 in 4.  As far as we know, Australia is the only liberal democracy in the world with a blanket ban on citizens, let alone non-citizens, leaving the country.

We have heard of people being refused exemptions to leave the country to return to where they hold citizenship, to see a daughter’s marriage and, in the case of Mr Thomson, to care for his dying father.

The only justification presented for this ban on leaving the country has been that if we let people out, they might come back one day.  The outgoing travel ban was implemented at a time when states and territories were picking up the bill for hotel quarantine.  However, this is no longer the case.  Taxpayers are not footing the bill and anyone leaving the country understands they will personally pay up to $3,000 for hotel quarantine if they choose to return. 

I suggest that this request is reasonable given the Government is considering welcoming international visitors who are prepared to quarantine and is already trialling bringing in international students.  No comparable countries to Australia, such as the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Canada, the United States of America and others have this restriction on departures in place. 

We must manage the risk of COVID-19 not by preventing Australians from leaving but controlling their return to Australia as well as foreign arrivals into Australia.  We already control the return of people to Australia with user-pay hotel quarantine.

The current policy regarding leaving Australia is causing a great deal of unnecessary heartbreak and is an unjustified infringement of liberty.  I ask the government to reconsider its current approach to the prohibition on departures from Australia and to adopt a much more compassionate and practical approach.

Yours sincerely

Senator Malcolm Roberts

Senator for Queensland

200827-MartinThomson

/by

Senator Roberts makes submission to Bank Bail-In Inquiry

,

The following is Senator Roberts’ submission to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry into the Senator’s Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020. See the media release in relation to this submission here.

Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020

I would like to thank the almost 200 submissions in support of the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 (the Bill). Opposition from the financial establishment has been to maintain the ambiguous wording in the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 (the Act).

I would advise the Committee as follows.

Summary by section

  1. The $250,000 FCS guarantee triggers once a bank fails.  A bail-in is designed to save a bank from failing, meaning the FCS does not prevent a bail-in because the bail-in comes first.
  2. APRA’s submission requires the phrase “any other instrument” to remain to meet future developments in financial products. I agree, this bill retains that wording and adds a single modifier – ‘except retail deposits’.  APRA’s objection is moot.
  3. Some submissions suggest a bail-in conflicts with Section 2A of the Banking Act which protects deposits.  This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to save the bank.  In turn this action protects some deposits immediately and the rest are restored years hence.  The wording of 2A does not preclude a bail-in, it precludes an unsuccessful one.  
  4. The IMF are on record as indicating the Crisis Resolution Powers of the 2018 Act have primacy over the general banking directions (S2A) provided in the Banking Act. These crisis powers allow APRA to order a bail-in before the FCS guarantee would start.
  5. Some submissions relied on the absence of a provision in account Terms & Conditions as the explanation for why bail-in provisions do not apply to retail deposits. As banks are adding this clause to their Terms & Conditions, I would consider this objection moot.
  6. APRA have indemnified bank executives for actions they may take in the implementation of emergency powers, including a bail-in.
  7. Bail-in involves banks issuing new shares in exchange for the funds they take out of depositors’ accounts. This double hit – reduced goodwill towards the brand and dilution of share prices – will comprise a massive hit to our Super Funds, self-managed retirees and the more than one million Australians with bank shares.
  8. Australia is obligated by membership in international banking and financial agreements to have in place a deposit bail-in capability that specifically prevents taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank. It is likely that this clause will prohibit the Treasurer from activating the FCS guarantee should a bail-in fail, simply because that is taxpayers’ money as well.

There is no doubt that the existing legislation allows for a bank bail-in. My bill asks all Senators a simple question – is this what you want? Millions of super fund members and bank shareholders await your answer.

1. The $250,000 FCS Deposit Guarantee

The Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) deposit protection was an excellent initiative from the Rudd Labor Government back in 2008.  However, things have changed since then.

The FCS is not active, and therefore “The Scheme is activated at the discretion of the Australian Treasurer”.[1] As confirmation, in 2018 APRA Chair Mr Wayne Byres addressed the Economics Legislation Committee, regarding the FCS: “Well, it’s not currently activated in the sense that it’s only activated when a bank fails…the FCS is there to make sure that particularly retail depositors but also depositors with amounts up to $250,000 are not at risk of losing their money, should a bank fail.”

The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017, EM states: “In the unlikely event that a bank fails the Treasurer may activate the FCS…these specific depositor protections would generally only apply as a last resort, once an ADI* cannot be resolved.”

The ABC in their article on this bill raised the spectre of a run on the banks if, for instance the real estate market melts down.[2] The Government seems to have considered the impact of a bank run on the effectiveness of a bail-in, and recently added secrecy provisions to the Act so that the public would not be alerted prior to a bail-in.

Melissa Harrison’s submission 60 used the IMF’s 2019 assessment of the FCS: “The Banking Act does not compel APRA to make the appointment of a statutory manager public… As the authorities are well aware, the statutory management power should be used very cautiously as the appointment of a statutory manager could destabilize the bank by triggering or exacerbating funding runs”.[3]

A bail-in would occur prior to the FCS guarantee being authorised, with the new secrecy provisions leaving customers in the dark until their money disappears from their bank account.

A few other issues with the $250,000 guarantee are:

  1. It is organised by bank by account holder. This means accounts owned by foreign citizens or entities would be bailed-in using Australian taxpayers’ funds;
  2. The FCS is unfunded;
  3. The FCS is limited to $20bn per bank. The Commonwealth Bank, for example, has 16 million account holders. $20bn will only cover 80,000 of those to the full $250,000. Alternatively, cover could be extended to all 16 million account holders but only for the first $1250.  

2. APRA: We need ‘any other instrument’ in the Act

From APRA’s submission 197: “We agree that if the intention of the Act was to only cover Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, an addition of ‘any other instrument’ would have been unnecessary. However… ‘any other instrument’ was included in contemplation of further classes of capital which may be added in the future.…the reference to ‘any other instrument’ was neither intended to, nor does it in fact extend to, deposits.”

*ADI = Authorised Deposit Taking Institution. For accessibility this submission uses “bank” wherever possible.

I agree with APRA that this reference is needed for future developments. This is why the wording of the bill does not remove the phrase “any other instrument”. It simply applies a single modifier “not including a deposit account” and then defines what a deposit account is.

As this clause still operates in the manner requested by APRA, their argument is moot.

Treasury have also objected to including this definition in the Act because it introduces a definition not in use elsewhere in the Act. While I feel this is clutching at straws, Treasury are free to introduce an amendment to prevent our definition being used more widely.

3. Bail-in is inconsistent with depositor protection (S2A)

From APRA’s submission 197: “APRA has broad directions powers, all of which must be used consistent with the objects of the Banking Act (particularly the paramount objective of protecting depositors). As such, APRA could not direct the insertion of a conversion or write-off provision into customer deposit accounts given such a direction would be inconsistent with the objective of depositor protection. Such a direction would be found to be invalid.”

This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to PROTECT depositors’ funds by:

  1. Converting some part of depositors’ funds to a security (forced purchase of shares in the bank) that can be converted back to funds upon sale at a future time; 
  2. This saves the bank from failure and in turn, protects the remaining depositor funds;
  3. 2A does not prevent a bail-in, it prevents a failed bail-in.

This bill is necessary because of the loss of amenity in the period between the funds being seized and many years down the road, when the share price recovers and the shares redeemed.  Small business, retirees, low income earners will lose homes and businesses in a bail-in.

4. IMF statements conflict with Treasury and APRA submissions

The IMF disagrees with APRA on the strength of S2A protections. An IMF report states:[4]

“The new ‘catch-all’ directions powers in the 2018 Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill provide APRA with the flexibility to make directions to the ADIs that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”

In a February 2019 assessment of Australia’s bank resolution and crisis management, the International Monetary Fund noted:[5]

“[APRA’s] Direction powers are also a key element in the resolution process for a distressed ADI; directions can be used to implement a range of resolution options, including facilitating recapitalization. Hence, the framework allows for the possibility that a problem bank could be resolved while under private control as APRA could order an ADI to recapitalize.”

The IMF are saying that the 2018 Crisis Resolution Powers have primacy over the general directions statements in the Banking Act. These allow APRA to ‘facilitate recapitalisation’ which is the definition of a bail-in and “under private control” means before it goes bust and the $250,000 guarantee starts.

If APRA and Treasury’s submissions are correct, then the IMF is wrong.

5. Banks can’t change their Terms & Conditions to allow a bail-in

APRA submission: “While an ADI may unilaterally change terms and conditions for customer deposits, it may not do so where the change is to facilitate a conversion or write-off of customer deposits. This is because to do so would be inconsistent with unfair contract terms legislation under the ASIC Act. A term allowing an ADI to write off or convert a retail deposit would amount to an unfair contract term. Moreover, even if an ADI was not prohibited from changing its terms in this way by unfair contract terms legislation, APRA would use its powers under the Banking Act to protect depositors and prohibit an ADI from changing these terms to insert write-off provisions.”

Treasury’s submission contained the same argument.The legislation referenced actually states: “Only a court can decide whether or not a term is unfair.  “ So the legislation does NOT prevent bail-in provisions being added to Terms & Conditions. The protection comes from:

  1. APRA using their oversight powers to unwind such an attempt; or
  2. Affected depositors taking the might of the Australian banks to Court to get a ruling that this was indeed an unfair contract term.

Neither of these has happened. APRA has however had an opportunity to intervene when our banks started adding bail-in provisions to their Terms & Conditions. Please view submission 166 from Adams Economics, Annexe C for more.

APRA and Treasury are relying on a protection provided by APRA’s regulation powers that only exists if those powers are used.

6. APRA indemnifies bank executives who carry out a bail-in

In its 2019 assessment the International Monetary Fund noted:[6]

“Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill, provides for clearer immunity for an institution, its directors, management, employees and agents when taking reasonable steps to comply with an APRA direction…the Bill provides that a person is not liable in an action, suit or proceeding (whether criminal or civil) in relation to anything done, or omitted to be done, in good faith by the person if it is done for the purposes of complying with a direction given by APRA.”

This indemnity protects bank executives from legal action over their decision to conduct a bail-in.

7. Super Funds and self-funded retirees will be devastated

Our banks are some of the most valuable, even beloved brands in Australia. The financial damage to their share price from the loss of goodwill from a bail-in will be in the billions.

A greater loss though will come from the issuing of new shares to depositors in exchange for their savings. This dilutes the share price for existing shareholders. This is the reason for a bail-in given by the IMF – the cost of the bail-in must be worn by shareholders, not taxpayers.

Who are these shareholders if not taxpayers? Fourteen million Australians have superannuation accounts which contain a significant exposure to bank shares. There are more than a million everyday Australians who own bank shares directly.

Australia privatised our State Bank (The Commonwealth Bank) by giving everyday Australians discounted shares. Bank share ownership in Australia is the highest in the world, and our compulsory super ranks third in the world for number of people covered in percentage terms.

The IMF/G20 can champion a bail-in over a bail-out to protect taxpayers all they like. In Australia our taxpayers and our bank shareholders are one and the same.

The Government has looked the other way while banks have lent to the real estate market at the cost of compromising their loan book diversity. If it all melts down that is on the Government, not shareholders.

Government intervention by recapitalisation financed with Government bonds transferred over to the banks over time will, in the long run, not cost taxpayers money but it will avoid millions of everyday Australians getting done over by the IMF.

8. Further notes on our international obligations

Depositors are considered ‘unsecured creditors’ to a bank. This is apparent in the RBA publication ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’, which comments on “…other unsecured creditors, including depositors”.[7]

The Australian government’s 2014 ‘Financial System Inquiry Final Report’ acknowledged:[8]

“Inevitably, failures can and will occur, the system will be exposed to crises and, at times, unsecured bank creditors will be exposed to loss.

The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. The Board includes all G20 major economies. Australia is a member and participates in the process.

The Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Key Attributes recommend that a resolution regime should “allocate losses to firm owners (shareholders) and unsecured and uninsured creditors (depositors)”.[9]

Australia is represented on the FSB by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Treasury and we have endorsed the FSB’s ‘key attributes’.

A further look at the ‘key attributes” reveals this provision:[10]

“The TLAC standard has been designed so that failing G-SIBs [banks] will have sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity available in resolution for authorities to implement an orderly resolution that minimises impacts on financial stability, maintains the continuity of critical functions, and avoids exposing public funds to loss”.

From submission 166 from Adams Economics: At the 2010 G20 Seoul Meeting, the Australian Government committed Australia to the Summit Document13, which included paragraph 30: 

“We reaffirmed our view that no firm should be too big or too complicated to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution.”

9. Conclusion

If I may give the last word to Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker. On the 5th November 2018, Senator Stoker explained in a letter to a constituent her view of the Act: 

“The legislation facilitates bail-in as a type of resolution power which is available for dealing with financial institution distress. This was done after the G20 leaders endorsed a new Financial Stability Board standard for Total Loss-absorbing Capacity.”

I thank the Senator for that clarity. Clearly the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was in fact an implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s requirements for member nations to have legislation that allows a bank bail-in as a way of preventing public funds being used to bail out a bank.

Could it be that as our international agreements require bail-in rather than taxpayer funded bail-out and the Government, The Treasury and APRA have spent two years hoping nobody notices? I wonder because New Zealand have enacted their bail-in laws in the open, based on the same agreements we are signatory to.

The Government has a simple choice:

Either: Oppose our bill and admit the wording of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was indeed to give APRA the power, and the banks the right, to bail-in depositor funds. Then be honest with the electorate that banks have been given bail-in powers under a smoke screen of ambiguous wording.

Or: Pass the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 to give depositors confidence in their bank deposits and provide clarity for stakeholders.

[1] Grant Turner, ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’ [2011] (December) Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin 45-55, 51.

[2] Nassim Khadem, ‘Coronavirus crisis heightens fears bank deposits could be wiped out under ‘ambiguous’ laws’, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (online, 16 July 2020) https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-16/coronavirus-crisis-heightens-fears-bank-deposits-could-be-wiped/12458462.

[3] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[4] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[5] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[6] International Monetary Fund – Monetary and Capital Markets Department, ‘Australia: Financial Sector Assessment Program-Technical Note-Bank Resolution and Crisis Management’ (Country Report No. 19/48, 21 February 2019).

[7] Grant Turner, ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’ [2011] (December) Reserve Bank of Australia Bulletin 45-55.

[8] The Australian Government the Treasury, Financial System Inquiry(Final Report, 7 December 2014).

[9] Ulf Lewrick, José María Serena Garralda and Grant Turner, ‘Believing in bail-in? Market discipline and the pricing of bail-in bonds’ (Working Paper No. 831, Bank for International Settlements, December 2019).

[10] Financial Stability Board, ‘FSB issues final Total Loss-Absorbing Capacity standard for global systemically important banks’ (Press Release 74/2015, 9 November 2015).

/2 Comments/by

Workers left in the dirt by Labor and Union Bosses – 2SM with Marcus Paul

Transcript

[Paul Marcus]

Right now though, as we do each and every Thursday, we have a chat with the wonderful One Nation Senator, Malcolm Roberts. Good morning to you Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Good day Marcus, how are you?

[Paul Marcus]

Look I’m okay. This icare scandal has deepened in New South Wales. And Senator it reminded me a couple of weeks ago, when you raised the issue about Simon, a coal miner in the hunter valley.

You recently went to the Hunter and you released a video introducing key points. Now I’ve had a look at it. It is a massive issue. I can’t tolerate abuse of people, I really can’t. You say the mine owner and employer are acting unlawfully, immorally, and unethically. Can you tell us a little bit about Simon’s story again?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Sure. Simon Turner is the human face of a crisis in this nation’s broken industrial relations laws. The people in agencies who are supposed to protect workers have turned their back on him. That’s unions, employers, industry groups, state, government departments, state ministers, federal government departments, federal agencies.

They’ve turned their backs on hundreds of the workers at New South Wales largest coal mine, BHPs Mount Arthur North mine, Mount Arthur mine I’m sorry. They’re not protected. And they’ve turned their back on thousands of workers across Australia, including my state Queensland and in New South Wales who have lost some basic entitlements that everyone has taken for granted.

The people in agencies, Marcus, who are meant to be protecting workers have enabled the exploitation and abuse of these people. The state and federal government departments, employers, industry groups, unions, safety inspectors, political parties, representatives in parliament have all failed their workers.

[Paul Marcus]

What happened to Simon? I mean, you say that he’s been failed and we’ll get to that, but what exactly happened to him? What were his injuries?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, Simon was driving a truck while he was employed by the Chandler MacLeod labour hire firm. BHB runs the mine. They’ve got permanent workers there. They’ve also got around 400 or so, what they call casuals, but they’re on the permanent roster. And they’ve been working there for years. The truck that Simon was driving was being loaded.

The coal digger operator, didn’t see Simon’s truck because of the dusty conditions. The whole mine had being shut down apparently, except for this one unit and the coal digger smashed his truck. The massive collision directly injured Simon causing swollen L three, L four, and L five discs in Simon’s back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinch cranial nerve, and a lateral tear in one of the discs.

The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg, leaving him permanently in pain. I’ve watched this man. It is remarkable what he puts up with. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with this ongoing posttraumatic stress disorder and depression from that day 2014. So Simon’s injuries have left him totally and permanently disabled, and he cannot return to work.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s what I was gonna say. I mean, this is a debilitating injury that doesn’t allow this man to work and has ruined his future livelihood. Now, I guess the BHP management, I mean, they would have looked into this incident. Now, what’s been said by them?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, it’s amazing. This is where it gets even worse.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

A BHP manager, even though BHP wasn’t the employer, the BHP manager turned up at hospital and another BHP manager tells Simon to his face that if Simon reported the injury, he would not have a job.

[Paul Marcus]

What!

[Malcolm Roberts]

That’s breaking the law. You must report injuries. So Simon returned to the mine and was told to sit out the shift on a cold steel bench. Imagine that, hip and spinal damage and you’re sitting on a cold steel bench. And what we’ve done, we’ve been to the Hunter, even though I’m a Senator for Queensland, because we were so concerned and no one’s taking any action on these people.

We met with other miners who have been traumatised in 2014, ’15, ’16. And yet, if you go to the New South Wales government report for labour hire miners in those years, they reported no injuries for labour hire miners, none.

[Paul Marcus]

That’s rubbish. I mean, why would the management, why would the supervisor in this case, perhaps not report the injury? What is it? Is it in their best interests not to, or what’s the situation here?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yeah, you’re quite perceptive. The managers at Mount Arthur had a safety bonus that encourages not reporting injuries. If they had injuries, then their safety bonus would drop.

So they would cop it in their wallet. So Simon wasn’t actually getting workers’ compensation or accident pay. Now that’ll shock many miners. It’ll shock many workers around the country. So, you know, desperate for cash. Six months later, Simon tried to access his coal long service leave. They told him he’d been sacked just weeks after his injury.

Simon had not even been told by his labour hire employer Chandler MacLeod nor by BHP, Simon went on to lose his home and he then started living in his parents’ garage, sleeping in his car and three times this man considered ending his life, three times.

[Paul Marcus]

All right. I mean, I don’t understand this, why this has been able to flourish? I mean, Chandler MacLeod pay rates are apparently 40% less than permanent BHP workers on the same 12 month roster as the permanents.

And they’re basically doing the same kind of work, but they’re doing it with no basic work entitlements, like sick leave, annual leave. Look this bloke he’s not even entitled to anything really. I mean, what are you saying about this in Senate estimates?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, he is entitled to it, but that’s just it, he’s not getting any of these things.

[Paul Marcus]

Right, I see.

[Malcolm Roberts]

But I applaud your use of data again. You’re right, Chandler McLeod pay rates for these so-called casuals who are really permanent on a permanent roster when working there for years, in some cases, are 40% less than permanent BHB rosters, then BHP employees, sorry.

And Chandler McLeod people have no basic work entitlements, like sick leave and annual leave. And what’s more is that the fair work commission have authorised the Chandler McLeod Enterprise Agreement and the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley, authorised it and approved it. They’ve signed off on it.

[Paul Marcus]

So the unions endorsed it.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes.

[Paul Marcus]

Well, that’s not looking after members, and that’s certainly not looking after miners in the Hunter.

[Malcolm Roberts]

No, it’s not. And then it goes even further, as you alluded to, or as I said, a little while ago, that Simon approached the long service leave to see if he could get an advance on his long service leave entitlements, just get some cash.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

And so bear this in mind. That long service leave contributions for Simon were underpaid and not audited. So my questions in senate estimates started finding these chinks and the Senate estimates said, “No, no, no, they’d be correct.” Sorry, the coal long service leave in senate estimates said their records are correct.

“Have you audited them?” “No”, but they’ve, since after my pressure was applied, they’ve since audited to them and found Simon was correct. Note this though Marcus, Coal long service leaves board has a mixture of directors from the CFMMEU and the minerals council or the mine owners.

And then we have other conflicts of interests. I certainly think they’re conflicts of interests, coal mines insurance, the workers compensation for the coal miners is 50, 50 owned by the New South Wales Minerals Council, the mine owners and the CFMMEU. AUSCoal super is 50, 50 CFMMEU and the State Minerals Councils, the mine owners.

AUSCoal controls the money for coal, long service leave and collects money on behalf of the government and its board is made up as I said, a minute ago, 50, 50 minerals council and the CFMMU. But here’s where it gets interesting for Icare. And I hope people in New South Wales are listening.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

‘Cause your Icare has been underfunded, because it’s paying out workers’ compensation to coal miners, because Simon’s employer Chandler McLeods policy said they only had 22 office workers doing administrative jobs, not coal miners.

They had hundreds of coal miners on a far greater wage than an admin worker and with much greater risk. Now, what that means is that Simon, because he’s not covered by that policy, has been funded by basically iCare.

So the moms and dads who own small businesses and even medium sized businesses in New South Wales, if you wonder why your premiums are going up, it’s because iCare money is going to these unfunded people because a multinational Chandler MacLeod is owned by Recruit Holdings, a huge Japanese recruitment agency that works around the world.

This Japanese firm, recruit holdings, some of its subsidiaries in Australia have been receiving $2.4 billion in the last four years from federal government contracts for labour hire people in our own federal government agencies, and they are not paying for the proper workers’ compensation. That’s why Simon missed out. Instead, they’re being paid by iCare. That’s why iCare is broke, one reason why iCare is broke.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, look this is very big, the attorney general is now proposing to review IR laws, to help the recovery from COVID. It’s a bit difficult to support it, given what is going on with the laws being bypassed and broken anyway, is that right? I mean, everything, the system is broken, it obviously needs to be fixed first.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Completely correct. You’re right onto it. Now, what we’re seeing is the attorney general wants to change the IR laws to help people recover from COVID. That means what he wants to do is condone what’s happening.

What I’ve just outlined. What we need to do is to get compliance, get these laws enforced. The system is broken. You don’t change the system and bring in more breakages, you fix the system first, ensure compliance, ensure the compliance with the law. And then let’s look at fixing it. Otherwise Marcus people like Simon are the ones who we will be paying for this abuse. It’ll never be fixed.

[Paul Marcus]

Yeah.

[Malcolm Roberts]

The attorney general has his way and working for these large companies it seems, it’ll never be fixed and the workers will shoulder the burden because the union has abandoned them in the Hunter Valley, the employers and the employer industry and associations have abandoned them.

And the state government and federal government departments have abandoned them. We’re the only ones chasing this.

[Paul Marcus]

All right, well, Simon obviously needs to be a priority. I mean, I’d love to see him get his lawful and certainly moral entitlements and compensation for the trauma and suffering over the last, what, six or so years.

And also, I mean, we need to continue, I guess to apply pressure, to bring maybe some justice on those who exploited Simon, or at least enabled it, whether it’s BHP, Chandler MacLeod, the Hunter, or New South Wales division of the CFMMEU. I mean, something needs to be done, Senator.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes, definitely Marcus. And it’s really significant that if people watch the video that I’ve put out in the last three minutes, what you’ll see is the connections because the CFMMEU in the Hunter Valley started the employment of casuals. The CFMMEU’s predecessor, the Miner’s Federation, initiated casuals for a good reason because of unemployment in the late ’80s.

But the CFMMEU, then became the employer and the union representing the employees. And so that’s a conflict of interest, but the CFMMEU now endorses enterprise agreements. We’ve seen cases of enterprise agreements being sold to labour hire companies. And so the union actually started use of casuals, continued the use of casuals, enabled the use of casuals. And this has exploited workers. And some of these people are members of the union.

[Paul Marcus]

Where’s labor on this Malcolm? I mean aren’t they supposed to be looking after the worker, where are they on this? I mean, when you’re highlighting this, which you obviously are doing in Senate estimates, and you’re talking to me and in the media and you’re on social media and one nation and trying to push some changes, to IR our laws, where are labor on this. Are you getting any support at all from Anthony Albanese and the like.

[Malcolm Roberts]

Well, I’ve written to Anthony Albanese, no response. I’ve written to the local federal member, no response. Simon Turner, the injured miner-

[Paul Marcus]

What about Joel Fitzgibbon?

[Malcolm Roberts]

Yes. And Simon Turner, the injured miner himself has written to Joel six times and has never been, never got a response.

[Paul Marcus]

Well I’ll talk to Joel because Joel and I get on very well but I’ll have to leave it there, ‘Cause I’ve got the deputy premier waiting on the line, but you and I will talk further on this

[Malcolm Roberts]

When you talk Joel, remind him the issue is not casuals. That is one part of it. The issue that I’m raising goes well beyond that, into the abuse of these casuals and what the union, the employer and the labour hire firms are doing and what the state and federal governments are abandoning workers on. That’s the issue.

/by

Throw the book at Black Lives Matter lawbreakers

,

It is vital that our premier takes a tough stand on any unnecessary and risky marches/protests in our State. We can not risk going down the path of Victoria.

Transcript

It’s so pleasing to see the New South Wales Police Commissioner in response to the Black Lives Matter protests, coming out tomorrow, saying to his policemen that they must fine as many people as they can for taking part in that protest.

That’s a welcome change from Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk, who said when the last Black Lives Matter protest occurred in Brisbane, that “Please don’t attend. “But if you do then maintain social distance.”

And as a result, 30,000 people followed her invitation to maintain social distance. Premier Dan Andrew pretty much did the same and just waved them on through and encouraged the protesters

And now look at Victoria and now look at New South Wales. So what we need to see is Premier Palaszczuk in this state, take the lead from New South Wales and be hard on criminals.

The Labor Government in Queensland has a history of being soft on criminals and very hard on everyday Australians.

/by

Miners are being left behind by those who are meant to protect them

,

Over the past 12 months I have been working through an issue and story that has, at times, brought me to tears. It is about a miner, Simon Turner, who was severely injured on site doing his job. The accident left Simon totally and permanently disabled; he can never return to work. But it is also about the tens of thousands of workers across the country who could end up in the same position.

REVEALED: Shocking abuse of workers in mining industry

Instead of receiving the support and workers’ compensation we would expect, and that coal miners are entitled to, he has been abandoned. Instead of receiving proper entitlements such as accident pay at a full wage, he lives below the poverty line in a garage. The way this has happened has been unlawful, unjust, immoral and unethical. What we’ve uncovered is that this tragedy can happen to anyone and we must fight to have this gap in our industrial relations laws fixed.

CHECKLIST: Are you a miner? Find out if you’re getting ripped off

This is Simon’s story. It is the story of how any Australian can be thrown on the scrap heap by all the people and organisations who should be there to protect us.

Simon’s injury

Simon worked for Chandler Macleod, a labour hire company who employed him at Mount Arthur, a BHP Billiton Coal Mine in the Hunter Valley. He was an active person and he recounts that he enjoyed his job. At the time of his injury Simon was working on his shift at the mine driving a coal truck.

A coal digger did not see Simon’s truck because of dusty conditions and struck his vehicle. The massive collision directly injured Simon, causing swollen L3, L4 and L5 discs in his back, a pinched sciatic nerve, pinched cranial nerve and a lateral tear in one of the discs. The lateral tear in his back leaks fluid into the spine and the resulting nerve damage goes all the way down his left leg leaving him permanently in pain. As a result, Simon’s leg collapses without notice and he deals with ongoing post-traumatic stress disorder and depression from that day.

Simon’s injuries have meant he is deemed totally and permanently disabled (TPD) and he cannot return to work.

After the accident he was taken to hospital by ambulance where x-rays were not done due to a broken machine, but a doctor indicated Simon should be off work for at least several weeks. During his return from the hospital a BHP representative asked Simon if he would meet with the coal superintendent. Simon agreed and met with him when he returned to mine site.

Pressure

In that meeting the BHP coal superintendent pressured Simon to not report his injury. He says that there have been too many Lost Time Injuries (LTIs). LTIs are reported incidents where an employee can’t come into work because of an injury.

The coal superintendent tells Simon to not report it, that BHP won’t be reporting it and threatens Simon that the way the industry is now, he won’t have a job if he does report it. Casuals like Simon have no job security.

Simon is later asked to come into his next regular rostered shift, ‘just to ensure he gets paid’. Simon goes to site and sits on a steel metal bench for four hours and does nothing. The following shift, Simon is pressured to sign a return to work program which he refuses. It isn’t clear who has made the return to work plan and it certainly hasn’t been done in consultation with Simon.

At this point Simon still has no doctor, no x-rays, no diagnosis and no idea what injuries he has suffered. In Simon’s words, ‘No one knew what was wrong with me and they wanted me to go back out into the pit and start working.’

All of these factors lead me to believe it was an unethical attempt to avoid reporting an LTI. By Simon returning to work for the four hours, even though he did nothing, the mine avoids reporting an LTI because they say he clocked in and therefore returned to work.

It is unlawful to not report a serious injury.

The flaws in the safety system

We now know that some superintendents and supervisors within the mining industry are paid a safety bonus, which is directly related to the number of LTIs that happen on their watch. The less LTIs, the higher the bonus.

The bonus system creates a perverse incentive for superintendents and supervisors to hide injuries and not report them. Simon has been a victim of this perverse incentive.

At the time of his injury Simon, like most of the employees on site, was classed as a casual/labour hire employee. Yet during the year of his injury and the surrounding years, there are no labour hire company employee LTIs reported.

Some labour hire employers are far more concerned about money than they are about people and especially people who stand up for their rights. Simon was terminated without even being told. He found out six months later indirectly through a government agency.

Some companies are known to understate the number of employees on work sites and to describe miners as ‘administration staff’ to get lower insurance premiums – if we did this what would happen to us?

Tragically, we also know that Simon is not the only affected worker. I’ve personally spoken to seven others from the Hunter region who have found themselves in similar situations and believe there are hundreds more in NSW, Queensland and WA. We aren’t talking about just broken fingers.

Their injuries were debilitating. Broken backs, legs broken in half and a myriad of severe and permanent injuries that left people trembling just from talking about them. There have also been suicides within the group. Simon recounts that, ‘I didn’t want to live … three times I’ve thought about killing myself.’

Recently, I presented a submission to the Queensland Board of Inquiry into the Queensland Grosvenor mine explosion that could have had fatal consequences. Here I pointed out to the Board that casuals are not even represented on safety committees, yet they make up such a large part of the industry today.

Mine owners like BHP Billiton and labour hire companies like Chandler Macleod don’t care about anything but money.

The loophole

Under the Black Coal Award, a worker in a coal mine is afforded accident pay and specialised treatment for injuries. However mines avoid their responsibilities by using labour hire companies for their workforce – they are cheaper and have less job security.

In some ways and in some cases, employees aren’t classed by the work they do or where they work, they are classed based on their employer. Importantly when it comes to accessing award entitlements, the employer must be in or about a coal mine. Employers like the mine owner BHP easily pass this test. However, a labour hire firm like Chandler Macleod, the one that employed Simon, is not considered in or about a coal mine and therefore the protections and entitlements don’t apply.

Some mine owners use and explicitly abuse this to avoid their responsibilities to workers like Simon Turner.

Simon worked side-by-side with BHP employees, doing the same job, on the same long-term rosters, on the same site and he came home every day with clothes covered in black coal dust. We believe the current method of classification for miners has led to hundreds of cases of exploitation – pain, poverty and injustice – and this must be addressed.

Simon has not received his accident pay or the specialised treatment he needs to live as good a life as he can with his injuries. He receives a pathetic disability payment which is below the poverty line.

Simon contacted everyone he could – the mine owner, his employer, the workers’ compensation authority, Coal LSL, the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman, his local federal elected representative Labor’s Joel Fitzgerald MP, local state Labor MP, NSW Ministers, NSW government agencies and many more – all of whom ignored his calls for help.

The people and the organisations that should have cared for him did not, and you could be next.

If it had not been for people who cared like Stuart Bonds of One Nation in NSW, nobody would be standing up for Simon Turner today.

Please watch our full video with Simon to learn a bit more about his case and you will see why One Nation stood up for Simon and why we stand up for everyday Australians like you.

CHECKLIST: Are you a miner? Find out if you’re getting ripped off

/by