Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Double Jeopardy in Tax Unfair

I spoke on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. This Bill does nothing to make that happen.

Trickery with franking credits (again), the start of mandating Blackrock and Vanguard style ESG into Australia’s financial system and a potential Robodebt 2.0 are all in this Bill.

Despite Labor’s promises, they continue to fiddle with the taxation system and it is rarely for the better.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.  

In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.  

Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy. A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation. 

They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk. 

I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none. 

Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story. 

As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solar net zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices. 

Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.  

So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas. 

Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before. 

A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future. 

To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’. 

/1 Comment/by

The Senate is Supposed to be the House of Review

I’m putting it on the record that this government’s legislative processes are compromised. There are numerous examples of shoddy and rushed Bills being bulldozed through into legislation.

I ask here for a simple review, a chance to hasten slowly and ensure that one such piece of rushed, yet vital legislation, has the opportunity to be done correctly.

Minister Watt could not even grasp the concept of ‘independent’ review. Labor is the party of control.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, constituents lack confidence in Labor when it comes to security, especially after the last few weeks. So I’m wondering whether or not you will be supporting my amendment to do a simple review of the legislation, especially the amendments. If not, what is the problem?

I remind the Senate that last week’s highly significant Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 saw 31 amendments from the government to its own legislation in the House of Reps plus 20 amendments in the Senate. There was a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill, and those from the crossbenches and the Liberals brought them to 69. Minister Burke has been falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter mining and energy union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft worth billions of dollars. We’re told that the Greens oppose the Nature Repair Market Bill 2023. They said so themselves just last week. Yet the Greens now support it because Labor has apparently agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous Nature Repair Bill apparently in return for Labor’s support for disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law not before the Senate.

The CHAIR: Senator McKim, a point of order?

Senator McKim: It’s a point of order on relevance, Chair. The bill that Senator Roberts is referring to is actually not the bill that is currently before the Senate.

The CHAIR: We do allow some latitude, although I do take the point. I think Senator Roberts is trying to underpin his arguments for a review. Senator Roberts, please keep it to the point.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m pleased you could see that, Chair. That’s exactly what I was doing. The government has a very shoddy reputation and is lacking credibility for its legislation that’s been rushed and bullied and bulldozed into this place from the start of its term. So, Minister, I ask whether or not you’ll be supporting our amendment for a simple review of the legislation.

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thanks Senator Roberts. No, we won’t be supporting the amendment putting forward a review. As I made it clear earlier in this debate, we are modelling this regime on the existing high-risk terrorist offenders regime. So we have some confidence in its ability to work, given it’s been based on a regime that already exists. In addition—I don’t know if you were here, Senator Roberts, when I mentioned this before—one of the amendments that we’ve tabled, clause 395.49, requires the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to deliver an annual report about the operation of this regime. That is intended to give a level of transparency going forward to how this regime is operating, and we think it is an adequate measure to ensure that there is transparency in the system.

Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that the legislation will have a ministerial report, but we are suggesting an independent review, not a government report.

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I can’t really elaborate on my previous answer.

/1 Comment/by

Government Fails to Produce Papers – Taipan Helicopter Ditching

The Albanese government is rushing through legislation that will effectively give them similar power and control to World War era demands for ‘your papers please’. I’m not saying this is the intention of the Albanese government, but it is the framework that is being put in place in line with the initiative from the World Economic Forum, an international body founded by Klaus Schwab.

It’s ironic then, that the government is failing to produce its own papers. The Senate orders the government to produce papers and the government refuses. Like this situation here in the Senate, where there was an order to produce documents over 6 months ago relating to a non-fatal Taipan helicopter ditching in Jervis Bay. The government failed to produce any details even after Defence promised they would. Why? The hierarchy in Defence is covering up their mistakes.

The Taipan helicopters should have been pulled from service a decade ago. There were technical shortcomings in their capability that could not be defended. There were dangerous, catastrophic safety issues that Defence knew about. Instead of dealing with those issues or grounding the helicopter, as they should have, Defence and the politicians kept it in service and flying. Now four personnel who piloted and flew in that helicopter have died in a crash. We hope their families, despite their enormous loss, will find peace.

With so much at stake, the Australian people deserve to know the details. The senate is the house of review and when the senate orders the government to produce documents, then that is what must happen. Without transparency and accountability, we are not much better than the regime mentioned above.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Pursuant to standing order 164 and, by coincidence, genuinely by coincidence, with the previous motion, I seek an explanation from the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, Senator Wong, regarding the failure to respond to order for production of documents No. 243, agreed on 22 June 2023, in relation to the MRH-90 Taipan helicopter incident at Jervis Bay.

Senator Gallagher: I am happy to follow that up. We didn’t have notice of the OPD that Senator Roberts was going to refer to, so the minister isn’t here and able to provide a direct response. Normally, a heads-up is provided so that we can prepare an answer. I acknowledge you came over in question time and said that you would be doing this, but you didn’t inform us of what minister or OPD you were after. So I would have to come back to the chamber at a later time with an explanation. Could Senator Roberts indicate the number of the OPD he referred to?

Senator ROBERTS: Certainly; it’s No. 200. I move: That the Senate take note of the explanation. So much for the Albanese Labor government’s promises to be transparent and accountable! Yet again, they’ve failed a transparency deadline, failing to produce the documents the Senate ordered them to produce six months ago. In March this year, a Taipan helicopter was forced to ditch into the sea in Jervis Bay. No people died. Two were injured. Thankfully, those injuries were minor due to the pilots’ skills—skills they shouldn’t have had to rely on yet had to, because Defence made them fly a dodgy helicopter. Separately, in July, a Taipan helicopter crashed in the Whitsundays, killing four Defence personnel. This order for the production of documents related to the non-fatal Jervis Bay incident in March. The government has failed to produce any details after the Defence brass promised they would produce such reports.

What you didn’t hear in the minister’s explanation is the true story of why these documents haven’t been produced. The hierarchy in Defence are covering up their mistakes. The Taipan helicopters should have been pulled from service a decade ago. There were technical shortcomings in their capability that could not be defended. There were dangerous, catastrophic safety issues that Defence knew about. Instead of dealing with those issues or grounding the helicopter, as they should have, Defence and the politicians kept it in service and flying. Now four personnel who piloted and flew in that helicopter have died in a crash. We remember now Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—or, as he was known, Phil—troop commander Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent and Corporal Alexander Naggs. We hope their families, despite their enormous loss, will find peace.

Next—and I do not say this lightly—the Defence hierarchy and politicians who allowed the Taipan helicopter to continue flying have blood on their hands. No-one in Defence can claim not to know about this helicopter’s problems. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter was identified on a list of ‘projects of concern’ in 2011, 12 years ago. The Taipan remained on that list until it was grounded for good after the Whitsundays crash, 13 years before its planned retirement. During its lifetime, the Taipan was grounded no fewer than nine times due to ongoing problems, yet Defence kept flying it—or, rather, Defence kept soldiers flying it. Australian taxpayers spent at least $3.7 billion on the project. The Taipan cost $50,000 an hour to fly. I can hear Senator Shoebridge laughing, and I understand why. Compare that to the Black Hawk, which costs an estimated $15,000 an hour, 30 per cent of the cost. The Australian National Audit Office identified some of the MRH-90 Taipan’s many serious problems. These included engine failure—without an engine, helicopters fly like a brick; transmission, oil cooler and fan failures; poor availability of spares; on the Navy aircraft, problems with the cargo hook; and, on the Army helicopters, problems with door gun mounts and the fast roping and rappelling device.

Those are some of the problems. Yet Defence kept flying the helicopter. The Navy couldn’t hook cargo into its Taipans. The Army couldn’t fire guns at the same time that soldiers were in the helicopter. Our Australian Army consider the cabin and row equipment are not fit for purpose, as the seat size and harness cannot accommodate personnel wearing combat gear. Yet Defence kept flying it. They knew the engine could fail and the helicopter could drop out of the sky, yet they kept on flying it.

Defence analyst Marcus Hellyer wrote in 2021: Back when I worked in the Department of Defence, we used to occupy ourselves from time to time calculating how much money the taxpayer would save in the long run if we just walked away from the MRH-90 utility helicopter and bought Black Hawk helicopters instead. The answer was a lot. And the sooner you did it, the more you’d save, by avoiding sinking more acquisition dollars into the MRH-90 and realising the substantially lower operating costs of the Black Hawk. But even though those numbers were shared with Defence’s senior decision-makers, the department couldn’t bring itself to take that step.

Defence had all the information. They knew the Taipan was a waste of billions of dollars. They knew it could not do the job it was meant to do and supposed to do. They knew it had catastrophic safety risks. They knew all of this for more than a decade, yet Defence kept on flying it. That’s why this government will not answer this order for the production of documents after almost six months. The cost and particularly the fatalities—avoidable fatalities—are huge.

I also want to talk about another huge impact: the impact on the Defence Force’s morale. What happens when you ask someone to keep operating faulty, life-threatening equipment? What happens to trust? You know the
answer. Look at the hypocrisy of the Chief of the Defence Force awarding himself a medal reserved for those in action, when he was sitting a thousand kilometres from the action. How does that build trust? It destroys trust.

Some years ago, when I was working in the mining industry, I met two people who had come from the defence forces, officers from the Army specifically. One was so highly skilled that he had been asked on occasion to take six of his mates and go into the jungles of Vietnam, well beyond enemy lines, take on a job and come back. He rose to be in charge of jungle warfare training. Barry—along with John, who had been a captain in the army—told me the key to Army culture and Defence Force culture. That key is mateship. Barry had to lecture other countries’ defence forces and security forces on counterterrorism work. He said in most countries they did not understand what mateship was. It’s intangible, yet the impacts are so tangible.

He also talked about standards. Everyone who joins the Army, for example, comes into the Army and is then made equal with everyone else so that they get the feeling of looking after their mates. Then they’re trained to a very high standard, and they can rely on each other and those standards. I’ll tell you a little story. Barry and John both said that when you’re behind a log in incoming machine gun fire, the only thing worse than jumping over that log and going into that machine gun fire is running away and leaving your mate behind. That’s how strong it is in the Army. There will be lots of people from the Army who will be watching this parliament and will know exactly what I’m talking about.

The third part of mateship is trust. How can we have trust when the defence forces are going woke? I hear from so many soldiers and airmen and sailors that they’re sick and tired of the defence forces going woke and it will jeopardise their lives in battle.

That is not looking after our soldiers.

Then we talk about national security. All of that impacts on national security. I’ll say it again: the key strategic weapon we have in this country in our armed forces is at the mateship, the training, the standards and what used to be trust. The warriors are fine. The problem is the Chief of the Defence Force, the top brass and, as we’ve heard recently, the minister who is supposed to hold them accountable.

We’ve had some preliminary briefings, and I want to commend a young public servant who said that the problems with the Taipans are not just in the military but also in the politics and the politicians. These politicians and the top brass are responsible for deaths. They have blood on their hands. Even the slightest amount of scrutiny on this project will reveal the pervasive corruption in the Defence hierarchy, reveal politicians’ mistakes and show that these people in Defence and in politics have blood on their hands. One Nation will continue pushing to hold those in the Defence hierarchy to account and protect our warriors serving in the Defence Force.

/1 Comment/by

The Labor-Green-Teal Coalition Con

The Albanese government is doing dodgy deals behind the scenes with mates and donors, letting down workers while driving up the cost of living. Labor is horse-trading behind our backs with the Greens and Teals to get the numbers to fast track its Bills through the Senate without conventional review.

It’s obvious the Albanese government in the Senate is a Labor-Greens-Teal coalition that is repeatedly protecting itself from scrutiny, gags debate on key legislation and is doing dodgy deals to push the Greens’ destructive policies through parliament.

This is hurting Australians and taking our country backwards.

No wonder this government is being slammed in the polls. The people didn’t vote for this coalition with its nation-killing agenda. The tail is wagging the dog.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I listen to people from across our country. Many are hurting because of the skyrocketing cost of living due to record
immigration, with 2.3 million people in Australia on visas—there are 100,000 student beds, yet the Albanese government issued a record 687,000 student visas in one year—as well as skyrocketing house prices, with foreign owners buying and locking up homes; green jackboots suppressing builders and suppliers; and ESG choking companies. People in Gladstone, Bundaberg and other regional towns and cities are living in cars, in caravans, in tents and under bridges. There are skyrocketing rental rates, if people can find a rental. High inflation is destroying wealth and being a tax—inflation due to printing money and splashing cash and to supply side restrictions.

There are high energy prices, due to solar and wind. All countries with high proportions of solar and wind have very high electricity prices. Plus there’ll be the future $60 billion in additional costs for transmission lines to hook the solar and wind into the grid that has not been budgeted for.

One Nation raises solutions to meet people’s basic needs, like cutting immigration to zero, net; ending foreign ownership of property; ending net zero electricity policies; stopping endless money-printing and cash-splashes. Labor responds with ridicule, showing contempt for people’s needs. This destroys confidence in the government.

We’re on a highway to hell because Anthony Albanese has not grown into the prime ministership. He still acts as though selfies, music-band T-shirts and empty symbols are substitutes for thoughtful governance and hard work. They’re not.

In proposing his recent Voice referendum, his arguments were shallow and condescending. He offered only a vibe and an emotion. His government tried to con the people. This is not leadership; it’s floundering. This is not governance—

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Chandler): Order, Senator Roberts. Senator Urquhart, on a point of order?

Senator Urquhart: I think the senator is actually impugning by saying what he said about the Prime Minister, and I would ask him to withdraw that.

The Acting Deputy President: Senator Roberts, perhaps if you could clarify your comments and then continue your remarks, noting the point of order that we’ve heard?

Certainly. I said that his government has tried to con the people, not him.

The Acting Deputy President: Please continue, Senator Roberts.

This is not leadership; it’s floundering. This is not governance; it’s deceitful irresponsibility. This is not transparency and consultation; it’s dodging scrutiny. This destroys confidence in the
government. Look at their legislation processes that are bankrupt. Last week’s water amendment bill entered the House of Representatives with 31 amendments, from the government; plus 20 amendments in the Senate, from the government—a total of 51 government amendments to its own bill—plus crossbenchers’ and Liberals’ amendments, for a total of 69 amendments. Consultation? Hah!

The Identity Verification Services Bill 2023 was suddenly sprung on the Senate in a deal between the globalists in Labor and the globalists in the Liberals. It includes provisions for facial recognition of every Australian 16 years or older going about their everyday life, including in travel, using ATMs, in supermarkets for shopping, driving their car, in financial services—everything. It’s a basis for Labor’s digital identity bill that they rushed into the Senate—again, hiding from scrutiny. They were trying to rush the IR bill next, then delaying passage of what Labor said were four urgent schedules.

There was Minister Burke falsely creating the dishonest label ‘closing loopholes’ to hide the Hunter Mining and Energy Union’s complicity in aiding some labour hire firms in Australia’s largest-ever wage theft, worth billions of dollars; protecting the Fair Work Commission for blatant breaches of law in approving the Mining and Energy Union enterprise agreements enabling systemic wage theft; protecting the Fair Work Ombudsman for using a fraudulent document covering up the Mining and Energy Union’s enterprise agreement systemic wage theft. They’re throwing workers to the wolves and hiding mates and donors from scrutiny.
There’s the nature repair bill—the arrogance! The Greens stated they were opposed, clearly. Yet the Greens now support the bill because Labor agreed to allow the Greens to move amendments to the EPBC Act. The Greens support Labor’s disastrous bill in return for Labor’s support for the disastrous Greens amendments to an existing law that is not before the Senate—without debate. They’re hiding political mates and bosses from scrutiny.

During deceitful COVID mismanagement, Liberal and Labor governments used Labor state premiers to steal basic human rights and freedoms. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data confirms that COVID injections killed tens of thousands of people—homicide! Livelihoods and homes were lost due to injection mandates. Health bureaucrats, with plenty to hide, dig in. And what does Labor do? It covers up, and that makes them complicit. Prime Minister Albanese breaks his royal commission promise to instead propose a whitewash to cover up the Labor states’ mismanagement and deceit—hiding political mates from scrutiny.
In practice, the Albanese Labor government seeks to suppress, silence and control. That’s why people have lost confidence in Prime Minister Albanese and his government. Remember the Rudd slide and the Gillard slide? After just 18 months, the media is already referring to the even steeper Albanese slide. That’s why the people have lost confidence in this government

/3 Comments/by

How to Fix the Housing Crisis

The housing unaffordability crisis is one of the greatest issues facing Australia. Australians want to have their hard work and savings rewarded. They want a place to call their own and a place where they can stay to raise a family.

Mortgages are skyrocketing and two thirds of young Australians believe they will never own their own home. Rents are also rising on the back of a record low national vacancy rate of 1%. Experts consider a 3% vacancy rate to be tight — a national average of 1% is an absolute crisis.

Right now, many Australians simply cannot afford a roof over their head.

Supply and demand controls the housing market. Yet decades of successive governments have mismanaged both sides of the equation.

One Nation would properly manage our economy and deliver cheaper houses and cheaper rent. How? First, by stemming the flow of overseas arrivals which is driving up unsustainable demand. Over the last year, Australia gained an additional 2.3 million visa holders. We cannot sustain this level of overseas arrivals. Powerful lobby groups reliant on high immigration have been able to label anyone talking about this problem as racist.

Secondly, many Australians can’t afford housing in Australia banning foreign ownership is the only answer. It would increase housing supply and stop pumping up the profits for the Big Banks. As the Reserve Bank raises interest rates, the big banks pass that on at up to 7%, yet the banks borrowed long term funds from the RBA at just 0.1%. They’re pocketing the huge difference leading to record-breaking profits.

On the supply side, government and its red and green tape must get out of the way and let our tradies build homes. Homes for Australians to stem the tide of tent cities and misery that decades of indifferent governments have caused.

Affordable houses, lower affordable rents and a flourishing economy is all possible under One Nation.

Transcript

I thank Senator Pocock for his matter of urgency and for validating the concept of net immigration that we’ve been pushing for quite some time. Mortgages are skyrocketing, rents keep increasing and two-thirds of young Australians believe they will never own a home, and it’s easy to understand why.

The housing unaffordability crisis is one of the greatest issues facing Australia. In Brisbane, the median house price is 10 times the median income. Experts consider a three per cent rental vacancy rate to be tight. Rents are rising on the back of a record low national rate of one per cent. As in all real markets, there are two things, and two things only, that affect house prices: supply and demand. Successive governments have destroyed both sides of the equation.

This is how One Nation would deliver cheaper houses and cheaper rent. In the short term, we would stop pouring fuel on the fire. Excluding tourists and short-stay visitors, there are 2.3 million visaholders in the country likely to need housing. In addition, there are roughly 400,000 tourists and other visaholders in the country. In the middle of our rental shortage, this high demand is motivating owners to convert housing to full-time Airbnbs. Two point seven million visaholders, more than 10 per cent of Australia’s population, are in the country right now fighting Australians for a roof over their head. The country cannot sustain this level of overseas arrivals. That number must be cut to help housing availability and affordability.

The biggest winners from high house prices are the banks. As the Reserve Bank raises interest rates, the big banks pass that on at up to seven per cent. Yet the banks borrowed long-term funds from the RBA, the Reserve Bank of Australia, at just 0.1 per cent. They’re pocketing the huge differences, leading to record-breaking profits. One Nation would never repeat the mistakes of the COVID period, where the Reserve Bank was allowed to create $500 billion out of thin air.

That led to the inflation that the Reserve Bank is now trying to fight, and the tool it uses is to send mortgage holders broke.

Finally, on the demand side, we need to ban foreign ownership of Australian assets. A single real estate agent in Sydney sold $135 million dollars in property to Chinese buyers in just six months. Australians can’t own a house in China, so why should we let foreign citizens buy property here? And on the supply side, the government needs to get out of the way with its restrictive building codes, so called green land restrictions and a spider web of employment law.

A home is a castle. Decades of indifferent governments from both sides of politics have ruined the Australian housing dream for many Australians. Only One Nation has the guts to make that dream a reality for all Australians.

Affordable houses and rents and a flourishing economy are all possible under One Nation. We just need to start looking after Australians first

/11 Comments/by

Australia’s Infrastructure Death by Labor’s Secretive Cuts

The Albanese government is deliberately opposing my motion to reveal the infrastructure review it’s using to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars worth of badly needed infrastructure projects around Australia. Projects like dams for towns and agriculture, transport projects and visionary nation-building projects. It’s cutting costs in areas where we need to spend, while sending huge sums to the United Nations and Tedros the Terrorist at the WHO.

Australia needs a productive infrastructure so that we can build our competitive and productive advantage and stop relying on other nations who buy our raw materials such as iron ore, for example, for steel and other building materials. Why are we exporting raw materials and buying back finished products instead of making the whole product here? Australia has everything it needs to be self-reliant, except for a government with the common sense to facilitate it.

How many more times will this Labor government be exposed for the secrets its hiding from the Australian taxpayers?

Australians deserve the transparency and accountability they were promised, and the infrastructure this country badly needs.

Transcript

The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers? 

This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn’t deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn’t have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry. One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don’t have potholes big enough to destroy a car’s suspension. 

Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them. 

We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn’t even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won’t get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn’t be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that’s afraid of explaining itself to the voters.  

/by

Dirty by Nature

The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive name for a dirty bill that the Albanese government is rushing through the senate more than four months earlier than the committee requested.

What it’s really about is the federal government using the public purse to financially coerce farmers to lock up their land or walk off it altogether to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats.

What’s the hurry to get this through? Does this government feel the winds of change blowing in its direction?

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I seek leave to make a short statement. 

The PRESIDENT: You have one minute with leave. 

Senator Roberts: The government’s motion to rush this inquiry report through today, more than four months earlier than the committee requested and the Senate agreed, is a dodgy, dirty deal. The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a deceptive, arrogant title. It’s really about the federal government financially coercing farmers to lock up their land or walk off it to satisfy the dictates of foreign, unelected climate change bureaucrats, like COP28. No wonder the government wants to cut short the inquiry into this bill and rush the bill through this week. All of the climate rent seekers are happy to support this bill because, eventually, it will lead to money in their pockets from the people of Australia. While farmers are paid to lock up their land, a lack of agricultural production will cause untold human misery both in Australia and overseas. One Nation will be opposing this rushed dirty deal. Give the committee the time it originally requested to make its report. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question before the Senate is that the motion moved by Senator Chisholm seeking a variation to a reporting date of a committee be agreed to. 

The Senate divided.

/2 Comments/by

Labor Hides Corrupt Cronies from Scrutiny

We need more accountability, not less. This Bill will promote power for union bosses over workers and is full of unintended consequences.

It’s a Bill all wrapped up in pretty paper with good measures that are widely supported and with poison pills buried inside. The Trojan Horse approach is becoming a bad habit with Labor.

Industrial Relations Minister, Tony Burke, introduced key topics that One Nation completely supports and we already have voted for them separately in November. Yet the government left those bills gathering dust over political issues instead of thinking of the workers. Instead of looking out for workers, the government is more interested in protecting mates and donors while getting away with dodgy legislation.

The core of Minister Burke’s legislation is designed to cover up the permanent-casual rort in the coal sector. Every so-called “casual” coal miner is employed under an unlawful Enterprise Agreement (EA) that the Mining & Energy Union/CFMEU agreed with and signed. So-called “casual” miners are employed under EAs that the Fair Work Commission (FWC) approved against their own protocols and against the law.

These “casual” miners are subject to breaches of law that the FWC and Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) have ignored, and when held accountable it’s been proven that the FWC/FWO resorted to using fraudulent documentation to get away with their shocking failure of duty.

We will continue our work to get “casual” miners ten of thousands of dollars in stolen back-pay.

We will continue to push for restoring all workers’ rights, protections and entitlements.

Transcript

I will be taking up Senator Sheldon’s invitation to put my cards on the table, and we will be putting our cards on the table. I will be doing exactly that.

The Australian Labor Party is Australia’s oldest continuous political party, so you’d think that it would have got the hang of government by now—but no. This week has been a shocker. Perhaps 122 years is enough. It’s time to find a nice twilight home, put your feet up and listen to Alan Jones, enjoy a juicy steak, read the Spectator and contemplate this government’s many, many failures—so many failures that the Labor heartland are turning against Labor. The polls are an indictment of the performance of this one-term Labor government. Now the ALP thinks that doing dodgy deals to get parts of its signature industrial relations policy through will quieten the heartland—a heartland that can’t pay their mortgage or rent, who can’t buy groceries, whose kids are taught a hidden agenda at school and who will now be stalked at every turn, using Labor government sanctioned cameras. This bill doesn’t fix those things. This bill doesn’t fix those basics.

More importantly, from the perspective of the union bosses, this bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, is about forcing people to join the union. That won’t fix their declining support. The very thing that turns people off unionism these days—the thuggery and cronyism and backroom deals that only favour the union bosses—will enable more of it. We need more accountability, not less. Union bosses, and some large companies, have become accountable to no-one because they are arrogantly enshrined in a cosy monopoly of being the only union for their sector. Nothing here will claw back the reduction in real wages per capita that Australia’s workers have suffered since Labor took over—a six per cent reduction in real wages in just 18 months, a reduction that just keeps getting worse with every new piece of economic data, as we saw again yesterday.

This bill will be full of unintended consequences, as any legislation that is written out of dodgy ideology always causes. Let me review the detail of this bill. There are four measures that the Senate has already passed. Easier access to PTSD support and compensation for first responders: we voted for that. Domestic violence protections: we voted for that. Asbestos and silica safety: we voted for that. Protecting redundancy entitlements: we voted for that. These four were passed by the Senate, with One Nation’s support, and they’ve been sitting on the books down in the House of Representatives, left by the government to gather dust because it would be too embarrassing not to pass measures the Senate passed in defiance of the government. So much for workers—the government doesn’t give a damn. Instead of looking out for workers, the government is more interested in looking good.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Grogan): Senator Roberts, I’ll ask you to mind your language.

Now the government has brought on this bill, which contains those four uncontroversial measures and wraps into it four more issues for eight in total. The four additional issues in this package of Tony Burke, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, include the criminalisation of wage theft and industrial manslaughter. We support both of those; we agree with them. But his legislation introduced with no notice this morning includes two poison pills wrapped up in the uncontroversial. Those two poison pills are unfettered right of entry for union bosses and the deceptively named same job, same pay framework. It is deceptively named, as I’ll explain.

Again we are seeing Labor wrap up a bundle of things everyone supports with the most-controversial proposals in industrial relations law. The right to entry allows union bosses to enter any business at any time under the pretext of safety issues. There are no criteria for what satisfies ‘reasonable entry’, because the assumption is that union delegates should never be prevented from entry. Union bosses will abuse this. Union bosses in some lawless large unions already are concocting safety reasons for claiming entry to businesses and then, inevitably, hanging around to apply pressure on employees to join up. If a business believes the right to entry has been abused, it has next to no recourse. The Australian Building and Construction Commission used to enforce workplace entry and union conduct in workplaces—no more. Employers can’t complain to the Australian Building and Construction Commission because the Labor Party disbanded it for being a check on the unreasonable behaviour of union bosses.

I turn now to the real poison pill: same job, same pay. It sounds good. One Nation totally supports a fair day’s pay for a fair days work. Let everyone in this chamber remember that I introduced into the Senate the first bill for same job, same pay. Let me tell why and then explain why we knew it would cover up the real problem, which is wage theft that the Mining and Energy Union formerly under the name Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union enables—not just sanctions, but enables and drives. I’ll tell you why I support same job, same pay. A courageous miner in the Hunter Valley, Simon Turner, and some of his mates came to see me about what was going on. I thought it was a major coal company and a major international labour hire firm were colluding to screw workers. Then I found that the CFMMEU in the Hunter enables these agreements, that it drives these enterprise agreements. Not only do they not pay the award, not only do they not pay the enterprise agreement of the host company—the employer, the mine owner—they underpay the award, sanctioned by the CFMMEU in the Hunter. It is sanctioned by them, driven by them, resulting in the theft of over a billion dollars from miners. Tony Burke, the minister, knows because we have provided the details from miners on dodgy enterprise agreements that dodge the Fair Work Act. It is something we have been working on relentlessly with the miners in Central Queensland and the Hunter for 4½ years since it was first brought to my attention. Miners provided them directly to senior ministerial staff, to senior staff of his Department of Employment and Workplace Relations in personal meetings the miners had that we arranged.

The provided the details in writing with documented evidence. There were details that I put in writing to the minister himself twice. The loophole is a fabrication that Labor senators echo like propaganda through this chamber. In the mining industry, that is false. There is no loophole. The core problem is that the Fair Work Act has been breached repeatedly, systemically, systematically and cold bloodedly. The underpayment of miners in the permanent casual rort is possible only with enterprise agreements signed by the Mining and Energy Union, formerly the CFMMEU.

In some cases, that union sold enterprise agreements to labour hire firms. In fact, speaking of labour hire firms, the Hunter CFMMEU started the first labour hire firm in our coal industry and pretends to oppose labour hire. It enables labour hire and rewards labour hire companies with dodgy deals, enterprise agreements and paying below the award.

As a former coalface miner and later a mine manager, I am absolutely appalled at what I see going on at the moment in the coal industry and in a union that used to be very proud and strong. Elements of it are now gutless and crooked. The Hunter CFMMEU approved and signed a statutory declaration as part of the Fair Work Act process for approving enterprise agreements. All of the deals were done with the signature of the CFMMEU. The Fair Work Commission oversees the process of developing an enterprise agreement. Repeatedly, it has breached the statutory process. It has broken its own law repeatedly. When we’ve drawn the Fair Work Commission senior management to that fact, they have done nothing. They don’t give a damn about workers, whom they’re supposed to be protecting.

It’s duplicitous. When miners draw the Fair Work Commission’s senior management to that fact, the Fair Work Commission does nothing. We have told Minister Burke, and he does nothing.

Miners have made formal complaints to the Fair Work Ombudsman, who were stumped until they were given a bevy of documents including court rulings, an Australian Taxation Office declaration, PAYE slips and PAYE group certificates. Those are legitimate documents. To those legitimate documents, they responded with a fraudulent document that a labour hire firm fabricated. The Australian Taxation Office has said that it is a fraudulent document.

And then the Fair Work Ombudsman’s senior managers used that fraudulent document in the Fair Work Ombudsman’s office knowing it was fraudulent. We will not fall for Minister Burke’s cover-up of his mates in the
CFMMEU. We will continue to fight for back pay for thousands of coalminers. We will not allow this cover-up.

We will not look the other way, as Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock have. We will double down and hold Minister Burke accountable.

How was it done? Let me give you a hint. The Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union, formerly the CFMEU, own 50 per cent of coalmines’ insurance and workers compensation for coalminers—Coal Long-Service Leave and AUSCOAL Super. They have co-directors, who approve various contracts. For example, the Coal LSL administration was contracted out to AUSCOAL. A director was on both of those boards when the contract was signed. This is really sloppy stuff. I’m surprised with Senator Lambie, as I said. After I arranged a meeting with her and a particular miner in the Hunter Valley, she spoke with the miner and confirmed it with me.

Senator Pocock was offered the same opportunity. As miners caught in the permanent-casual rort know, the solution is simple: enforce the Fair Work Act and get the more than $1 billion in back pay that miners are entitled to. Simon Turner and other miners in the Hunter initially thought that, yes, the same work, same pay bill that I introduced to this parliament was needed. Now they know, having dug deeper and seen the corruption that’s gone on, all that’s needed is to enforce the Fair Work Act. This bill pretends to be closing loopholes. In reality, though, every time you add a page of legislation, you just create an extra loophole for lawyers to find. The answer is less legislation, not more. The current legislation is too complex and hides protections from miners and small business and makes it easy for the industrial relations club or large union bosses, large employers and industrial groups to clobber workers.

Minister Burke, stop burying the evidence. Face up to the fact that your mates in the CFMMEU are directly responsible for wage theft of more than a billion dollars, as you’ve been informed. The solution is not covering up the rort or fabricating an imaginary loophole. The solution is simply to enforce the Fair Work Act. That is your job as minister.

We will not fall for this bill’s deceit. We will continue to fight for workers to be paid their full entitlements and make up for wage theft and for workers to obtain their full lawful entitlements.

When I started working with miners in the Hunter 4½ years ago I put forward—and they agreed with this—three aims. The first was to get Simon Turner his lawful and moral entitlements in full. We are still chasing that. We have gone part of the way. The second was to stop this permanent casual rort across the coalmining sector. We’ve heard from one large employer group. They’re coming to the party. The third was to bring justice to the Hunter CFMMEU, which is now the Mining and Energy Union, and the Chandler Macleod group, the perpetrators at the Mount Arthur mine. We will continue to fight for industrial relations reform. We will continue until all my three aims are achieved for the miners in the Hunter and Central Queensland.

One Nation will always fight for workers being able to understand their rights and fighting for those rights. The first step towards doing that is making them simple enough to understand. This bill does nothing to help that, and we will be opposing it. The big gorillas in the room—to use Senator Sheldon’s term—are the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter; the CFMMEU; the Chandler Macleod group; Recruit Holdings, the largest labour hire firm in the world; the Fair Work Commission; and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Hiding mates and crooks from scrutiny will not get the Labor Party out of this. This bill will be the Labor Party government’s death knell.

/6 Comments/by

Making Sense of the Murray-Darling Basin Water Amendment Bill

,

During its passage through parliament, the government’s Water Amendment Bill 2023 was subjected to almost 70 amendments. Deals were being made on the run. Nobody has a clear idea of how this massively amended Bill will affect farming, communities or the environment.

The Murray Darling Basin Plan can’t be changed without the consent of every State Premier. This government failed to follow that step, not only for the bill but also for these amendments that were introduced at the last minute. The Bill is a mess, the process is a mess, and it will leave a mess behind it.

The motion I put forward here is to refer the Bill to the relevant committee to try and make sense of the changes and see what else needs to be done to make the changes workable. The issue of the Commonwealth buying back water from a State that opposes water buybacks also needs to be sorted.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, One Nation continues to support a fair outcome for all those in the Murray-Darling Basin in Queensland and across the connected river system. The government last week advanced a bill that evolved drastically as it passed through Senate debate—some would say catastrophically through Senate debate. First, the Greens demanded changes for their support. Then Senator Van, Senator Thorpe and Senator Pocock added some tinsel for their respective ideologies. Much like a Christmas tree that the whole family decorated, it looks a bit crook. In fact, I would suggest that nobody knows how the bill is going to actually work. 

The council of water ministers dealt with the bill in August this year and failed to issue a communique, which is a record of proceedings that would ordinarily detail any specific approval or rejection of suggested changes to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan 2012. A communique is available on their website for every meeting, going back years, except for August. When I requested it, Assistant Minister McAllister failed to provide it, after first saying it was available. Instead, the federal water minister, Tania Plibersek, put out a political statement that an agreement was made between the federal, New South Wales, South Australian, Queensland and Australian Capital Territory governments to deliver the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in full. Firstly, the ACT is not a state. It is not a voting signatory to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, so the so-called agreement reached was only between three of the required four states. Secondly, what was the agreement? I hear you saying an agreement was reached, yet no proof of that has been posted, beyond the minister’s statement. 

Did New South Wales sign on to allow as much as 700 megalitres of buybacks from New South Wales farmers, or not? New South Wales Premier Minns said in a recent press release that he did not sign off on water buybacks and instead only signed off on $700 million in federal money for water projects. Victoria has not agreed to this legislation and is not a party to the buybacks. They’ve made that abundantly clear.  

South Australia has not been honest with their farmers. I have not heard a word about the buybacks being planned from South Australian irrigators. I hear you say, ‘Hang on just a minute; the water is for South Australia.’ That’s true. The government is about to buy back water for South Australian river flow from South Australia. Their irrigators can wave to their water as it flows out to sea. I call upon the South Australian Premier, Peter Malinauskas, to answer a simple question: how much water did you agree could be purchased from South Australian farmers in that August meeting? How much, Premier? I’m hearing as much as 40 gigalitres is intended to be purchased from South Australia, which only has an irrigation pool of 400 gigalitres. That’s 10 per cent.  

Queensland Premier Palaszczuk has not said a word about water buybacks. With an election coming up next year, the farming community should know what the Premier has just done to them. But they don’t know; she won’t tell them. I ask the Queensland Premier to be honest and to come clean: how much Queensland water did you agree to be bought back into Queensland? I understand the game that all the premiers except Victoria’s are playing: ‘Don’t talk about water buybacks. Blame the federal government. Defend Labor’s vote against the Greens and the teals. Get re-elected. Shhhh!’ It’s such a simple plan—except that it breaches the rules around the operation of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan itself. All state premiers must sign off to every change. The minute one state is out of something like water buybacks, the other states have to pick up the slack. 

My state of Queensland loses more water and without a further hollowing out of the bush. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers Bill) 2023 was heavily amended—and many of us say catastrophically amended. In the House of Representatives the water amendment had five crossbench and 31 government amendments. In the Senate the bill had a haphazard mishmash of 20 government amendments. That’s a total of 51 government amendments to a bill that was introduced to parliament, plus five in the Senate from the Greens and eight from the crossbench. That’s 20 amendments to the bill in the Senate plus 31 in the House of Reps, reflecting yet another bill brought into the Senate without adequate thought and becoming a scrambled me due to opportunistic trading and deals. 

This is no way to govern our country. It is shoddy governance. It is dishonest governance. And who pays? It is farmers, farming families, rural communities, regional Australia—everyone and anyone who eats. The reason there were so many amendments, including government amendments, is that the process of consultation was a complete farce. The government consulted with everyone they knew who would agree with them, and that was it. Irrigators in rural communities were ignored. The bill was pushed through a committee that the government controlled and was sent for a vote when it was so full of holes—51 holes that the government recognised. So the parliamentary process tried. The question remains: did we fix it? Did the premiers approve all these amendments? The amendments could not possibly have been approved. The Senate barely had time to read them. The premiers have most notably not even seen the amendments. The Environment and Communications Legislation Committee reported on what has become a very different bill. The premiers voted on a different bill—a bill they couldn’t agree on, and they haven’t seen the latest version. 

At the very least, we need to see how these amendments fit together and what the impact of these amendments will be on the Murray-Darling Basin, on the environment and on the communities in the basin. Potential harm from the bill needs to be detected now and plans for mitigation canvassed immediately. We need to determine exactly what the rules around changes to the plan are so that amendments are done correctly next time. We need to assess what happens when the federal government starts buying up water in Victoria and the Victorian government rejects or objects. This legislation may be a High Court challenge waiting to happen. 

As a new senator back in 2017, when I was in south-west Queensland in the town of St George in the Balonne shire I heard firsthand of the enormous damage to Queensland and northern New South Wales communities. As a result of that, Senator Pauline Hanson and I travelled the Murray from Albury to the Murray mouth, listening to regional communities in southern New South Wales, northern Victoria and South Australia. Later, when I returned to the Senate in 2019, I flew over the whole basin, listening closely to farmers, to communities and to people who had an argument for the environment. I then crossed the basin four times from east to west listening—in Queensland, northern New South Wales, central New South Wales, southern New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, including the regions of South Australia. We developed a credible water policy based on science and people’s needs, environmental needs and national needs. 

The late John Bristow was a world-renowned expert on water. He visited our country in 2007—I’ve read a paper he published on it—and he declared that we had the best water management in the world. He was an international water expert, and he said we had the best water management. Later, in 2007, John Howard as Prime Minister and Malcolm Turnbull as water minister introduced the Water Act 2007. As has been repeated four or five times now, the aims of the Water Act are: to include compliance with international agreements—what the hell has that got to do with our federal legislation?—and to change the Murray-Darling Basin Commission to the Murray-Darling Basin Authority. That destroyed cooperation that had successfully managed the basin with cooperation between states and the Commonwealth. Commonwealth departments started to dictate and started to lie. John Howard and Malcolm Turnbull’s Water Act separated water allocations from land ownership—a catastrophe that has to be corrected. 

The Water Act, to its credit, required a register of water trades, yet the Liberal-National and Labor parties have refused to install a water registry, even though it’s required by the legislation known as the Water Act. I moved an amendment to require a water register to be developed. It was passed in the Senate and rejected in the lower house by the Liberals, Nationals and Labor Party. 

We now see that another feature of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is that it led to contradictions of science and nature. It completely reversed the science. This is a mess due to globalist policies, working through the Greens—the Howard-Turnbull Water Act of 2007. On his next visit to Australia in 2011, John Bristow proclaimed that Australia had slumped to the worst—the world’s worst—water management for one reason: politically driven policy. He belled the culprit. The people in this parliament, the federal parliament, at federal level. 

While mindful of the Murray-Darling Basin Plan’s catastrophic foundation, for now, as a result of the catastrophic mish-mash of the latest legislation changes last week, we need to scrutinise the latest legislation while keeping in the back of our minds the mess that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is. Only a committee inquiry can sort this out and ensure such a monumental, haphazard, dishonest change to a 10-year-old plan is the right thing to do. I move: 

  1. That the Senate notes that:
    1. the water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 was passed with substantial amendments; and
    2. the amendments were not reviewed by a committee and have not been approved by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council.
  2. That the following matters relating to the Water Amendment (Restoring our Rivers) Bill 2023 be referred to the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee for review and report by the 30 March 2024: 
    1. the operation, effectiveness and implications of the amendments made;
    2. matters relating to the approval of the amendments by the Murray Darling Basin Ministerial Council; and 
    3. any related matters. 
/1 Comment/by

History Should Make You Uncomfortable

Erasing history by banning aspects of it runs the risk of society repeating history. The quote, “history should make you uncomfortable” describes how history has something to teach us. An effective tool of learning is discomfort.

The amendment that I proposed here in the Senate would have excluded and protected genuine collectors from the prohibition provisions of this Bill.

Denying history cannot diminish the Holocaust horrors. There are many people in Australia interested in preserving items of significant historical interest. These genuine collectors of militaria and historical items are not extremists. They are parents, grandparents, even a great grandfather who called this office and explained how he started collecting items given to him by returning servicemen after World War 2. These are not people who wish to promote extremist or violent views.

Their intent is to preserve items of historic military significance, artefacts that are of great value in some cases, and these genuine collectors and academic researchers and historians should have been excluded from the prohibition provisions.

Transcript

This bill, as I read it, is designed to prohibit the public promotion of hate symbols, including those of the historic Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s. Yet history is real and should not be buried or denied. Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it. Former president of the United States Harry Truman, a very widely read American president, said, ‘The only thing new in the world is the history you haven’t read.’ In other words, it has all happened before. Denying history cannot diminish the Holocaust horrors.

History shows that ignorance or wiping of history only brings ignorance, which in turn begs the repeat of atrocities, and we don’t want that. There are many people in Australia interested in preserving history during the period of World War II and preserving items of significant historical interest. These genuine collectors of militaria and historical items are not extremists, nor do they wish to promote extremist or violent views. Their intent is to preserve items of historic and military significance. These genuine collectors, academic researchers and historians should be excluded from the prohibition provisions, and they are. Genuine collectors are often well read and actively research their areas of interest and should not be prevented from maintaining their interests nor run the risk of being punished for preserving the history during a time of historic turmoil.

The amendment that I have proposed would exclude and protect genuine collectors from the prohibition provisions of this bill. I commend it to the Senate. By leave—I, and also on behalf of Senator Hanson, move One Nation amendments (1), (2) and (3) on sheet 2307 together:

(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 9 (line 12), after “academic,” insert “collecting militaria,”.
(2) Schedule 1, item 5, page 15 (line 29), after “academic,” insert “collecting militaria,”.
(3) Schedule 1, item 5, page 24 (line 19), after “academic,” insert “collecting militaria,”.

Amendment Voted Down

Official Hansard

061223-HansardDownload

Counter-Terrorism Legislation Amendment (Prohibited Hate Symbols and Other Measures ) Bill 2023

Bill-As-PassedDownload
/by