Mortality data tells us information about deaths in Australia and is usually released every 6 weeks. For an unexplained reason, the latest data is over 15 weeks overdue. There’s no good reason for this, the government needs to be transparent and release the data now.
Transcript
Mr President as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I have a duty to ensure reasoned and accurate debate.
The Minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Colbeck has that same duty, to ensure data central to reasoned and informed debate is made public.
For many years following the standardization of mortality reporting between the states mortality data has been made available 6 weeks after the period to which it relates.
The last mortality data covers the period to 30th June 2021. It is now October 18th. Suddenly and without explanation data is being held back for 15 weeks.
The Minister should have been prepared for this question, I did advise his office of the subject of my question today and also directed his office to my question on notice number 3970 asking for this same information.
QON 3970 has been outstanding for 12 weeks.
The data to June 30th shows deaths in Australia in 2021 are above the 7 year moving average and consistently above anything we have ever seen before in Australia.
It is troubling that NSW and Queensland no longer make this information public.
In the absence of Australian mortality data I will quickly reference official data from the UK, which has seen an increase in deaths amongst 15 – 17 year olds of 20% following the start of vaccination of that cohort, trending towards 25% at younger ages down to 4.
More worrying is that this distribution is not even, the mortality rate amongst boys was up 28%, and amongst girls 8%.
This may result from one of the 268 known adverse interactions between the COVID vaccines and other prescription drugs documented by the United States FDA on their website.
Logic would dictate that before giving a patient a COVID vaccine one would check to see what drugs they are already using, and what natural immunity they may have resulting from of a previous COVID infection.
I don’t think the 33 Bunnings Stores in Queensland that offered vaccinations to the general public last weekend asked for that information.
Natural antibodies were found by a very recent, gold standard paper by the University of Edinburgh to offer protection against COVID of 80%, substantially better than the vaccines are now providing.[1]
I am concerned this Parliament’s reckless vaccination crusade is killing people.
Let me pose some wider questions for the Minister to consider:
Is the well documented reduction in health and diagnostic services creating a time bomb in delayed treatment – early detection of cancer, for instance – and is that killing people?
Are widespread lockdowns creating mental health problems that result in increased loss of life?
Is locking up elderly Australians in Nursing Homes with no family contact causing elderly to let go early?
Are business owners who have seen their life work destroyed and bankrupted by capricious and counter-productive lockdowns losing their battle with life?
These are questions any prudent, caring government would be worried about. This Government and this Parliament should be watching mortality data closely, to get guidance on these matters in real time.
Sadly this Government and this Parliament is neither prudent nor caring.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/sO11Nv8SmYs/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-19 08:13:352021-10-19 08:13:44Why is data about deaths being held back?
When I started researching election integrity I was doing it to show that our elections are secure. That is not what I found. There is no requirement to audit the results and no ID requirements to ensure there is no double voting. Our electoral legislation is full of holes. My bill seeks to fix those holes using audits that many well researched committees, agencies and investigations have already suggested. There really isn’t much reason to vote against it.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I present the the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021, which amends the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
This bill provides for the routine auditing of the electronic component of Australian federal elections and for the provision of voter identification.
It should also be noted that this bill does not look backward to previous elections, but rather forward to ensure confidence in the next election.
During COVID the actions of unelected bureaucrats and incompetent politicians has wiped out small businesses and jobs, disrupted lives and reduced many people to desperation.
The next election will be a powder keg.
It is essential to ensure that Australians can accept the result and move on.
Suspicion of the outcome can be easily fueled, especially on social media, and turned into violence by those who seek to manipulate the result for their own ends.
The level of trust in the result must be commensurate with the current heightened level of risk.
When I started researching election integrity it was to show that our elections are secure. That is not what I found.
The Australian National Audit Office conducted three audits into the 2013 federal election. Their final report came out in 2016. This is what ANAO said about the Australian Electoral Commission (the AEC):
In 2014 the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters wrote to the Auditor General seeking a performance audit focusing on the adequacy of the Australian Electoral Commission implementation of recommendations arising from earlier ANAO audits of the AEC.
The Auditor General decided to conduct 3 related performance audits.
All three reports found that the AEC had not adequately and effectively implemented the earlier ANAO recommendations. The reports concluded that in order to protect the integrity of the Australian electoral system and rebuild confidence in the AEC these recommendations should be implemented.
“ANAO plans to undertake a follow-up audit following the next federal election, in 2016, to examine the adequacy and effectiveness of the AEC’s implementation of the ten recommendations made by ANAO across three reports.”
“the AEC must develop a strategy for deeper reform to ensure and demonstrate integrity in all aspects of the election, including a fundamental overhaul of the AEC’s policies and procedures to restore confidence in the electoral process”.
Let me say that again – a fundamental overhaul to ensure election integrity.
Mr President the follow-up audit to test how well the AEC implemented this fundamental review into election integrity never occurred.
Perhaps someone should do a bill to bring on that audit. Oh wait Mr President, I did.
Were ANAO happy for this direction – apparently not.
In their submission to this bill ANAO said my bill was not necessary as they had the power to audit the AEC at any time.
If that is the case then they should get on with it.
Mr President New South Wales and Western Australia have provisions in their electoral acts to audit state elections.
New South Wales conducts an audit before each election to ensure systems are fit for purpose and then audits again after each election to ensure integrity, and to see what can be improved for next time.
Western Australia audits after every election.
There is no audit function currently specified in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918.
This bill creates a function for the Auditor General to audit the operation of the AEC twice in each election cycle:
In the lead up to the election; and
From polling day to the declaration of the poll.
The audit provided for in this bill covers electronic measures, and tests if:
“the use of authorised technology produces the same result as would be obtained without the use of authorised technology.”
Put simply this is asking the Auditor General to ensure that the use of computerised voter rolls, tallying, preference allocations and related matters produced a result that accurately reflects the will of the people.
ANAO felt that was too high a bar to meet, I would consider ensuring the will of the people was accurately reflected in the result was the bare minimum for any election audit.
This bill does not specify what will be audited. The decision regarding the operation of the audit is best left to the agencies conducting the audit.
Secondly, this bill authorises the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) to audit and monitor computer systems for unauthorised access internally and externally.
This is targeting both unauthorised access from within the system and unauthorised external access by malicious entities.
The Australia Signals Directorate is currently conducting a cyber “uplift program” at the Australian Electoral Commission. While the program is most welcome, there is no basis in the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 or the Intelligence Services Act 2001 for that program.
This bill brings legislation into line with current practice.
Mr President In May Senate estimates I asked the Australian Electoral Commission simple questions regarding their auditing. I was assured that audits are occurring. On no occasion then or since have the following questions been answered:
Who conducted the audit?
When was the audit conducted?
What was audited?
What was the result?
Have any changes been made as a result of the audit?
It is disturbing that such an audit could happen behind closed doors without direction or structure. It is more disturbing that this program has no legal basis in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
We should not have to rely on the admirable conscientiousness of the Australian Signals Directorate. We should be able to rely on the completeness of our legislation.
Mr President I also looked at other issues around election integrity.
First up was a simple question: At the Senate Scanning Centre is the electronic data file containing each vote ever compared back to the paper ballot after the vote has been adjudicated?
That answer is no. At no time is the electronic record of a vote checked back against the paper ballot once the ballot is adjudicated.
Some disputed votes are held back and adjudicated later in the counting process, then filed away.
There is no routine sampling beyond that point. That is not acceptable.
The third part of my bill is for voter ID. Most of the recommendations in the ANAO report, that was never followed up, went to failures in the integrity of voter rolls.
It is too late to go back now and audit those rolls before the next election, by way of re-commencing residency checks, as ANAO recommended.
It is not too late for a quick fix – which is voter ID. Asking for simple identification will act as an audit on the rolls in real time, and ensure every vote cast was legitimate.
This is not my idea. Recommendation 21 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters Inquiry into the 2019 Federal Election called for voter identification to be introduced. This same finding was made in 2016 and 2013.
Schedule 2 of this bill is drafted to give effect to the committee recommendation as literally as possible.
Voters must present a form of acceptable identification to be issued with an ordinary pre-poll or election day vote. Authorised identification must be suitably broad so as to not actively prevent electors from casting an ordinary ballot.
This bill allows a wide range of acceptable voter ID. The AEC is empowered to make further regulations to ensure voters are not disenfranchised.
The AEC noted in their submission to the JSCEM inquiry that:
“multiple voting is frequently the subject of media commentary and social media speculation. Such a degree of focus is entirely understandable: there can hardly be a more emblematic component of trust in electoral results than ensuring eligible voters only exercise the franchise [appropriately].”
Multiple voting is a red herring in this debate. My bill is not concerned with multiple voting, it is concerned with ensuring every vote cast was made according to law.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act (Integrity of Elections Bill) 2021 is about protecting confidence in our elections.
The cyber integrity of our elections and the use of voter identification is essential to that confidence.
I recommend the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Integrity of Elections) Bill 2021 to the Senate.
As state and federal leaders squabble over COVID responses, many families around Australia face yet another day of emotional and mental trauma at home. The mental health of our children and teenagers is the collateral damage of the unnecessarily cruel and inhuman responses to managing COVID.
Mental health needs an urgent chair at the table of decision-making. Let the children play. Let the people work.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m asked questions from constituents. To what depths of insanity and wickedness have we sunk when government believes it has licence to dictate to parents that they are no longer able to look after their grandchildren?
When it comes to care for children, government has no right to intrude into families and decide what a normal household activity looks like. While Victoria takes the prize for this particularly grotesque directive, all state, territory and federal governments have shown stupidity and inhumanity on incongruent, hypocritical and needlessly destructive COVID restrictions.
Quoting former US Vice-President Hubert Humphrey:
… the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly …
State and federal governance during COVID fails this moral test. Our children are forgotten. Physical, emotional, psychological, educational and health needs have been, in the main, ignored. Yesterday, instead of using her Chief Health Officer as her usual shield to avoid an intelligent statement on our state’s future, the Queensland Premier used our children.
Feigning concern, her question was: what’s going to happen to the children if we open borders too soon? We already know what’s happening to our children: a terrifying unfolding tragedy.
In Victoria, the government received a health report on the state of its children, an ugly and mortifying reflection on Victoria’s abuse of people. Yet the Premier ignores it, buries it, deems it largely unworthy of comment and continues to threaten and scold Victorians over noncompliance with his own insane world view.
Any moral, just, competent and compassionate government would solemnly reflect on the more than 340 teenagers suffering mental health emergencies who are admitted every week to hospitals, a 162 per cent increase; the 156 teenagers rushed to hospital every week for attempting suicide or self-harm, 37 of them needing emergency treatment or surgery, an 88 per cent increase; or the 90 per cent increase in children with eating disorders. This is the ultimate transgression, neglect and abandonment.
This is our vulnerable children’s cry for help. Our persistent ignorance and silence on children’s mental health needs is unforgivable, particularly after 18 months of COVID mismanagement. In New South Wales, more than 40 children and teenagers are daily rushed to hospital for self-harm—up 31 per cent.
The number of acute mental health admissions for children and young people is up 43 per cent. At the Gold Coast hospital, there was a 212 per cent spike in eating disorders from 2019 to 2020. Queensland’s Butterfly Foundation says calls for help for eating disorders increased 34 per cent from January 2020 to January 2021.
Eighty-five per cent were first-time callers to the helpline. In August, Lifeline’s suicide-prevention line had its busiest days in its 57-year history. Children may wait six to nine months before seeing a psychiatrist.
Children suffering with depression, eating disorders or suicidal thoughts may not be able to wait nine months. Will this be the final nail in their coffin?
Parents have to work from home and educate their children and are now frontline mental health workers. Our children’s mental health needs have become more urgent, as never-ending draconian restrictions offer no light at the end of a lengthening tunnel, yet our health officials eagerly and excitedly round up our young for mass vaccinations.
We humans are gregarious and our primal need to socialise sustains our very breath. Persistent, externally and capriciously imposed social isolation tears at the fabric of what makes us human, keeps us physically well and holds us literally sane. An adult brain can work hard at rationalising the incursions, the loss of freedoms and isolation. Sometimes, though, it’s even too much for adults.
Children’s brains are vulnerable and underdeveloped, and it’s inhuman to expect children to process and cope with restrictions that adults impose—adults who themselves appear on the edge of insanity. Our children suffer the greatest deprivations: deprivation of liberty; deprivation of education; deprivation of normal development; deprivation of swings, slippery slides, rides on the bike, swims at the beach and local sport; deprivation of crucial friendship supports and separated parents; and deprivation of loving grandparents’ arms and hugs.
Children must urgently return to the anchors that sustain us. Mental health professionals are campaigning for children’s mental health needs, and it’s overdue that we hear their voices.
People are, rightly, increasingly cynical about governments falsely claiming to be keeping us safe—a deeply sad mocking of reality. Governments are driving us to the wall of insanity, and our children are first in line as collateral damage. Without our mental health, we have no solid grasp on living a life.
Our first duty is to save our children—humankind’s hope and promise. We have one flag. We have one community. We have one nation. We have one future.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/destroyuing-children-pic.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-03 15:08:052021-09-03 15:12:18Save our children from a mental health crisis
Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and the Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights?
This is Australia in 2021. It’s a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based.
Transcript
Thank you, Madam Deputy President. I reference the response by the Attorney-General, Senator Cash, to my question on freedom to protest under the body of Australian law. Senator Cash fluffed on about what is in fact a basic element of our democracy.
What she seems to have forgotten is that there is an overarching principle: the right to freedom is a basic inalienable right that our body of law has been formed around. Our laws reflect our Christian heritage and should always do so. Our governing document, our national Constitution, for instance, references God in its preamble.
Without being presumptuous, and while I’m not a biblical scholar or a church-goer, perhaps I should have asked myself earlier than this a fundamental question: what would God do? It turns out that the Bible is quite clear on the issue of freedom. From Galatians 5:1:
It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm … and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.
In this epistle, Paul was urging the new churches he had founded in Galatia to stand against those who were trying to subvert the freedom Christianity had given. Paul’s epistle to the faithful in Galatia could have been written today. The battle for freedom and darkness exist now, as it did 2,000 years ago.
We spent 2,000 years writing a body of law to implement Christian principles, including the right to freedom. These freedoms were first enshrined in the Magna Carta Libertatum—literally the ‘great charter of freedoms’ that the head of the church at the time, the Archbishop of Canterbury, wrote in 1215.
Our Attorney-General has demonstrated not only a lack of understanding of man’s laws; she has failed to demonstrate an understanding of God’s laws. Being sworn in on the Bible is clearly no guarantee of believing a word of it. While eminent biblical scholars advise that the Bible is properly understood in context, how could the Attorney-General not have looked this up at any time in the five months the senator has occupied her role?
Five months of widespread and sustained media and social media conversations around the right to protest and the Attorney-General, the highest law officer in the land, was missing in action. Was she not curious about what the law actually said? Let me help on that in the time remaining.
The Magna Carta was written in response to King John exercising his powers, using the principle of vis et voluntas, which translates as ‘force and will’—the making of decisions that were above the law and then using force to create compliance, much like parliaments around Australia are doing right now. Lord Denning described the Magna Carta as:
… the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”
I looked through the Magna Carta and I couldn’t see the COVID exemption that allows governments to destroy human rights and do whatever they want if they can get the population scared enough to accept it. Of course, there is no exemption afforded power-mad governments and unelected bureaucrats.
In 1948, before the UN turned into the problem and not the solution, the United Nations charter on human rights declared a few things on freedom of protest that parliaments around Australia are conveniently ignoring. Article 19:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference …
Article 20:
Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
Article 21:
Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country …
This is what protesters are doing: participating in governance, exercising their right to free speech and free association. That’s the very definition of a protest. These are rights that article 30 of the United Nations declaration of human rights protects. It binds governments from breaching the declaration.
It would appear that the Prime Minister and the premiers are seeking to wind back our right to freedom to that which existed prior to 1215, to give themselves the powers that King John used force to exercise.
Would the Attorney-General like to take another run at explaining why parliaments in Australia are not in breach of the very principles that define our legal system, the Bible and the Magna Carta, reinforced by the much more recent United Nations charter on human rights?
I wonder what Monica is thinking, languishing in jail with the promise that she can get out, providing she renounces her membership of a political party. This is Australia in 2021. It’s a disgrace. We need our freedoms back and we need an Attorney-General who understands the basics on which our freedoms are based.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/right-to-protest-pic.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-03 14:16:432021-09-03 14:16:49The right to protest is protected by a body of law going back 800 years
In a time of panic and uncertainty last year the government implemented Jobkeeper. Thousands of businesses validly and ethically accepted money from the government without the knowledge they may later be publicly shamed for it. We support accountability, but do it in a properly set system from the start.
That wasn’t the deal at the time, we don’t publicly list every dole recipient and we shouldn’t be doing things retrospectively.
Transcript:
I speak on behalf of Senator Hanson on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2021 Measures No. 2) Bill 2021. The key point here is accountability. I know now of organisations that had a disastrous first two months of JobKeeper and then very quickly recovered. They tried to stop JobKeeper payments and couldn’t. We also know that some businesses gamed the system. What this shows is that we need a proper audit.
I’ll give you some background. March and April 2020 was a time of great uncertainty. Deaths overseas were reportedly very high—in the tens of thousands. There was a lot of fear and uncertainty, and that meant erring on the side of safety. So all the parties in the Senate supported the government’s approach on JobSeeker and JobKeeper. We basically gave them a blank cheque and waved it through because it was a time of perceived threat. I warned at the time of a need to get data and develop a proper plan, and that we would hold the government accountable. I noted Taiwan’s stellar performance and Ivermectin.
The government got it wrong with JobKeeper. We all saw that, and that’s not a criticism of the government—so long as the government doesn’t make too many mistakes it’s very easy in hindsight to see that JobKeeper and JobSeeker could be open to criticism. I’m proud to say that I erred on the side of caution and safety in a time of great uncertainty. Senator Hanson and I are not afraid of admitting errors. But it was an error that was based on making sure that we erred on the side of safety, so we cannot hold that against anyone. Senator Hanson later questioned continuing JobKeeper. I did the same. Parliament did not stop it. Labor wanted to extend it and widen it. The parliament failed to hold the government accountable. The federal government continued to support capricious and unjustified lockdowns, and still does. The parliament condones the lack of a proper comprehensive plan, yet has blasted billions out into the community.
That’s the broad perspective. We were faced with a lot of uncertainty. The government made some initiatives. We supported them, and some parties wanted to continue them through until now. Let’s have a look at some specifics. Labor is claiming that, out of the $90 billion paid out in JobKeeper, $25 billion has apparently been paid to companies that did not suffer a decline in revenue.
The Treasurer says he doesn’t know because he does not have companies’ profit and loss statements. And some of them had an increase in revenue and some have paid huge bonuses to executives. So we have a problem. Naming and shaming by itself does nothing, though. The people need action to get the money back from those who’ve rorted the system. We need a better system. We need more accountability to the public. We need a plan and a system in place for the future.
I want to comment on tax law. Tax law has always had secrecy provisions, unless there’s a higher purpose—for example, criminal prosecution. There are many practical occasions when the Australian Taxation Office releases data. Its JobKeeper administration, though, is not part of the income tax system. The Australian Taxation Office systems were used not for tax but for shovelling taxpayer money to companies. That does not affect tax office secrecy provisions.
Our tax system is based on voluntary compliance, including for company tax. Prior to 1986, every individual’s tax return was checked by the ATO. That hasn’t happened since 1986. It is done on a sampling basis. We need to remember, also, that 75 per cent of tax raised is from individuals, so it’s the individual’s confidence in the taxation system and confidence in government spending that needs to be maintained.
Now, the parliament makes the laws. There is only one position in the Australian tax office that is of significance: that’s the taxation commissioner. Why should the commissioner approach the Senate President? Why did he write to the President, when he reports to the parliament? The parliament hires him and fires him. The commissioner, on this occasion, has overstepped the mark.
ASIC will publish the JobKeeper figures for publicly listed companies, and, for them, the context, including the number of employees and revenues, is available. That’s not the case when it’s published for private companies because there’s a need for context. There can be unintended consequences if people simply know the JobKeeper payments without the comprehensive context. We need to prevent various third parties targeting the businesses and taking JobKeeper out of context.
Now, the government will support this in the House of Representatives, whereas Senator Patrick’s original amendment—which we acknowledge and appreciate—would have been defeated. I’m sure that Senator Patrick is doing this to do good, not just look good. So we thank Senator Patrick for his idea, which we have built on and enhanced. Those in the Senate who believe in transparency with safeguards will support this amendment. I want to make two final points. This highlights yet again that central government quite often gets it wrong. We highlight parliament’s lack of accountability. Instead, parliament has been posturing over this COVID situation. We must restore parliament to serve the people. So that’s why we’re moving this amendment, on behalf of Senator Hanson, and I would welcome people’s support.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MPI-Tues-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-09-02 10:16:032021-09-02 10:27:04Why we voted against Jobkeeper naming and shaming
This week, we heard Labor raise the issue that “Mr Morrison is considered to be “the Prime Minister for Morrison and no one else.” While that is increasingly heard in the media, among members of the government, among members of the Liberal and National parties and among the people, I reflect on an additional, more significant and rapidly growing conclusion among the people.
That is, the people are saying the Parliament of Australia is for the parliament – meaning, the parliament is working for both the tired old parties. That is, the Liberal-Nationals and Labor. And the people of Australia are paying the price because the people are serving the parliament, when it should be our parliaments serving the people.
Transcript:
This matter of public importance states:
The reported views of members of the NSW Liberal Government, including that they consider Mr Morrison to be “the Prime Minister for Morrison and no one else”.
While that is increasingly heard in the media, among members of the government, among members of the Liberal and National parties and among the people, I reflect on an additional, more significant and rapidly growing conclusion among the people, and it’s allied to the one this MPI debates.
That conclusion is that the parliament of Australia is for the parliament. By that they mean the parliament is working for both the tired old parties—that is, the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor Party—and the people of Australia are the ones paying the price, because the people are serving the parliament, when we need to get back to the parliament serving the people.
I’m very positive about Australians—our resources, our opportunities, our potential—yet I’m very worried about Australia, because of shoddy governance for many decades, and so are the people—for example, the truckies. The truckies recently blockaded a highway south of Brisbane.
Truckies are the salt of the earth—regular people, real people. There’s nothing that hasn’t been on a truck, whether during processing or after it has been made and sent to market. Truckies interact with everyone—all ways of life, all callings and all needs. Now they’re calling out the politicians—and not just those from the government; truckies are calling out politicians generally.
Why? Because they’re feeling doubtful, confused, afraid, overwhelmed and hopeless, and they’re getting angry and feeling very frustrated. Why? Because of their need for a livelihood, which is being threatened; their need for survival; their need for truth and honesty—a basic need; their need for consistency and ease, predictability; their need to be heard by the members who are supposed to represent them in parliament; their need for leadership, trust, integrity, credibility.
Let’s have a look at some of the data. We’ve now had hundreds of days of lockdown in Victoria, months in some of the other states. It’s capricious: smacked on and taken off suddenly. People’s lives have been ruined. There has been stress, isolation, poverty, suicide, domestic violence.
There have been cruel restrictions. One of a pair of twins was lost because their parent was denied access to a Brisbane hospital because she came from northern New South Wales. Fancy losing a twin because of some capricious government or bureaucrat!
Parents are dying without the comfort of their kids. Kids in cancer treatment are alone because their parents have to go into lockdown. Then we have curfews. We have local government authorities in areas of Sydney calling on people to show their papers before they can move from one LGA to another.
There is child suicide, domestic violence, alcohol abuse. There are kids at boarding school unable to go home for the holidays and see their families. There are now threats and bribes to get people to vaccinate, and those threats are undermining vaccination itself.
The World Health Organization says that lockdowns are to be used only initially, to get control of the virus. Well, 18 months is not ‘initially’. Every time a government slaps on a lockdown in this country it is admitting, for the whole world to see, that it does not have control of the virus.
Clearly, there is no plan—people can see and feel that—but politicians lack the strength of character to admit their error. They’re locked in, gutlessly, to save face in front of the people. The Liberal-National and Labor governments, state and federal, are pushing this rubbish on the people of Australia.
The people, though, are starting to get the Liberals to backpedal. What is happening is that the data is starting to come out: people are feeling the pain, and they’re saying, ‘To hell with you lot.’ They want to sort out parliament. But the politicians still won’t back down, because of the fear they have drummed up, the fear that they have ingrained in our society and that is killing people.
What we see now, for the first time ever, are the Liberal, Nats and Labor pushing an untested and unproven vaccine. For the first time in history we see governments injecting healthy people with something that can kill them, and is killing many. At the same time, we see Ivermectin, a now proven, safe, effective and affordable treatment—and a preventative; a prophylactic—and the Liberal, Nats and Labor are stopping this treatment.
There’s a complete lack of a plan, a bias away from the data and a contradiction of the data. All the truckies want are simple, basic needs met—end damaging lockdowns and curfews; vaccine only by choice; and children back to school—so they can get on with their lives and their livelihoods and protect their family.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/MPI-Tues-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-01 12:15:242021-09-01 12:15:36Our Parliaments should be serving the people.
The industry the ALP and Greens want to phase out – mining – is driving a record $10 billion a month balance of trade surplus. This money is going into the local economy, creating jobs and increasing Government revenue. Without the contribution from mining each month Australia would be in a depression.
One Nation supports the mining industry and the ability of Australians to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour.
Transcript:
The national accounts figures published yesterday carried great news for our community and very bad news for those in the Senate for whom ‘mining’ is a dirty word. Australia’s balance of trade surplus is now at a 10-year high, just over $10 billion in June, up from $9 billion in May.
Every dollar of surplus is $1 of growth for the Australian economy, generating jobs and economic security and making Australia more resilient. Every $10 increase in the iron ore or coal price adds $1 billion to government revenue. Overall, metal ore exports reached a record high in April of $16½ billion.
That’s $16.5 billion in mining exports in one month. Consider all the employment this is creating—the breadwinner jobs, the families supported by individual labour rather than by government handouts. Investment in mining is an investment in our future security—it’s that simple. Iron ore is now at $154 a tonne and coal is at $171 a tonne—both against budget projections of $40 a tonne.
The government has a windfall here. Copper is up 23 per cent, steel is up 24 per cent, nickel is up 15 per cent and cobalt is up 57 per cent. Our mining recovery is broadly based and sustained. This revenue must go, in part, to building Australian infrastructure, which is our future, and, in part, to paying back our profligate deficit, caused by temporary COVID measures that now somehow appear permanent. Yet Labor and the Greens are telling miners, ‘Bad luck,’ because both want to ban any new mines and extensions of existing mines.
Their policy will devastate the economy and the government revenue base. Entire communities will be reliant on government welfare and any rules imposed on them in order to keep the benefits. No wonder the Greens and Labor hate mining. There will be none of this supporting of ourselves under a government Anthony Albanese and Adam Bandt lead.
We are one community, we are one nation, and mining will keep us free.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/mining-thumbnail.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Harriet Blackhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngHarriet Black2021-09-01 12:07:022021-09-01 12:07:20Mining is keeping Australia out of a depression.
The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery was 15 years old. If you’re over 18 you can call yourself whatever you like, but telling teenagers gender isn’t real while they battle with all the changes of puberty is a recipe for tragedy.
Transcript
The Morrison-Joyce government has yet again dragged Australia into the misguided and dangerous United Nations parallel universe. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has signed Australia up to a communique from the UN Human Rights Council that endorses radical intersectional gender theory. This is the theory that gender is a social construct and that one’s decision about gender is based not on biology but on feelings. There is no agreement in Australia that gender is a social construct. There is no agreement that minors should be able to nominate their gender based on self-identification alone. Worldwide, the momentum is shifting back the other way, towards greater caution, especially on the use of experimental treatments and irreversible surgeries. The youngest child in Australia to undergo transition surgery—in this case a double mastectomy—was 15 years old. How can a child of 15 know their mind? The vast majority of minors sort out their gender identity by adolescence. Gender fluidity is easily dispensed as nonsense. If gender is fluid, then no-one can be trapped in the wrong body, because fluidity dictates that person’s views of their gender could change with their next mood.
One Nation agrees that pink and blue do not define gender and that biology need not confine us to traditional gender norms. Nonetheless, children growing up must have certainties to hang onto. Telling children there is a plethora of genders they can pick from exacerbates confusion and anxiety and weakens their sense of self. I was surprised to learn that Australia has an international ambassador for gender equality, who is employed to advance these agendas. The decision by Minister Payne was not an aberration. It was deliberate government policy. Our supposedly Christian Prime Minister and this entire parliament are out of touch with everyday Australians. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation and we want our children protected from UN lunatics.
Suspicion about the results of our elections is an existential threat to our country. Confidence comes from having strict auditing and checking procedures. We’ve seen that these auditing, checks and system are not fit for purpose. One Nation is asking for those deficiencies to be rectified.
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, here we go again. Yet again the Labor Party are about to sit comfortably in the laps of the Liberals and Nationals to vote through measures that are in both of their own interests. Just yesterday I spoke of this parliament being dysfunctional to the point of being a crime scene. The very next day here we are watching the proof unfold again before our very eyes.
For those watching at home and wondering why One Nation did not use these electoral bills to introduce actual electoral reform, the answer is simple: the way these bills were written. There is one bill per topic and they include a long description that prevents One Nation from introducing amendments that move outside of that very narrow, restrictive scope.
If the government and Labor wanted to join three bills together and vote in one line, they should have produced the three bills as an omnibus bill that One Nation and the crossbench could have amended—and the legislation badly needs amendment. Senators Wong and Birmingham are once again making a mockery of the democratic process—dodgy siblings doing another dirty deal behind closed doors. When are we going to start writing numbers on the perspex screens so we can distinguish between the Liberal-Nationals and Labor! The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters made 27 recommendations towards more fair and effective elections. The ‘Lib-Lab duopoly’ has again rushed legislation before the Senate to implement a grand total of three of those recommendations, none of which does anything to ensure the integrity of our electoral process.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Offences and Preventing Multiple Voting) Bill 2021 pretends to do something about multiple voting. In the last three elections, the Australian Electoral Commission reviewed thousands of case of multiple voting and referred a few hundred of those to the Australian Federal Police for prosecution, who made the decision to prosecute none of them. Not one person has been prosecuted as a result of the ordinary operations of the Electoral Act despite recommendations to do so and despite that law being on the books for a very long time. That may be why the government has chosen to abandon the legal system and refer multiple voting to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Yesterday we saw cybercrime warrants being moved from the criminal court system to the administrative court system; today we have multiple voting moving over as well. One Nation is uncomfortable with the growing power of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and with the whole concept of having two court systems. Criminal courts are founded in biblical and common law; administrative courts have no such higher purpose to be called on for guidance.
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Party Registration Integrity) Bill 2021 is clearly an attempt by Lib-Lab to knock out smaller parties and entrench the power of the status quo. I hear the anger on social media over this measure, yet I have some questions in return. Should a multimillionaire be allowed to use his wealth to buy political influence through the United Australia Party? The requirement to have 500 supporters is not going to slow down a very wealthy individual, yet a requirement to have 1,500 supporters will—unless that party actually has grassroots support. This legislation is saying to Clive Palmer, ‘Put your supporters where your mouth is, not where your money is.’ There is criticism from some new parties who should be more worried about themselves. If you start fact-checking the memes you are spreading, and start offering voters evidence based policy, perhaps 1,500 may be more achievable. I understand that Senator Lambie too is in opposition to this bill. This raises a good question for the government—oops, the Lib-Labs—to answer: why is it 1,500 voters for registration in a populous state and 1,500 in Tasmania? Shouldn’t it be some percentage of registered voters in that state?
The Electoral Legislation Amendment (Counting, Scrutiny and Operational Efficiencies) Bill 2021 makes a number of small changes to voting. These have been mentioned by other speakers and I will not review those here. How will all these changes affect the integrity of our elections? Well, we don’t know. We don’t know now and we won’t know afterwards because our elections are not audited. My interest in election integrity started in January 2021, following the US presidential election. My office was inundated with people asking about whether election fraud, such as it was in the United States, could be happening in Australia. The problem is not whether election fraud is happening; the problem is that people think it is happening. Confidence in election outcomes is central to democracy.
The restrictions around COVID have people at boiling point. Small business closures, job losses, high-handed bureaucrats and politics have reduced many people to desperation. The next election will be a powder keg. It is essential to ensure that, whatever the result, the public can accept it and move on. Suspicion of the outcome can be easily fuelled and turned into violence by those who seek to manipulate the result for their own ends. We cannot let this happen. It is for this reason that New South Wales and Western Australia have provisions in their electoral acts to audit state elections.
New South Wales conducts an audit before each election to ensure systems are fit for purpose and then audits again after each election to ensure integrity and to see what can be improved for next time. Western Australia audits after every election.
The Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 does not have audit provisions. In February, I started asking questions of the Australian Electoral Commission, the AEC. To be honest, I expected to hear that auditing was under control given the reputation the Australian Electoral Commission claims it has. That’s not what I found. The Australian Electoral Commission told me in Senate estimates that the Australian Signals Directorate had conducted an audit of the Australian Electoral Commission’s software. The next day in Senate estimates I asked the Australian Signals Directorate if they had done that audit and the answer was a clear no. The Australian Electoral Commission tried to conflate the security audit conducted by the Australian Signals Directorate with an audit of software and systems to pretend our software was being audited and, by extension, was fit for purpose. It has not been audited. The election software is not fit for purpose.
So why did the Australian Electoral Commission make a false statement or imply a false statement? The Australian Signals Directorate looked at potential intrusions into the system, both electronic and physical. Following the audit, the Australian Signals Directorate proceeded with an uplift program designed to harden the AEC network. I call that a fail. If your systems were audited for cybersecurity and the outcome was a comprehensive uplift program to improve your security then clearly the system failed the audit. What else would fail an audit at the Australian Electoral Commission?
In the May Senate estimates I asked the Australian Electoral Commission simple questions. When did the Australian Signals Directorate audit happen? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What was actually audited? The Australian Electoral Commission gave no useful response. What was the result of the audit? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. What changes to the Australian Electoral Commission’s systems have been made in the uplift program? The Australian Electoral Commission declined to answer. Could the Australian Electoral Commission guarantee that the uplift program would render the Australian Electoral Commission computer system fit for purpose? The Australian Electoral Commission responded that nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose. Let that sink in. Nobody could ever guarantee their systems are fit for purpose—the Australian Electoral Commission admitted it.
It is disturbing that such an audit could happen behind closed doors without direction or without structure. It is more disturbing still that this program has no legal basis in the Australian Commonwealth Electoral Act. We should not have to rely on the admirable conscientiousness of the Australian Signals Directorate. We should be able to rely on the completeness of our legislation. We need it fixed. It must be fixed.
Then I looked at other issues around election integrity. First up was a simple question: is the electronic data file containing each vote ever compared back to the paper ballot after the vote has been adjudicated? That answer is no. At no time is the electronic record of a vote checked back against the paper ballot. Senator Birmingham and the Australian Electoral Commission have assured us that there is a check, yet when we peer through the veil of language deliberately calculated to obfuscate no such check is happening, contrary to the minister’s response. The only time this happens is when a ballot is disputed and a paper ballot is pulled out for scrutiny. After the ballot is adjudicated, there is no further check.
These votes are sitting for up to a month in a system that failed an Australian Signals Directorate security test. Data integrity requires that a final audit be conducted immediately before declaration of the poll by pulling paper ballots out at random and comparing them back to the electronic record and vice versa. It’s one day’s work for all the counting staff as they finish their regular counting. It will not delay the result. It will guarantee that the system has not been compromised accidentally or by a malicious party.
My second question was on the accuracy of the voter rolls. The Australian Electoral Commission used to check the accuracy of their rolls by conducting residency checks.
Before this system was discontinued in 1995, those checks revealed a significant number of false registrations: people who had left the country, people who had died and people who had moved. Most of the incidences of multiple voting stem from voting in their old location and their new location: double voting. This legislation does not address that problem. How can anyone say that the voter roll is accurate if they never check it?
My third question is on the software algorithm at the Senate scanning centre that allocates preferences. The Australian Electoral Commission publishes what is basically a data dump of the raw vote count. Leading cryptographers, led by Dr Vanessa Teague, from the Australian National University, have written a check routine to test the preference flow against the published result. Their finding was that the Senate preference flow was correct, so we know this this aspect of the Australian Electoral Commission software works. Why it is up to the university academics to write complicated software at their own expense and on their own time to audit our elections? Since when did the government decide to crowdsource its job? So, what next? A GoFundMe page to pay for it?
This is why next week I will introduce into the Senate the Commonwealth electoral amendment (integrity of elections) bill 2021. This bill requires a preaudit of the Australian Electoral Commission systems prior to each election to ensure the systems are fit for purpose. It requires an audit after the election, as New South Wales and Western Australia require and as the ACT proposes. We propose an audit of the electoral roll and voter ID: voter identification. In short, this bill will audit the elections and the voter. Then we will all have confidence in the next election result.
After decades of this Lib-Lab parliament, people are starting to see how parliament is failing our country. The Lib-Lab duopoly, though, is desperate to continue its hold on a parliament that has a record of decades of not serving the people of Australia. We, though, are keen to restore parliamentary democracy. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/0.jpg?fit=480%2C360&ssl=1360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-26 17:32:512021-08-27 11:58:57Election Integrity – What has the government got to hide?
Sports rorts, carpark scandals, corrupt water trading, crooked disaster funding projects, AusPost CEOs being forced out for not pleasing government party hacks. This government disrespects the people of Australia so they can look after their corporate mates.
Transcript
Earlier this month in my flag speech I spoke of parliament’s duty to serve the people. Today I’m asking: who does this parliament really serve? I’ll review the Morrison government’s actions and this parliament’s actions that carry the stench of cronyism and corruption.
I’ll start with changes to water policy that Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard introduced in 2007. Those changes turned ownership and the trading of water rights into a $20 billion industry. Large corporate interests, trade union bosses controlling industry super funds and National Party powerbrokers have rushed to take advantage of this new wealth. And by taking advantage, I really mean make out like bandits at the expense of family farms that can no longer afford water for their crops. I’m raising this issue first up because it illustrates how things are done in federal parliament.
The Water Act requires a transparent water-trading register. The government tried to introduce one in 2012, stuffed it up and then gave up. I thought asking the government to take another run at it—to reveal who was lining their pockets with the proceeds of water speculation—would be straightforward. How naive was that! My amendment was opposed. The same parties, the Liberals and Nationals, that passed the legislation in the first place requiring a water-trading register, opposed my amendment that sought to ensure compliance with the parliament’s legislation. The Senate, with Labor’s support, passed my amendment. It proceeded to the lower house, where Labor rejected it. What happened in the 100 metres between the Senate and the House of Representatives? The fix happened—the fix to protect corporate water traders. Labor agreed to cover for its Liberal and Nationals mates and they returned the favour. That’s how this parliament works. Cronyism is an art form.
The same pattern of immoral behaviour occurred with the legislation One Nation introduced to stop banks bailing-in depositors’ funds to save banks in a crisis, stealing customers’ hard earned deposits. In 2018, parliament passed legislation to allow a bail-in as part of emergency financial measures. The Labor, Liberal, and National parties teamed up to oppose my bill and justified that action with a complete lie: that the emergency provisions did not give APRA the power to order a bail-in. My legislation to protect the one trillion dollars in bank deposits of everyday Australians was defeated, despite the Treasury admitting, in a briefing to my face, that those emergency provisions do allow a bail-in. The Liberal-National and Labor duopoly lied so their donors in the major banks can keep the right to steal your money to save themselves.
The same cronyism was in place over the Christine Holgate watch scandal at Australia Post. As we now know, those watches were given to management as a reward for completing a very profitable deal for Australia Post. Australia Post executives accepted the watches and agreed to forgo much larger bonuses. Why would the Prime Minister and the parliament misrepresent a measure that saved Australia Post money? It’s because Christine Holgate had negotiated a fee with the banks of $20 million a year for the provision of banking services through licensed post offices, but the banks wanted a bigger share of those profits. Christine Holgate made the mistake of costing the big four banks money, and an example had to be made of her. What a show Scott Morrison put on! After Ms Holgate was sacked, and Australia Post was placed back into the hands of friendlies, the deal was renegotiated. The banks are now only paying half that, $10 million per year, and 4,000 licensed post office franchisees got screwed. How much did it cost the banks to get the outcome they wanted from this parliament?
In the last election cycle Australian banks donated $500,000 to the Liberal and National parties and $400,000 to the Labor Party.
There’s more. The Australian people can see that cronyism extends to pharmaceuticals. Most people don’t know who funds the body that approves pharmaceuticals in Australia—the Therapeutic Goods Administration, known as the TGA. The big pharmaceutical companies applying for approvals themselves fund the TGA. The expert committees that advise the TGA on what to approve are comprised largely of university academics, whose departments receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. That doesn’t pass the pub test, nor does this. In the last election cycle the pharmaceutical industry donated $276,000 to Labor and $400,000 to the Liberals and Nationals.
Earlier this year One Nation combined with the Greens to extend the licences of community TV stations C31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, after Malcolm Turnbull in 2012 confiscated those free-to-air transmission rights to force viewers back to commercial TV owned by his mates. C31 and Channel 44 survived on the back of large public campaigns. Why was it so hard to get an extension for community TV to use a spectrum that’s not needed until 2024? Could it be because the commercial stations, through Free TV Australia, donated $17,000 to Labor and $13,000 to the Liberals? That, of course, is the problem.
Yesterday in the Senate the Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly teamed up to stop the measures that One Nation and Senator Rex Patrick jointly proposed to make Woodside Petroleum pay for the $2 billion cost of cleaning up their environmental damage in the Timor Sea. Woodside easily evaded its responsibilities to the people of Australia. It simply sold the little bit of extraction left in the gas field, including its clean-up liability, to a small company for a few million dollars. That company was then wound up. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the clean-up. One Nation’s amendment would have restored the liability on Woodside. The crossbench supported that. Labor and the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Then I discovered that Woodside donated $135,000 to Labor and $148,000 to the Liberals and Nationals. What a surprise!
Then there’s the Beetaloo basin. It’s in the news this week because the government passed legislation to allow cash payments to its mining mates to frack the Beetaloo basin. Guess who funds the cost of the exploration—some $7 million per well? Taxpayers via a grant, yet the gas extraction company owns the well and keeps the profits from the extraction. This little earner is called socialising the risk and the costs while privatising the profits. The first recipient of this cronyism was Empire Energy, a Liberal Party donor. But you didn’t hear this from the opposition, because Empire Energy donated $25,000 to the Labor Party. In echoing Senator Hanson’s repeated calls, Senator Patrick rightly pointed out that the oil and gas industry exported $62 billion in 2018-19 and paid taxpayers just $1 billion in royalties. The taxpayers are getting royally screwed by this crony capitalist approach to government.
One Nation support free enterprise; we do not support cronyism. Earlier this year One Nation introduced a motion to refer to a Senate inquiry the misuse of federal government disaster relief funds. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are being misappropriated, with no suitable work being conducted. The Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly rode to the rescue of their mates and voted down our motion—no inquiry.
The car park scandal has seen the Morrison government give $420 million of taxpayer money for commuter car parks in areas that don’t need commuter car parks, including three in the Treasurer’s electorate and one for a train station that’s closing. I assume that even this government is not stupid enough to build a car park at a train station that is not there anymore, so I wait to see which of the government’s mates just got free car parks. The sports rorts scandal, the Inland Rail infrastructure grants, the Kimba radioactive waste dump, the Murray-Darling Basin’s upwater program and ‘watergate’ are all corruption scandals that a federal corruption commission, if we had one, would have dealt with. Parliament rubberstamps decisions and policies, costing the people trillions of dollars so mates can feed off taxpayers, bludge off taxpayers and transfer wealth from taxpayers. The people are rightly angry.
Decisions taken in the parliament must not only be honest, they must be seen to be honest and be justified with hard, solid data.
Australian voters will shortly be asked to pass judgement on this sorry parliament. Make no mistake, voting for the Liberal Party with their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, or voting for Labor and their ticket to power, the Greens, will represent business as usual for the Liberal-Labor duopoly that has ruled this parliament for decades. It’s now time, at the next election, to break this cycle of abuse. Stop repeatedly alternating Liberal-Nationals with Labor and expecting anything to change. It’s now time to change the parliament.
There are many third parties putting their hands up in this election, and none have a track record of achievement greater than One Nation. I’m very proud of the contribution Senator Hanson, Mark Latham, Steve Andrew, Rob Roberts and I have made and are making to restore governance to Australia. Despite the Liberal, Labor and Nationals parties’ many dishonest attempts to destroy her, for 25 years Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have remained true to the Australian people, and we will continue to be so. In conclusion, I make an observation regarding the perspex security screen that now protects the Leader of the Government in the Senate from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and vice versa. This screen sends a powerful message to the Australian people: the Senate chamber now resembles a visitation centre at one of Her Majesty’s prisons. How very appropriate! This is not a parliament; it’s a crime scene.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-MU2Fw7vlho/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-26 10:01:442021-10-14 15:33:24THIS IS NOT A PARLIAMENT: IT’S A CRIME SCENE
