Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Coronavirus and Australian Economic Stimulus

Transcript

Thank you mister acting deputy president. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I advise that One Nation will support the government’s measures tackling COVID-19, Coronavirus.

We don’t agree with them all, yet now is when the government that the people elected must be allowed to govern. I will raise serious questions about the government’s approach to fulfilling its three core responsibilities.

Protecting life, protecting property and protecting freedom. All three are relevant tonight. We are well aware of the devastating effects and the human tragedy that this virus is leaving in its wake around the world.

Now it is taking a hold and its attack on Australia and on Australians. Many people have died, and unfortunately, many more will die or be scarred. The World Health Organisation says that of the people who contract the virus, 3.4% will die, yet there are many factors, including transmission rate and whether or not a nations health care system is overwhelmed.

Experts tell us that everyone will eventually get Coronavirus. Using these figures simplistically means that 850,000 Australians would die. That’s staggering, yet we must remain calm though, because such broad figures cannot be applied so simply, and we can do much better when we are committed.

Italy’s early figures show a fatality rate much higher than this 3.4%. South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, much, much lower around one tenth. The first step is to protect people, to prevent deaths.

That means stopping or reducing the transmission, and that means in part stopping human interaction. This virus easily transmits itself from human to human. Secondly, preventing overwhelming of our health care system, so that everyone can get effective treatment.

Thirdly, identifying economic impacts, serious economic challenges, because without human interactions, economies contract. Fourth, identifying which industries, sectors and individuals will need assistance.

Fifth, what are the sources of funding and the areas for reducing peoples expenses. And finally, we need to consider how to restore our economy afterwards. That involves short term and long term factors to restore our nation’s productive capacity and economic resilience.

Let’s return to the first step. Some foreign governments acted swiftly to stop the virus. They immediately closed borders and sent people home to protect them and to help isolate and stop the virus.

They proactively quarantined, including closing schools while infection numbers were low. They took immediate action to help curb the spread of this killer. We may or may not know who shares this deadly virus with us, a friend, a relative who does not know they even have the virus themselves, yet the death rate isn’t the only determining factor regarding how deadly a pandemic can be.

It will be the impact on our families, our businesses, on the economy, and on our way of life. Who knows what life will be like after this storm passes. Minister, every day Australians are more and more concerned, and we rely on our governments to protect us, yet in Canberra yesterday we saw shoppers mingling normally, the same in Brisbane restaurants.

It’s time for decisive action to protect our health, our children, our jobs and their countries future. The sooner we act to stop transmitting the virus and isolate it, the safer Australians will be, and the fewer will die.

The 1918 Spanish flu epidemic was the deadliest flu season we know, killing around 50 million people. The Coronavirus, COVID-19 is no less a killer, and it is easier for humans to catch than 1918 Spanish flu.

Now I base my facts, my data on reports from Taiwan, South Korea, China and Singapore, and from the western countries that are currently floundering like Italy, the UK, the USA and more.

I have become very concerned that we need decisive action, and that we need a stronger, broader, deeper response now. The question is which is more important, peoples lives or the economy?

It’s not appropriate to try a balancing act. The high priority is to protect peoples health, and I commend the government for acting, yet we have to be both dynamic and aggressive in attacking this enemy, and base decisions on data.

From a strategic point of view, our choices in combating this deadly virus are either mitigation or suppression, yet what does this mean? Mitigation involves voluntary isolation and trying to reduce the impact like Italy, France, Spain, Britain and the USA, yet this has the potential that very soon we will see overwhelm of our healthcare system, destroy the economy and needlessly cost Australian lives.

Mitigation takes time, and experience overseas, as in Italy, says it is killing more people. Suppression though is preferred, and is the enforced isolation of the population as in Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea.

It involves aggressive testing and then managed treatments. Suppression could cut this horrendous mortality rate from five percent in Italy to point six of a percent in South Korea.

The harsh enforcement of suppression is against our democratic ideals, and our friendly outdoors lifestyle, yet doing it will save potentially hundreds of thousands of Australian lives, and this does not include the collateral damage, where people in need are not able to get into intensive care units.

We should not assume that there is a hospital bed waiting for us if we get sick or injured. The data suggests that using mitigation strategies, only one in 30 infected people will be able to get into an ICU bed in Australia.

That means that intensive care units and the health care system will be completely overwhelmed. Patients will be lying in hospital corridors. Nurses and doctors will decide who survives and who dies, and that’s a terrible, scary responsibility for professionals who care.

Media reports from Italy say that people over 80 years of age are now not treated. Some victims of Coronavirus, and there could likely be many, will need intensive care units, because COVID-19 is a respiratory disease, and many people will need intubation.

What is going to happen to those who would normally be referred to an ICU unit for other causes, like major trauma, or severe burns, respiratory failure, organ transplant, car accidents?

Sick or injured Australians may not find a bed that does not already have a Coronavirus patient in it, and that means more deaths. According to the experts and overseas data, suppression is best, but we’re not doing it.

After that, it’s going to take an effective vaccine, which is up to a year away, and then herd immunity, which blocks out the virus when we become immune from already having had COVID-19.

The overseas data seems to show that right now, we need a suppression strategy until we develop a vaccine. Our government isn’t there yet, and complacency kills. Reportedly in South Korea, comprehensive testing for body temperature is followed with testing high temperature people for COVID-19.

Those with the virus are isolated, as are those with weaker immunity. The majority of people stay at work and keep going, that means much less economic disruption to the economy.

Until the government takes stronger action, we’re all going to need to practise social distancing to help minimise the number of people who contract the virus. In simple terms, we all need to keep our distance from others, practise good hygiene, including regular hand washing and surface cleaning, eating well, resting and being considerate of others.

We’ll need to work together to limit exposure to one another, especially with older adults and people with underlying illnesses who have the greatest risk of developing severe symptoms.

Though we do need to take action to contain the spread, and to protect our most vulnerable Australians, we all have to take responsibility for the health and welfare of ourselves and others.

It is time to be care and be kind. We have every reason to stay calm and make decisions based on data and facts.

Minister, a matter of importance is that every day Australians are calling now for detailed and regular information and updates, and people want information when and where we need it, often.

Australians deserve to know the data and the facts about what the government is doing, and what is happening to us here and overseas. Television and the internet may not be available or enough.

The government must engage effectively to keep us all up to date with facts. I especially want to express Australia’s thanks and best wishes to all of our health care professionals, our heroes, for what they are doing, and for what they are going to do in the tough months ahead.

Some have talked about bringing health professionals out of retirement. This may be a good idea, provided the older professionals themselves are not in a high risk group to get this sinister virus.

To all those who step up to the challenge, and to those who support our health care heroes, we thank you. Who knows what Australia and indeed the world will look like after this menace is overcome.

I just hope that the actions that our national and state governments are taking today will be quick and decisive, and ensure that we are saving as many Australian lives as possible. The sooner we are through this event, the sooner we can all get back to normal.

One Nation has scrutinised the bill, and in the interest of speedy action and support for people across our country, will vote in favour. I do those want to address two measures we appose strongly.

Firstly the business growth front. Recently the cross bench came together to appose this legislation. We raised many, many problems with how this terrible legislation would work in practise.

We pointed out that there is already a patient capital industry in this country. This legislation will eliminate it. That will reduce competition for the major banks. That will increase returns for the banks.

We pointed out that Australian tax payers would now subsidise the local arm of foreign corporations to the detriment of Australian owned businesses. We said that the government has no place trying to pick winners in the venture capital space, no place eliminating competition for the banks.

All these objections and more have been ignored. Now I find the bill has been included in the rescue package, so we can no longer appose it. The Liberals, Nationals and Labour worked on this together.

The Liberal, Labour duopoly will do whatever it takes to transfer wealth from everyday Australians to their mates in the banks, even at the cost of wiping out our entire venture capital industry.

I thought this was a rescue package, not a wipe out the banks, wipe out the competition to the banks package. I do find one thing interesting, mister acting deputy president, one of the suggestions by Senator Patrick was to turn this fund into an underwriting fund.

That would allow the existing venture capital market to make loans the government underwrites. This is a much safer bet for the tax payers. Our risk ends as soon as the loan is made.

Imagine my surprise when I opened the rescue package and saw the guarantee of lending to small and medium enterprises bill, a 20 billion dollar fund, not an underwriting fund, a guarantee fund.

The tax payers will be guaranteed 20 billion dollars worth of loans. My first thought was, doesn’t this fund make the business growth fund moot? What has the venture capital industry done to bring the wrath of the banks down on them?

The Liberal Labour banking cheer squad have moved the risk for 20 billion dollars worth of small business loans from the banks to tax payers, yet risk is what the banks deal in. If the government is now picking up the banking sector risk, is that government becoming a bank?

So let me take that a step further, it is One Nation policy to create a peoples bank, to give the big four banks some real competition in the areas in which they are complete failures. Failures in talking about honesty and integrity and accountability.

A peoples bank would be really handy right now, at least we would be propping up a bank we own. The second area that causes us alarm is the 115 billion dollars this government and the reserve bank is about to spend on securitized mortgages.

At senate estimates earlier this month, I asked the reserve bank if they had actually checked the 300 billion dollars they’re already holding in securitized mortgages. By checked, I mean picked a trench at random, cracked it open, made sure the paperwork was in order, the properties were correctly valued, and the mortgaging income and assets were correct.

The reserve bank admitted to me that it has never opened any of these trenches. Now I know from banking victims, cases that flood my office, that mortgages are being altered after being issued.

The scam is to make a mortgage look better so it can be securitized. This government must check these things before it buys them with tax payer money. Now let me turn to the one thing that is missing from this package, and that is simply the future.

Can this government really only think a few months ahead? Where is the vision in this rescue package? Why are we not getting cracking today on nation building schemes to create new productive capacity to power this nation to a future?

To create fresh wealth for every day Australians. Where is the Bradfield scheme? Where are the dams, the power stations, the ports and airports? Where are the railways to places that need them?

We’re selling off our farms, shrinking rural Australia, shredding jobs and sending the profits from this new corporate agriculture to the Cayman Islands. Where are the governments measures to save rural Australia?

Wait, Liberal Labour governments are the ones killing rural Australia for 30 years. Where is the billion dollars for South Australia’s South East drainage project? To turn the drains around and send 400 gigaliters a year of fresh water back into the Coorong.

This will save our Ramsar listed wetland, with all the tourism and commerce that brings. It will save the Menindee Lakes wetland from being drained again. It will free up hundreds of gigaliters of water for irrigation, to grow billions of dollars of food and fibre for the world and earn us exports.

Where is the government’s response to the PFAS contamination? Yes that will be expensive to fix, yet it will inject billions into regions right across Australia, as we move effected residents out into like for like properties, and remediate the environmental damage. What a perfect time to be doing that.

What about restoring land rights, land use rights to farmers who bought them, yet the Howard Liberal government and many state Labour governments since have stolen without compensation.

If not under our constitution, farmers, if not restored under our constitution, farmers need to be compensated. Restoration or compensation, so our farmers can get on with the job. What about stopping the waste of billions on subsidies for expensive, intermittent solar and wind power?

Bring jobs back to Australia with affordable energy using our abundance of energy currently exported to our competitors for cheap energy. The minister of age care today told us that a major global source of personal protective equipment for healthcare and age care workers is, wait for it, Wuhan, the virus epicentre.

This virus has taught us about the stupidity and the cost of the globalist elites in United Nations preaching interdependence. This virus shows that interdependence is really dependency.

We need to restore our productive capacity, our economic resilience and our economic independence. One Nation would build for our future and put people to work, not just put the entire nation onto unemployment benefits.

For this, we rely on our government to protect us, to help protect our health, our economy, our jobs and our way of life. In all respects, we need decisive action and we need it now. People need reassurance, confidence, hope, support and care.

Today I asked the government questions about why they have chosen to use the Mitigation strategy to deal with the Corona Virus rather than the Suppression method

Mitigation, involves voluntary isolation and trying to reduce the impact like Italy and the USA, yet this has the potential that very soon we will overwhelm our healthcare system.

Suppression, is the enforced isolation of the population like in Taiwan recently. It involves aggressive testing and then managed treatment – not only has significantly lower fatalities, it has much, much less impact on economy.

Senator Cash’s first answer showed no understanding of the two vastly different strategies available to national governments.

Second answer: reportedly South Koreans test everyone’s temperature when entering buildings/workplaces and if high temp they get tested for CV. Then if fail the test, isolated. If pass the test go to work with a note saying high temp is not due to CV.

Additionally I asked why Australia’s hospital beds: in the 55 years from 1961 to 2015, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people in Australia fell from 12 to 3.8, a decrease of two-thirds.

In Italy, the number fell from nine to 3.5. In South Korea, though, it has risen from less than one to almost 12. In Japan it increased from nine to 13. What will be the impact of high immigration numbers on coronavirus’s potential for overwhelming our hospital system?

The signs are that a senior minister does not understand the core issues that are in play. She parrots the stock answers from the Department.

There is data now that shows we need to question everything and get the data that is now becoming available around the world.

Transcript

  • Thank you, Mr. President, my question is to the minister representing the Minister for Health. Has the minister gathered data to compare the two different virus management approaches being mitigation, used in Italy, France, and U.S.A. and elsewhere, or suppression, practised successfully in Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore? In asking this question, I note that South Korea first let things get out of hand like Italy, and then, through rigorous testing, specific isolation and treatment, the South Koreans quickly brought it under control at minimal cost and with minimal disruption to their economy. Has the minister gathered data to compare the two different virus management approaches, being mitigation, that has failed, and suppression that is proving to be so effective and successful?
  • [President] The minister representing the Minister for Health, Senator Cash.
  • Thank you, Mr. President, and I thank Senator Roberts for his question. In relation to the gathering of data itself, I will take that on notice, but in terms of the Australian Government’s approach, Senator Roberts, I’ll reconfirm what the Minister for Finance, the Leader of the Government, has stated. This is an unprecedented challenge and it has required an unprecedented response. In terms of the Australian Government’s response, you’d be aware, Australia is well-placed with a world-class health system. We also have a health system and health emergency responses that are flexible, they are scalable, and they are able to respond effectively to the evolving situation. Australia has been responding to rapid changes in the epidemiology of COVID-19 and activated and is implementing the Australian Health Sector Emergency Response plan for Novel Coronavirus, which as you now know, is known as the COVID-19 Plan. Australia, because of the response that we have taken, is well-placed to respond to ill travellers and those at risk of contracting infection with border isolation, surveillance, and contact tracing mechanisms already in place. You’ll also be aware that a 24/7 national coronavirus health information line is available. for the benefit of Hansard, on 1800 020 080, and what this health line actually does is provides health and situation information on the COVID-19 outbreak. Senator Roberts, I would also point out, this is very, very important, the Australian Government is also aware of COVID-19 disinformation, misinformation, and scams–
  • Order, Senator Cash.
  • Targeting Australians.
  • [President] Time for the answer has expired. Senator Roberts, a supplementary question.
  • Thank you, Mr. President. Minister, if the Government adopted rigorous testing, combined with strict isolation for people with the virus, and for vulnerable people, then most every day Australians could return to work with minimal disruption to them or our economy. Has the minister modelled this, and will you consider changing Australia’s mitigation strategy that is failing disastrously in Italy and wherever it is used, and instead adopt a rigorous testing and suppression strategy, reportedly highly successful in South Korea and elsewhere?
  • [President] Senator Cash.
  • Thank you, Mr. President. Senator Roberts, to confront the threat of Coronavirus the Australian Government is ensuring, we know who has it, and where they are. Australia actually, as the Minister for Health has said often, has one of the highest Coronavirus testing rates in the world. I’ll just repeat that, one of the highest Coronavirus testing rates in the world with over 135,000 tests, they have been completed so far. In terms of the outcome of those tests, for every 100 tests completed, 99 have returned a negative result. I’ll say that again, for every 100 tests completed, 99 have returned a negative result. And that is why it is important that testing is only undertaken where the patient meets the national guidelines for testing.
  • [President] Order, Senator Cash. Senator Roberts, a final supplementary question.
  • Minister, a second associated factor, hospital beds. In the 55 years from 1961 to 2015, the number of hospital beds per 1,000 people in Australia fell from 12 to 3.8, a decrease of two-thirds. In Italy, the number fell from nine to 3.5. In South Korea, though, it has risen from less than one to almost 12. Japan increased from nine to 13. What would be the impact of high immigration numbers on coronavirus’ potential for overwhelming of our hospital system?
  • [President] Senator Cash.
  • Well again, Senator Roberts, the Australian Government has put in place incredibly strict procedures at the border. You will actually be aware that we have taken a number of decisions in relation to those who are now able to enter Australia, and in fact, a number of the states themselves, and Queensland being the most recent, have also now put in place very, very strict procedures in relation to who is able to enter the particular state, and if they do, in terms of the self-isolation that they are now required to undertake. So, Senator Roberts, in answer to your question, the Australian Government has taken a comprehensive response to the issues that you have raised.
  • [President] Senator Antic.

 I spoke about 3 “free trade” agreements that the Liberal, National and Labor party have voted together to approve.

Globalists united!

While there is some fantastic news for farmers, the Indonesian agreement is a stinker.

————————————————————————-

My first comment, Mr President is to criticise this Government for bundling 3 free trade agreements into the one piece of legislation. It is no wonder that we are being forced to vote for or against these agreements as some bizarre “job lot”, because the Indonesia Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement is a stinker.

The dishonesty from this government extends beyond bundling the agreements. It extends to the lies this Government is telling about the agreements.

Let me talk about ISDS – Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions in all 3 of these agreements before us today.

These clauses allow private companies to sue the Australian Government if our actions cost them money.

Let me give you some examples.

When President Putin came to power he took on the corrupt Oligarchs that exploited the end of communism to steal everything worth stealing, and then pay no taxes on all this wealth. Putin cleaned up the oligarchs and many fled overseas. From there they used ISDS provisions to sue Putin for acting in Russia’s best interests, and for making them pay their fair share of tax. And they won Mr President.

Now I know why Prime Minister Morrison loves ISDS provisions so much. Large corporates paying their fair share of tax, Mr President, not on the Prime Minister’s watch!

Renco Group Inc., a company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter Peru which is one of the 10 most polluted mining sites in the world. Peru took Renco to their local court to force Renco to install sulphur filters to make the air in neighbouring villages breathable.

A local Court found in the villagers favour, but then Renco moved the case to an ISDS panel and won.

This is One Nation’s objections to ISDS provisions. It takes justice away from everyday Australians and moves it into international Courts where even a small case costs in the tens of millions.

In these courts there is no national interest, there is no thoughts of common law protections of our inaliable human rights, no consideration of basic principles of justice.

National interest is subverted to corporate profits and to hell with the consequences for everyday citizens.

Could this heartless liberal nationals government be summed up any better than that.

Let me turn to labour market provisions. This agreement allows Indonesia to supply 4100 new temporary visa holders into the Australian market, rising to 5000 annually by 2024.

In addition, this agreement requires Australia to send trainers to Indonesia to skill their labour force up to Australian standards, so even more can come over.

We are not asking if they are going to take jobs from everyday Australians.
We are not asking what effect this will have on the lives, businesses and wages of tradies and construction workers in particular.

Mr President there are currently 1.4 million of these temporary work visa holders in Australia. Every new trade agreement brings more.

Co-incidentally there are also 1.4 million Australians who are unemployed or underemployed.

Yet all we hear from the Government, and oddly today, from the ALP, is that this immigration leads to more jobs.

If more of these workers leads to jobs growth Mr President when is that going to happen?

When are our 1.4 million unemployed and underemployed going to benefit from all these corporate trade agreements?

The answer Mr President is that it will not. These agreements exist to bring in large numbers of foreign workers, to drive down wages and maximise corporate profits.

Australian is used to that from the Liberal National Party.
My question, Mr President, is why is the Australian Labor Party voting for this stinker?

Aren’t you supposed to be the party of labour?

Aren’t you supposed to protect Australian workers?

Apparently not.

There is one aspect of these agreements that One Nation does support.
This is the expansion of Australia’s farm exports.

A half a million tonnes of grain to Indonesia along with a 1300% increase in cattle exports by 2050. Dairy gets another $6 million in exports. Carrot and potato tariffs are eliminated.

The Peru agreement will eliminate a 17 per cent tariff on beer, a 9 per cent tariff on wine and will allow market access for Australian sugar, dairy, beef, lamb, cereals and nuts.

In a time of drought these targets may be at best theoretical, but this drought will not last forever. It will rain again and when it does, these additional markets will be critical to getting our farmers back on their feet.
Our struggling manufacturing sector will benefit from another 250,000 tonnes of steel to Indonesia, and from market access to Peru for our pharmaceutical and minerals markets.

Ultimately, the absolute necessity of keeping our economy out of recession by developing these new markets has decided our vote on this matter.

In response to a motion from Senator Hanson-Young, I outlined how the Greens keep changing their position until the UN’s Agenda 2030 Sustainable goals are reached.

The Greens in Tasmania led the war against the forestry industry for decades in the name of conservation. This war against the sustainable forestry industry has seen a decline in the industry, including jobs losses and communities struggling to survive.

In its place the Greens argued, would spring a new tourism boom that would enable Australians and international visitor a chance to visit the incredible natural Tasmanian wilderness.

So now that the free market is looking to invest in the Greens new tourism industry, what do they want to do? Change the rules. They want to change the rules because their intent was never to transition from forestry to tourism but to lock-up and lock-out everyone from enjoying nature.

So what do “high end resorts” bring? High end customers. Wealthy consumers who will help create jobs, create thriving communities with high-end local services and products. Not everyone likes a rugged camping holiday, or a rustic bungalow, some like to have some modern comforts and turning away these consumers is an idea that could only be dreamed up in the fairyland that the Greens exist in.

Farmers have helped build this country but are now being hindered from farming the land by unnatural bureaucracy and unnatural levels of ignorance.

They are in the firing line from the United Nations for being one of the causes of “climate change” and by inner city greens from everything to fabricated animal cruelty claims and causing bushfires.

Our farms are being deprived of water by terrible government regulation.

What happens to a property in a drought once it is deprived of water? It turns into a wasteland with a corresponding loss of habitat for native Australian animals.

Farms are a part of the environment and not separate from it. The Murray Darling Basin plan is devastating the environment by depriving water to farms.

Australia became a signatory to the Lima Declaration in 1975, at the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), held in Lima.

Australia committed to adopting trade measures designed to ensure increased exports from developing countries to developed countries, including to Australia.

These measures have been devastating to Australian industry, agriculture, and the Australian economy in general.

A global approach has not been good for Australian interests when Australian interests must come first.

The major parties have let down the Australian public in many ways. This is just another example of a sell out by the government of the interests of Australians. I support the Amendments as moved by Senator Patrick that would maintain the protections as achieved by the current innovation patent system and am opposed to the removal of this innovation patent system.

Why has the government introduced their ‘big stick’ legislation to try and force the energy retailers to offer cheaper prices? Government climate regulation has wrecked the energy market and now the government think they can fix the problem with more climate regulations.

The solution to cheaper power prices is competitive federalism. Remove all climate regulations and let the energy market compete for customers on cheaper prices. The State/s that support the free market will be rewarded with businesses flooding to their States to invest.

I grit my teeth because I have to support this bill to close the exploitation which the Lib/Lab parties have design into their duopoly energy policy.