Tues 5-Dec-2023 | This was voted down by Labor, Liberal-Nationals, the Greens & the Lambie Network.
What have these parties got to hide that they DO NOT WANT an agency that decides billions of dollars in government projects to divulge conflicts of interest?
I once said that this parliament is a crime scene and our new government doesn’t look any better. Both major parties are rife with undeclared conflicts of interest and cronyism. A Federal ICAC must be able to investigate all of the lobbying and cronyism happening in Australia’s Parliament.
I’m meeting this week with Attorney-General Dreyfus to review the planned national anticorruption commission. I’ll be taking One Nation’s position to the Attorney-General—that checks and balances must be in place to preclude witch-hunts. The terms of reference must allow for all outside influence on our decision-making to be identified and removed. Outside influences are driving lucrative subsidies for unreliable solar and wind energy. These subsidies are lining the pockets of donors and sponsors of members of parliament in both chambers—cronyism worth tens of billions of dollars.
In my speech entitled ‘This parliament is a crime scene‘, I detailed the cronyism that infected the previous Liberal-National government. Crikey (Queensland ALP has a conflict of interest) has now detailed similar cronyism and conflicts of interest in the Labor Party and their affiliated fundraising entities. Running government for the benefit of oneself or one’s party’s finances is a betrayal of the trust the Australian people have placed in us. It is corruption and it destroys confidence in government and governance. A government without the confidence of the people must rely on authoritarian measures to maintain control.
This is the path the state and federal governments chose to take during COVID, and those powers have now become permanent. Freedoms stolen are never willingly surrendered. A federal ICAC must investigate the many conflicts of interest and tainted decision-making in governments’ COVID responses—questions of complicity, cover-ups and cronyism. A royal commission, though, is the only way to deal with the wider illegal issues that arose during COVID. Constitutional questions about federal and state roles, the legal standing of the National Cabinet, vaccine mandates in the public and private sectors, the use of troops against law-abiding citizens, criminal harm from medical procedures conducted under duress and police use of excessive force must all be reviewed before we can move on, or we will be there again.
We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation founded on freedom and personal responsibility.
Today Senator Patrick moved a motion to upend the business in the Senate. While an ICAC is important, we need to do it in an orderly way so that it can be adequately debated and properly passed.
One Nation has always supported an integrity commission being established for the federal parliament—once we realised the parliament could not look after itself. We do, though, oppose Senator Patrick’s motion to suspend standing orders, and I’ll explain why.Corruption of federal taxpayer money to the tune of billions of dollars was a subject that we moved a motion to have a Senate inquiry into.
The Liberal Party opposed it, after initially supporting it. The Labor Party opposed it. The Greens opposed it. Senator Patrick opposed it. That was billions of dollars at stake.Secondly—water trading. It’s a breach of the Water Act, and the Liberals and Nationals have allowed it to continue. We moved a motion in this parliament to get it fixed.
It went to the lower house, where the Labor Party opposed it, the Liberal Party opposed it and the National Party opposed it—billions of dollars, again, there, and unfairness destroying regional communities.We also have a list of 28 people, which is supposed to be a watch list or a list with regard to paedophilia.
I contacted the person who raised that in an earlier parliament. A barrister, on my behalf, read that list. That list has no complainant—no identification as to who put forward that list. It also has no formal complaint and no evidence. But, in the process of that, the barrister I used found extensive need for cleaning up parliament, with regard to supporting paedophiles and other criminals.
We need to extend it properly, from parliamentarians to judges, to police and to bureaucrats. We need to do a good job. The government’s bill for an integrity commission is hopeless. It is not sincere, in my view.Helen Haines’s bill, the Australian Federal Integrity Commission Bill 2021, which is what Senator Patrick is supporting, has much to commend it.
We support it in principle. However, it leaves a lot to be desired in terms of some details, because it leaves people vulnerable and open to being besmirched—as we’ve seen happen in New South Wales—without evidence. That we cannot support. Such a bill must be debated extensively and not rushed through parliament.
We cannot do that in a morning.Senator Patrick himself said that we are now at the end of the 46th Parliament—exactly. Let the people judge in an election within the next three months. Let the people judge, because the Liberal-National coalition has not delivered on its promise.
The Prime Minister has told furphies about vaccine mandates not existing in this country. Tell that to the 25 million people in this country. That is a lie. Yet we now have the breaching of his promise. The people can judge him in three months. Each party should have a policy on this, and let the people judge each party on it. It seems to me that we need to assess people by their actions, their deeds, not by their words.
I think this is a stunt—trying to get media attention before a flagging election campaign. Regardless of my opinion, one thing is for sure: this parliament serves the major parties and their donors and vested interests, some of whom are outside this country.
We need to end that. We need to regain the people’s confidence in the parliament. We need to do that by making sure that the parliament returns to serving the people. We need the parliament to serve the people. That’s its job. We need to change the parliament, and to do that we need to change the way Australians vote.
We, as voters, as Australians, need to change the way we vote. Put the majors last; remember that in the coming election. Put the majors last.
I spoke to Marcus Paul about a big week in Parliament. As usual the media are up to their tricks while we’re focused on getting freedom back for Australians.
Nice to talk to you.
Same here.
Now, of course, I have to ask being that it’s such a big story at the moment, the issue with Jacqui Lambie, did you leak her personal phone number?
I did not. I did not.
Okay.
How can you leak something that’s already been public? Jacqui Lambie published her phone number in 2014, publicly on her Facebook page. She did it again multiple times in 2019 election campaign. Marcus, you cannot leak something that’s already in the public domain. It’s not private if it’s in the public domain. She’s been telling lies because look, this is the way I see it.
Sure.
She came out and savagely attacked Pauline Hanson and was wrong in many aspects. Even before,
Yeah.
That was on Monday after Pauline spoke very well about her anti-discrimination bill. But Jacqui Lambie was public in saying that she was against injection mandates sometime ago, months ago. And then she suddenly changed and became savagely opposite. And here she was savaging Pauline Hanson, and just making, in what many people said, was a complete fool of herself. And here’s what happened. She posted her speech on her Facebook page and her Facebook page overwhelmingly condemned her. And I’m guessing that Jacqui is quite startled by what happened. She’s put her foot in it. And she’s now trying to distract from that mess that she’s created. Don’t blame me. As Jacqui said on Monday, take responsibility for your statements. Jacqui, you made your bed, you lie in it.
All right, well it’s not just One Nation that she’s had a crack at. She’s, she’s wielded the stick towards everybody this week, including the prime minister. She was scathing of Scott Morrison as well. That happened just today after she attacked One Nation.
Well, you know, I don’t know what she said about Scott Morrison, but Scott Morrison has not been telling the truth either. I mean, the man is running around the country, telling people that we don’t have injection mandates in this country. That is a complete lie. The federal government enables the states to have injection mandates because it supplies the health data that the state governments rely on to enforce those injection mandates. The federal government is completely wrong in this.
Yeah.
It’s going against the constitution. We know of people in Airservices, which is the arm looking after the aviation fleet that looks after the politicians aircraft.
Right, yeah.
And they have been told they must get injected. Now that’s that goes against the Australian constitution. Scott Morrison is a marketing man. He’s not a leader. He has been bullied and he’s been bullying people. And some of the state premiers are the same. Annastacia Palaszczuk, Dan Andrews, these people are bullies. They’re not leaders. Leaders get data, listen to people, create a vision and then draw people with them. These people are pushing people. They’re injecting people, forcibly, coercively. These are not leaders. These are bullies and they’re liars.
Alright. Of course, it’s all about vaccine mandates. Now I know that obviously, you’ve, and One Nation have been fighting against them. I was surprised, I have to say, to see Matt Canavan was one of those liberal nationals from the LNP who crossed the floor and he’s been speaking out against the vaccine mandates as well.
Matt’s very astute. He’s a very good speaker. He’s very good with the media. He’s very, very colourful and clever. He does things sometimes and then says the opposite. He, it depends. He’s a bit like Shorten in that Shorten would say one thing in Melbourne and another thing, no, I’m serious. Another thing in central Queensland, when he visited central Queensland with regard to coal. Well Matt’s similar, he’s very, very clever. Look, he’s very intelligent. He’s very astute, but I don’t trust him. But what he’s doing, and I think he’s sincere on this one, but what he does is he pays very close attention to what Pauline and I say, there’s no doubt about that. And he comes out and takes some of our statements, our topics, our policies, because he knows that what we do is we build policies based upon what the people are saying and what people need. We listen to the people. So we’re in tune with the people, and Matt in the National Party, can’t do that because he’s locked into a government that is destroying this country.
Well, it’s destroying itself at the moment because of that.
So what Matt’s done, say what.
It’s destroying itself at the moment because of that,
Yes, it is! It is!
It’s imploding. Before our eyes.
Have you heard the latest question?
Tell me.
Will the death of the Liberal Party be attributed to COVID or to suicide?
Dear oh dearie me.
And it’s the same as with the media. The legacy media, Marcus, is turning into a circus. People don’t trust you anymore. I’m not saying you, I’m talking about the legacy media, you know, and I have a name like, I understand you had a crack at me a couple of days ago, which is your prerogative about Jacqui Lambie. Now Jacqui Lambie is telling, making false statements and false claims in the parliament, and you sided with her without understanding the data. I don’t call people in that position journalists, I call them turnalist. You turn lies into truth.
Well that’s why I did say in my comments that I would speak to you and get your side of the story. And that’s what I do on this programme. That’s why I’m chatting to you now, Malcolm.
That’s right. And I respect you and admire you for that, Marcus. That’s good.
You know, I was-
But there are so many legacy media journalists,
Yeah.
And the media is going down, media’s suiciding because people don’t trust the media anymore
No.
Because the media has become propagandists, become activists.
Yeah. Let’s look at this issue as well. There’s been some speaking of reportage, incorrect reporting that One Nation joined in defeating a proposed National Integrity Commission.
Bullshit! All right! Okay.
Bullshit.
Why?
We didn’t join with the government in defeating anything. There are basically, let’s for the sake of this argument, there are two types of motions. There are the bills that come up and legislation that is introduced largely by the government, because it is the government. That’s what the people decided.
Yeah
They’re introduced as legislation. You can side with the government or go against it. We have said very, very clearly, and we have done it every bill this week, we are opposing the government. We’re not just abstaining, going down the middle of the road. We are opposing the government to put pressure on this government to bring it to heel. Now, then there are other motions which are called procedural motions. Those things change the order of business for the day, and anybody can stand up and move a procedural motion, but they have to have the numbers. Now we then make our mind up on each of those according to the merits of the argument. What happened was that Rex Patrick moved a procedural motion to set aside standing orders and change the order of business to deal with the Integrity Commission Bill from Helen Haines.
Yeah.
It’s not a bad bill. You know, we’re inclined to support it with a couple of changes, but the vote was not on her bill. The vote was on whether or not to start discussing her bill. It was not appropriate for two reasons.
Okay.
First of all, there was other business, standard business in the Senate that needed to be addressed. Secondly, you can’t bring in an integrity commission debate without giving people notice to make speeches. We weren’t prepared.
Okay.
We’ve gotta do further work on it. So we stood up for the Senate and made sure that the Senate continued on it’s stable path. We didn’t wanna cause mayhem on that. And you can’t have an integrity commission coming in in five minutes, but there are certain things, Marcus, Pauline and I have both said that parliament has failed to look after itself. We need an integrity commission, but, we’ve also said we will not have something that puts politicians on display with no factual data and smears them and ridicules them, drags them through the mud, and then no charges at the end of it. I mean, some of these are just witch hunts, and that’s all they are. We’ve gotta have an integrity commission that has some guts, but also has some accountability to it.
All right, so in other words
At the moment, that’s not the case.
One Nation supports a national, federal integrity commission, but not as it’s currently being proposed. And you need more time to mull over if you like, any proposal and put forward any amendments that you might suggest would be a better option.
Correct.
So it’s not just a case, because I get a lot of, I’ll be honest with you and you obviously, the monitoring goes on and that’s fine. But a lot of people that might support this programme suggest to me, “Well, next time, can you ask Pauline why she votes against this? Can you ask Malcolm why they voted against that?” Why do they always seemingly side with the government, Malcolm?
Well that’s complete nonsense. We’ve just, there are two politicians in the Senate right now who are opposing every government bill until Scott Morrison ends the segregation and discrimination that is rampant in this country now in every state.
Yeah.
That’s me and Pauline. There are two other senators. That’s Gerrard Rennick. I’ll name them because I admire them for their courage and their integrity. Gerrard Rennick from Queensland in the Liberal Party, Alex Antic from South Australia in the Liberal Party who are abstaining. They’re abstaining right now, that’s putting a lot of
Well these rebel senators
Pressure on the government.
Well, you’re right. These rebel senators are causing headaches for Scott Morrison and his government.
Well see, it depends what you’re at, whether you’re journalists or turnalist. They’re not rebels. They’re doing their job. They’re revolting from, not revolting, but they’re not complying with dictates from the Liberal Party. Labor Party senators and MPS are gutless. They do not stand up for the people. They just cowtow the line with the Labor Party is pushing. Liberals. Most of them do the same, but some of them have a little bit of guts and courage. Rennick has got lots of guts and courage, and he’s got a lot of integrity, and he’s got a lot of sense. He’s a very intelligent man. Alex Antic is showing the same qualities and they are abstaining. Pauline and I are saying to hell with the government, you have to bring back freedom. It’s more, there are some bloody important bills, Marcus, that are coming up in the Senate. We will vote them down too even though they’re important to us because there’s something much more important. And that is freedom. Freedom is absolutely essential. And this country has gone to the dogs.
All right. Malcolm. You know I love chatting to you.
Mate, I’m still waiting.
Hmm, on?
I’m still waiting for you to bring someone who understands science, and a collection of stories and emotions mate, is not science. I’m happy to explain to you what science is and the importance of science.
I know what science is.
What is it?
Well, it’s a collation of obviously scientific evidence or proof that includes data, as you like to put it, empirical data that supports a point of view. But the thing is-
No, not a point of view.
Well…
You make a point of view based on the data.
Yeah.
It’s done within a logical framework to prove cause and effect.
But anybody can use different science, anybody can use different science to support their own point of view.
No you can’t, because it’s either it’s objective data. That’s the beauty of science.
Yeah.
Up until the scientific method was developed and refined people relied upon the biggest bully, the most intimidating politician, the most power, the money power, the most financial power, the most military power, the strongest people, the most dominant religion. That’s what made decisions. With the scientific method it suddenly became objective,
All right.
Which meant the weakest person in the world could have suddenly put forward an argument, and if he had, or she had the data and the logical sequence that proved cause and effect, they won the day, and that’s freed up people. Science is not just a highly disciplined objective approach to understanding the world and the understanding nature. It is fundamental to freedom. Freedom, and that’s what I started when I started on this campaign 12 years ago, that was, I sat down after 12 months of this and I thought, “Why am I doing this?” It’s something in the gut drove me. And I realised that the number one reason was for protecting freedom and restoring freedom.
Yeah.
That has now been destroyed in any scientific process and the political process.
So I’m just going through a couple of notes here. So Lambie off the Christmas card list, Canavan on it. Perfect. Malcolm, always good to chat. We’ll talk next week.
Same. Thanks, Marcus.
One Nation senator, Malcolm Roberts.
Last year the government unveiled their totally lacking plan for a toothless Commonwealth Integrity Commission. Important powers and jurisdictions were completely missing from their proposal, including oversight of the conduct of judges.
When there are complaints about the judges, it is essentially up to the judiciary to investigate itself.
This type of self-regulation does not work, it always fails. That’s why a well-resourced, powerful, independent external agency is needed and would only increase confidence in the judiciary.
[Malcolm Roberts] And today. My question’s too are in regard to establishing Federal Integrity Commission. First question. Is it the intention of the government to consider adding to the duties of such a Federal Integrity Commission, the overview of the judiciary and other officers of the court?
I think the former Attorney General had indicated that the coverage of the judiciary was an issue under consideration, but not necessarily within the integrity commission, because of constitutional complexities, but also looking at the possibility of a separate judicial commission.
[Malcolm Roberts] So it’s true, isn’t it, that there is currently virtually no authority with jurisdiction to overview the conduct and actions of the judiciary, many of whom are appointed for life?
So the federal judges are appointed to the age of 70 and then they have to retire. The current process is that if someone has a concern about a serving judge, they raise that with the Chief Justice or chief judge of that jurisdiction. The Chief Justice or Chief Judge is empowered to either appoint a conduct committee to investigate allegations made against a sitting judge or, alternatively, the Chief Justice or Chief Judge can refer the matter directly to the Attorney General, and there’s a process of where both houses of parliament can be asked whether they wish to make an address to the government general seeking to have the removal of a sitting judge on grounds of, for example, misbehaviour. So there is that process, but the conduct committee, appointed by the Chief Justice or chief judge is the first step.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there is… thank you. There is wide support for a commission with the jurisdiction to overview the conduct of the judiciary, coming out of the recent inquiry into family law, from retired judges, from academics, from constituents, and from the legal profession itself. So at the moment the errant judge’s conduct is not addressed under an independent system. Correct? You’ve just outlined that system.
That’s correct. Well, it’s an independent conduct committee, so it’s appointed by a Chief Justice or chief judge. It’s not composed of people from that court, so it’s independent to that extent, but they make a report to the Chief Justice of that court. So, no, it’s not a standing independent commission at the moment.
[Malcolm Roberts] And to trigger it requires someone from within the system?
It requires a person to make a complaint. So that might be a litigant, who has been disappointed with how a sitting judge has behaved. It could be someone who is a staff member, an observer, it could be anyone. Anyone who has a concern about a sitting judge can make a complaint.
[Malcolm Roberts] They can make a complaint, but whether or not it goes anywhere, it still depends on someone within the system?
It will then depend upon the relevant Chief Justice and what they wish to do with that complaint.
[Malcolm Roberts] Sorry, who heads up that independent conduct committee?
So it’s a matter for the respective chief general Chief Justice.
[Malcolm Roberts] So there’s one for each court?
They can appoint one per court. So for example, if it was a complaint, Senator Roberts mentioned a family law. For example, if there was a complaint about a sitting family court or federal circuit court judge practising in family law that’d be a matter for the Chief Justice of that family court or the chief judge of the federal circuit court to appoint a conduct committee to look into that particular allegation.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I just listed some of the areas we’ve had complaints from. So given the increasing number of complaints being level of judges based on their conduct, is it not time to ensure such complaints can be examined and addressed in a timely, reasonably costed way ensuring that there are real consequences if necessary?
So wait, my colleague, Ms. noted before that the previous attorney acknowledged there is certainly a question there about whether there should be a body, an integrity body that is able to look at complaints against sitting judges. That is something that the department is continuing to work on, but there are a range of complex constitutional and other legal issues that we’re working through. Attorney General Porter had said it’s perhaps a second order issue in terms of looking at integrity commission first, and then simply look at a judicial integrity type commission but it’s something we’re continuing to work on.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you. So let’s change tact just for a minute for two short questions. What is being done in the way of suicide prevention for judges as well as for the victims of poor judicial behaviour?
So suicide prevention for judges is particularly a matter to address to the courts themselves in terms of what what measures they’re actually taking to looking after the wellbeing of judges sitting in the courts because things such as the allocation of work to judges and the allocation of support mechanisms are within the control of the chief judge or chief judge of each jurisdiction.
[Malcolm Roberts] So I imagine being a judge in certain circumstances would be very taxing emotionally. So it’s recognised that the stresses on judges may lead to a need for professional help for these judges. Is this assistance being provided at the moment at an adequate level?
So that would be a question better directed to to the federal courts. And I note that the family court and circuit court are appearing tomorrow, tomorrow at five o’clock.
[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you very much. And thank you chair. That’s all I have.
[Chair] Thank you very much Senator Roberts. Just as a followup question, in relation to where an independent conduct committee is appointed by Chief Justice about a complaint, a serious complaint in relation to a judge’s conduct what sanctions are available to that committee and ultimately to the Chief Justice?
It’s an excellent question To some extent there are measures that can be put into place by the head of a jurisdiction in terms of for example, does a judge require retraining or should a judge be moved from a particular court and practise in a different court. Things like that, are steps that are available to a judge. But if the concern of the head of that jurisdiction is that that judge should in fact no longer be a judge then they need to refer that to the Attorney General, who would then consider whether the matter should be brought to parliament again, for consideration of whether they should have been addressed by both houses of parliament and to seeking the removal of that sitting judge.
[Chair] Ultimately the power to remove a judge is in the hands of the parliament and the people…
In the hands of Governor General, ultimately
[Chair] Yes, but that’s obviously a very serious matter,
Extremely serious.
The federal government showed its lack of commitment to addressing the misuse of federal funds today in voting down Senator Roberts’ motion to call for an inquiry into Queensland’s misuse of Commonwealth money.
Senator Roberts’ motion called for an inquiry into the gross misuse of Commonwealth disaster funds at a council level.
Senator Roberts said, “A Senate inquiry is essential to ensure an independent investigation, void of political interference, into these widely recognised corrupt practices.
“If we ever needed to validate the need for this inquiry, then the last week has done that given the number of council representatives who have lobbied in opposition to the inquiry going ahead.
“Their scrambling to shut this down confirms there is much to hide.”
Queensland councils received $5.339 billion in funding through the National Disaster Relief and Recovery Arrangements (NDRRA) from 2011-2019, of which 75% is Commonwealth funding.
Evidence shows that around 50% of the funded disaster money is siphoned into areas that currently avoid detection and is not used for the community’s benefit.
Senator Roberts stated, “Queensland communities need disaster funds to support infrastructure recovery.
“What they don’t need is their money going into the pockets of a few through massive profit taking, because of illegal and cost saving activities such as unlawful dredging of creeks for substandard road materials.”
The Federal government claims corruption is on their radar with their Commonwealth Integrity Commission, so it is disappointing to see them shy from an independent scrutiny of these funds.
Senator Roberts added, “Their actions today question the genuineness of their intentions to address federal corruption with their proposed Commonwealth Integrity Commission.” “The deliberate mis-use of public monies is never acceptable and be assured that this motion will be back on the agenda until these practices are independently investigated.”
Marcus Paul and I discussed the proposed Commonwealth Corruption Commission which is long overdue and designed to be a toothless tiger.
[Marcus] Retired Victorian Supreme Court Judge, Stephen Charles said, “This is not a corruption commission. It’s designed to protect parliamentarians and senior public servants from investigation. After two years of waiting, this is a tremendous disappointment. An annual budget of $42 million when fully operational. And of course it will file in its current form of how it’s you know being sold. It will fail to hold people to account. It won’t be anything like a new South Wales, independent commission against corruption.
[Malcolm] The early indications, from what we can see is there will be no public hearings for public sector and, and members of parliament corruption.
[Marcus] Well, that’s right. And we won’t have yeah.
[Malcolm] That’s the place where you need it. That’s gotta be out in front and transparent. The prime minister, the attorney general have dragged their feet on this for a couple of years now. And they now produce something that falls short of the mark. And, you know, so how can we do public hearings for law enforcement and police, but not for members of parliament, and for public sector employees, this is wrong.
[Marcus] Yeah
[Malcolm] And then we’ve gotta have the names out there, and yet people are entitled to make sure that the government that they elect are working for the people. And that’s what we need to get. We need to make sure that there is pressure on politicians to be clean at all times.
[Marcus] Absolutely. You know, under its current proposed format, you won’t see people like, you know, I mean, look, what’s happened in new South Wales in the last couple of months, we’ve had a premiere drag before the independent commission of corruption and grill to within a nature of a personal life. And that won’t happen under this proposed federal CIC. And that’s an issue for me.
[Malcolm] Yes. And the attorney general has the power to limit information that can be considered by the Commonwealth integrity commission. There are also the bars for referral are way too high. Someone approaches the institution with reasonable suspicions of corruption breaches, but no actual evidence. It can be ignored. And then with retrospectivity, which means a sport rots and the Murray-Darling basin quarterbacks, they won’t be investigated because they were in the past. This is, this is just way way too short of where we need to be.
[Marcus] All right now . I’m glad to have you on we’ll chat soon, mate. Thank you again as always.
[Malcolm] Thanks Marcus.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am