One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts met with the government today and received reassurance that, despite his anti bail-in bill being voted down 12-32, the loophole that allows a bail-in will be remedied.
Senator Roberts said, “The public needs to know that their savings are safe from failed banks and the vote against my bill fails to offer this assurance.”
“There is no ambiguity that our deposits are indeed at risk of being used in a bank bail-in and I assure all Australians that I am resolute in my fight for security of bank deposits.”
The anti bail-in bill closes the loophole left in previous legislation that gives Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) or the banks the power to order a bail-in of depositors’ funds in the event of bank failure.
Senator Roberts added, “Our aim is to ensure that APRA and the banks never have bail-in powers.” “This is an exceptional opportunity to restore confidence in the Australian banking sector and to attract deposits from other countries seeking more security.”
Senator Roberts said, “The public needs to know that their savings are safe from failed banks and the vote against my bill fails to offer this assurance.”
“There is no ambiguity that our deposits are indeed at risk of being used in a bank bail-in and I assure all Australians that I am resolute in my fight for security of bank deposits.”
The anti bail-in bill closes the loophole left in previous legislation that gives Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) or the banks the power to order a bail-in of depositors’ funds in the event of bank failure.
Senator Roberts added, “Our aim is to ensure that APRA and the banks never have bail-in powers.” “This is an exceptional opportunity to restore confidence in the Australian banking sector and to attract deposits from other countries seeking more security.”
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I proudly ask for the Senate’s support for the Banking Amendment Deposits Bill 2020.
Commonly called the NO bail-in bill.
Our purpose is to keep people’s money SAFE.
And to keep the banking system safe.
Let me first explain what is a bail-out and then a bail-in.
Bail-out’s have been used during financial crises when banks get into trouble and are a lifeline of money from taxpayers to banks to keep banks afloat. Govts act as a conduit from taxpayers to the corporate banks, even when the banks got into trouble due to their own greed or stupidity.
In times of profit banks are capitalists and in crises banks are socialist.
International Monetary Fund and G20 rules now though prevent taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank.
Instead requiring that rescue funds must come from shareholders and from depositors. A Bail-in.
Literally banks steal the money in retail deposit accounts and use that to save themselves. In exchange depositors get shares in the bank.
The shares are then suspended from trading – because the banks’ shares are worthless pieces of paper and will remain so for years.
‘Retail deposit accounts’ are the bank accounts of everyday Australians and small and medium-sized businesses.
This is money taken from these accounts, which people need to pay bills, buy stock, pay the rent and pay staff.
Gone.
This is money a couple is saving to buy their first home.
Gone.
This is money retirees cashed out of superannuation and is needed to live on, to buy food and clothing and pay bills.
Gone.
Gone. Overnight.
Reserve Bank figures show that 1 trillion dollars is available to be taken in a bail-in.
That’s what the Liberal, Nationals and Labor parties defend when opposing my bill.
Next, I’ll share a letter from a constituent, Peter Thompson, last week:
Quote: “As a self-funded retiree I shouldn’t be lying awake at night worrying how to safeguard my deposits from “bail in” by predatory and profligate banks, however I am!”
“I have Greek friends who lost most of their saving in the Greek bank bail in.”
“I don’t trust APRA nor the Treasury to protect my interests and certainly don’t trust any bank. We need a people’s bank… now.”
“What can I do to protect my bank deposits?”
Peter continues: “Withdraw cash, which by design is getting harder and harder to do, and take the risk it will be stolen by more obvious thieves?”
“One can’t buy land or property with the Australian real estate market in radical downturn, I want my deposits in a bank.”
“Your Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill is a vote winner. It will give Australians, many of whom have no idea of what “bail in” entails, an opportunity to understand and take action to protect their savings and create confidence in the system. “
Thank you, Peter. Creating confidence is exactly why I have proposed this bill.
The public understands that the govt’s Cash Ban bill is designed to force everyday Australians to keep all their money in the banking system to make a bail-in much more effective.
Labor, Liberals and Nationals passed the Cash Ban bill through the House of Reps and are now terrified of the public and backbench backlash if it enters our senate.
The public understands our real estate prices are the third highest in the world.
The public understands that the govt’s COVID restrictions are destroying small and medium business and the ability of those business owners and their staff to service their mortgage, loans and credit card debt.
In fact, there is a sleight of hand going on here. A handful of large retail businesses, telcos and internet-based companies are doing better than ever.
While hundreds of thousands of small and medium businesses are doing much, much worse.
The effect on the economy of the govt’s COVID restrictions is much worse than the headline figures.
And yet State Governments recently doubled down with more lockdowns, more restrictions, more destruction of wealth, and more unemployment amongst small and medium businesses.
So the public are responding by removing cash from the banking system at an alarming rate – $20 billion in notes have gone missing in calendar 2020.
Cash is being stashed under beds.
My Bill is an opportunity to restore confidence in the banking sector.
It’s an opportunity to attract deposits from other countries where bank deposits are less secure than ours.
We could be a safe haven for legal investment in our banking sector – money that isn’t coming, for once, from the taxpayer.
Why shut that down and make banks even more reliant on the Government for funding?
What a missed opportunity that will be for our banks and for their customers.
The Liberal, National and Labor Parties now have a chance to stand up for everyday Australians.
To protect bank deposits from being bailed in.
The response from these tired old parties? Denial.
We’re told that this bill is not necessary. We’re told that the law does not allow for a bail-in.
I ask all Australians to listen more closely. Listen for their proof.
There is none.
No legal opinion, nothing but bland assurances from self-interested public servants hoping that constant repetition will fool the public.
Here’s MY argument. The Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures Act 2018, that was passed in the dead of night, with just 7 Senators present, uses weasel words to hide the reality.
The wording does allow for the banking regulator – APRA – to instruct the banks to bail-in retail deposit accounts.
The protections that the tired old parties rely on for the supposed opposite case are contained, not in the Crisis Resolution Powers Act, but in the Banking Act.
Their argument is a nonsense because the emergency provisions powers in the Crisis Resolution Powers Act over-ride the everyday protections in the Banking Act.
That’s why the govt has an emergency powers act. To provide extra powers in an emergency.
This is not just my opinion. It’s the International Monetary Fund’s opinion. Quote:
“The new ‘catch-all’ directions powers in the 2018 Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill provide APRA with the flexibility to make directions to the banks that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”
“[APRA’s] Direction powers are a key element in the resolution process for a distressed bank. APRA could order a bank to recapitalize…using the funds of unsecured creditors”
The IMF goes on to define ‘unsecured creditors’ as shareholders and retail depositors.
Liberal MP Tim Wilson, Chair of the House Standing Committee on Economics has admitted the Crisis Resolution Powers Act does allow for a bail-in.
Liberal Senator Amanda Stoker in a letter to a constituent admitted that legislation allows for a bail-in.
Yet their party bosses say the complete opposite.
Why would they do that?
Well, the answer is yet again because of our international obligations. The G20 and the IMF have dictated that taxpayers’ money can’t be used to rescue a bank.
The tired old parties know that letting unelected bureaucrats in New York and Brussels tell Australians what to do in a crisis does not pass the pub test.
So the tired old parties hide the facts and contradict reality using weasel words.
It‘s instructional to note that New Zealand’s response to the same IMF and G20 instruction is to do the opposite. The Kiwis dutifully wrote their bail-in laws and made them honest and transparent. If a bank fails the bank closes, pays off it’s debts using depositor funds and then re-opens the next day. Depositors can access what remains of their money. If there is any.
I’m not suggesting the New Zealand model is better. More honest yes, better no.
There’s a simple solution for bank failures.
When a bank fails, the Government could issue bonds. Currently we’re offering just 1% interest on bonds, so it’s not a costly option. We then use that money to buy new shares in the failing bank. That injects enough capital for the bank to survive.
Then vest those shares with the Future Fund, who pay that small interest payment on the bonds.
In a few years those shares will be worth money again and the Future Fund can sell them back into the market in an orderly fashion.
In this simple, ‘One Nation bank survival plan’, taxpayers’ money would not be used to save the bank, so our IMF and G20 masters should be pleased.
Nobody in our process loses money. Depositors keep their cash; banks keep trading, mum and dad shareholders retain the value of their shares over the medium term.
What’s the Labor and LNP track record on corporate bail-outs?
Both gave foreign car companies billions and then watched them shut up shop as soon as the money tap was turned off.
If we’d been asking for shares for that money, we would now own the car companies. We would still have a car manufacturing sector, we would still have all those wonderful breadwinner jobs for workers.
Prime Minister Gillard gave ABC Child Care $120m. Not in exchange for shares, it was another gift from taxpayers.
If we’d asked for shares in ABC Childcare in return for the bail-out those shares would be worth $250 million today.
Our response to a bank failure should not be “go and steal it from customers.“
Our response should be to use capitalism to fix crony-capitalism.
Labor are having a lot to say about their Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee (FCS).
The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee will advance up to $20 billion per bank, to protect deposits if a bank fails.
Let’s take a closer look at the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee.
The vast majority of the $1 trillion in retail deposit accounts is held by the big 4 banks. $20 billion times 4 though is only $80 billion. The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee will save less than 10% of bank deposits!!!!
The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is not active and is not funded. There’s no money sitting there ready to go. Not one cent.
Should a bank fail, the Treasurer must issue a notice to activate the scheme. Yet, the Labor scheme uses taxpayer’s money to bail-out banks so the Treasurer will not issue the notice because the notice would breach IMF orders.
In the unlikely event of the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee being activated, there’s a second problem that Labor never discusses: once the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is activated APRA must liquidate the bank to get taxpayers’ money back.
How much does anyone think will be available to retail depositors if the bank is liquidated? And how long will customers have to wait to get their money back from the liquidator?
The Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee is worse than a con job. It will make things worse.
Earlier I said that once a bank fails, whether that failure is public or only known to the regulator, the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee scheme can be activated if the Treasurer so chooses.
The whole point of a bail-in is to prevent a bank failing.
This means the bail-in can only come first. And will come first. Then if the bail-in doesn’t work the Financial Claims Scheme Guarantee triggers, 10% of bank deposits are saved and the bank is liquidated.
This is what Liberals, Nationals and Labor are relying on to falsely tell everyday Australians ‘our money is safe?’ Yet the reality is that it’s not safe.
Following the dictates of unelected globalist masters is more important to them than looking out for the interests of everyday Australians.
The Government has advanced a criticism of my bill, that the definition of ‘retail deposit account’ introduces a different definition than is contained elsewhere in the Banking Act.
This argument fails because the only place the phrase ‘retail deposit account’ appears in the Banking Act is in my amendment. We did that deliberately so as to not interfere with the rest of the act.
Criticism dismissed.
In concluding Mr President, at no time has the Government, the Treasurer or APRA actually said they will not order a bail-in. These govt agencies duck the question and say “APRA doesn’t have the power”.
Well Mr President my bill clears that up. My bill adds one clause to the Banking Act that simply says APRA does not have the power to order a bail-in.
No other powers are affected.
Passing my bill ensures everyone will read it the same way.
Let Australians know that our money is safe in a bank. Let Australians know that there’s no need to stuff cash under the bed.
Even the Australian Bankers Association in its submission said if there is any confusion about what the law actually says then consider passing my bill.
What a great idea.
Let’s pass this bill, to keep people’s money safe.
I would like to thank the almost 200 submissions in support of the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 (the Bill). Opposition from the financial establishment has been to maintain the ambiguous wording in the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 (the Act).
I would advise the Committee as follows.
Summary by section
The $250,000 FCS guarantee triggers once a bank fails. A bail-in is designed to save a bank from failing, meaning the FCS does not prevent a bail-in because the bail-in comes first.
APRA’s submission requires the phrase “any other instrument” to remain to meet future developments in financial products. I agree, this bill retains that wording and adds a single modifier – ‘except retail deposits’. APRA’s objection is moot.
Some submissions suggest a bail-in conflicts with Section 2A of the Banking Act which protects deposits. This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to save the bank. In turn this action protects some deposits immediately and the rest are restored years hence. The wording of 2A does not preclude a bail-in, it precludes an unsuccessful one.
The IMF are on record as indicating the Crisis Resolution Powers of the 2018 Act have primacy over the general banking directions (S2A) provided in the Banking Act. These crisis powers allow APRA to order a bail-in before the FCS guarantee would start.
Some submissions relied on the absence of a provision in account Terms & Conditions as the explanation for why bail-in provisions do not apply to retail deposits. As banks are adding this clause to their Terms & Conditions, I would consider this objection moot.
APRA have indemnified bank executives for actions they may take in the implementation of emergency powers, including a bail-in.
Bail-in involves banks issuing new shares in exchange for the funds they take out of depositors’ accounts. This double hit – reduced goodwill towards the brand and dilution of share prices – will comprise a massive hit to our Super Funds, self-managed retirees and the more than one million Australians with bank shares.
Australia is obligated by membership in international banking and financial agreements to have in place a deposit bail-in capability that specifically prevents taxpayers’ money being used to save a bank. It is likely that this clause will prohibit the Treasurer from activating the FCS guarantee should a bail-in fail, simply because that is taxpayers’ money as well.
There is no doubt that the existing legislation allows for a bank bail-in. My bill asks all Senators a simple question – is this what you want? Millions of super fund members and bank shareholders await your answer.
1. The $250,000 FCS Deposit Guarantee
The Financial Claims Scheme (FCS) deposit protection was an excellent initiative from the Rudd Labor Government back in 2008. However, things have changed since then.
The FCS is not active, and therefore “The Scheme is activated at the discretion of the Australian Treasurer”.[1] As confirmation, in 2018 APRA Chair Mr Wayne Byres addressed the Economics Legislation Committee, regarding the FCS: “Well, it’s not currently activated in the sense that it’s only activated when a bank fails…the FCS is there to make sure that particularly retail depositors but also depositors with amounts up to $250,000 are not at risk of losing their money, should a bank fail.”
The Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2017, EM states: “In the unlikely event that a bank fails the Treasurer may activate the FCS…these specific depositor protections would generally only apply as a last resort, once an ADI* cannot be resolved.”
The ABC in their article on this billraised the spectre of a run on the banks if, for instance the real estate market melts down.[2] The Government seems to have considered the impact of a bank run on the effectiveness of a bail-in, and recently added secrecy provisions to the Act so that the public would not be alerted prior to a bail-in.
Melissa Harrison’s submission 60 used the IMF’s 2019 assessment of the FCS: “The Banking Act does not compel APRA to make the appointment of a statutory manager public… As the authorities are well aware, the statutory management power should be used very cautiously as the appointment of a statutory manager could destabilize the bank by triggering or exacerbating funding runs”.[3]
A bail-in would occur prior to the FCS guarantee being authorised, with the new secrecy provisions leaving customers in the dark until their money disappears from their bank account.
A few other issues with the $250,000 guarantee are:
It is organised by bank by account holder. This means accounts owned by foreign citizens or entities would be bailed-in using Australian taxpayers’ funds;
The FCS is unfunded;
The FCS is limited to $20bn per bank. The Commonwealth Bank, for example, has 16 million account holders. $20bn will only cover 80,000 of those to the full $250,000. Alternatively, cover could be extended to all 16 million account holders but only for the first $1250.
2. APRA: We need ‘any other instrument’ in the Act
From APRA’s submission 197: “We agree that if the intention of the Act was to only cover Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital, an addition of ‘any other instrument’ would have been unnecessary. However… ‘any other instrument’ was included in contemplation of further classes of capital which may be added in the future.…the reference to ‘any other instrument’ was neither intended to, nor does it in fact extend to, deposits.”
*ADI = Authorised Deposit Taking Institution. For accessibility this submission uses “bank” wherever possible.
I agree with APRA that this reference is needed for future developments. This is why the wording of the bill does not remove the phrase “any other instrument”. It simply applies a single modifier “not including a deposit account” and then defines what a deposit account is.
As this clause still operates in the manner requested by APRA, their argument is moot.
Treasury have also objected to including this definition in the Act because it introduces a definition not in use elsewhere in the Act. While I feel this is clutching at straws, Treasury are free to introduce an amendment to prevent our definition being used more widely.
3. Bail-in is inconsistent with depositor protection (S2A)
From APRA’s submission 197: “APRA has broad directions powers, all of which must be used consistent with the objects of the Banking Act (particularly the paramount objective of protecting depositors). As such, APRA could not direct the insertion of a conversion or write-off provision into customer deposit accounts given such a direction would be inconsistent with the objective of depositor protection. Such a direction would be found to be invalid.”
This argument flounders on the effect of a bail-in, which is to PROTECT depositors’ funds by:
Converting some part of depositors’ funds to a security (forced purchase of shares in the bank) that can be converted back to funds upon sale at a future time;
This saves the bank from failure and in turn, protects the remaining depositor funds;
2A does not prevent a bail-in, it prevents a failed bail-in.
This bill is necessary because of the loss of amenity in the period between the funds being seized and many years down the road, when the share price recovers and the shares redeemed. Small business, retirees, low income earners will lose homes and businesses in a bail-in.
4. IMF statements conflict with Treasury and APRA submissions
The IMF disagrees with APRA on the strength of S2A protections. An IMF report states:[4]
“The new ‘catch-all’ directions powers in the 2018 Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill provide APRA with the flexibility to make directions to the ADIs that are not contemplated by the other kinds of general directions listed in the Banking Act.”
In a February 2019 assessment of Australia’s bank resolution and crisis management, the International Monetary Fund noted:[5]
“[APRA’s] Direction powers are also a key element in the resolution process for a distressed ADI; directions can be used to implement a range of resolution options, including facilitating recapitalization. Hence, the framework allows for the possibility that a problem bank could be resolved while under private control as APRA could order an ADI to recapitalize.”
The IMF are saying that the 2018 Crisis Resolution Powers have primacy over the general directions statements in the Banking Act. These allow APRA to ‘facilitate recapitalisation’ which is the definition of a bail-in and “under private control” means before it goes bust and the $250,000 guarantee starts.
If APRA and Treasury’s submissions are correct, then the IMF is wrong.
5. Banks can’t change their Terms & Conditions to allow a bail-in
APRA submission: “While an ADI may unilaterally change terms and conditions for customer deposits, it may not do so where the change is to facilitate a conversion or write-off of customer deposits. This is because to do so would be inconsistent with unfair contract terms legislation under the ASIC Act. A term allowing an ADI to write off or convert a retail deposit would amount to an unfair contract term. Moreover, even if an ADI was not prohibited from changing its terms in this way by unfair contract terms legislation, APRA would use its powers under the Banking Act to protect depositors and prohibit an ADI from changing these terms to insert write-off provisions.”
Treasury’s submission contained the same argument.The legislation referenced actually states: “Only a court can decide whether or not a term is unfair. “ So the legislation does NOT prevent bail-in provisions being added to Terms & Conditions. The protection comes from:
APRA using their oversight powers to unwind such an attempt; or
Affected depositors taking the might of the Australian banks to Court to get a ruling that this was indeed an unfair contract term.
Neither of these has happened. APRA has however had an opportunity to intervene when our banks started adding bail-in provisions to their Terms & Conditions. Please view submission 166 from Adams Economics, Annexe C for more.
APRA and Treasury are relying on a protection provided by APRA’s regulation powers that only exists if those powers are used.
6. APRA indemnifies bank executives who carry out a bail-in
In its 2019 assessment the International Monetary Fund noted:[6]
“Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill, provides for clearer immunity for an institution, its directors, management, employees and agents when taking reasonable steps to comply with an APRA direction…the Bill provides that a person is not liable in an action, suit or proceeding (whether criminal or civil) in relation to anything done, or omitted to be done, in good faith by the person if it is done for the purposes of complying with a direction given by APRA.”
This indemnity protects bank executives from legal action over their decision to conduct a bail-in.
7. Super Funds and self-funded retirees will be devastated
Our banks are some of the most valuable, even beloved brands in Australia. The financial damage to their share price from the loss of goodwill from a bail-in will be in the billions.
A greater loss though will come from the issuing of new shares to depositors in exchange for their savings. This dilutes the share price for existing shareholders. This is the reason for a bail-in given by the IMF – the cost of the bail-in must be worn by shareholders, not taxpayers.
Who are these shareholders if not taxpayers? Fourteen million Australians have superannuation accounts which contain a significant exposure to bank shares. There are more than a million everyday Australians who own bank shares directly.
Australia privatised our State Bank (The Commonwealth Bank) by giving everyday Australians discounted shares. Bank share ownership in Australia is the highest in the world, and our compulsory super ranks third in the world for number of people covered in percentage terms.
The IMF/G20 can champion a bail-in over a bail-out to protect taxpayers all they like. In Australia our taxpayers and our bank shareholders are one and the same.
The Government has looked the other way while banks have lent to the real estate market at the cost of compromising their loan book diversity. If it all melts down that is on the Government, not shareholders.
Government intervention by recapitalisation financed with Government bonds transferred over to the banks over time will, in the long run, not cost taxpayers money but it will avoid millions of everyday Australians getting done over by the IMF.
8. Further notes on our international obligations
Depositors are considered ‘unsecured creditors’ to a bank. This is apparent in the RBA publication ‘Depositor Protection in Australia’, which comments on “…other unsecured creditors, including depositors”.[7]
The Australian government’s 2014 ‘Financial System Inquiry Final Report’ acknowledged:[8]
“Inevitably, failures can and will occur, the system will be exposed to crises and, at times, unsecured bank creditors will be exposed to loss.
The Financial Stability Board (FSB) is an international body that monitors and makes recommendations about the global financial system. The Board includes all G20 major economies. Australia is a member and participates in the process.
The Financial Stability Board’s (FSB) Key Attributes recommend that a resolution regime should “allocate losses to firm owners (shareholders) and unsecured and uninsured creditors (depositors)”.[9]
Australia is represented on the FSB by the Reserve Bank of Australia and Treasury and we have endorsed the FSB’s ‘key attributes’.
A further look at the ‘key attributes” reveals this provision:[10]
“The TLAC standard has been designed so that failing G-SIBs [banks] will have sufficient loss-absorbing and recapitalisation capacity available in resolution for authorities to implement an orderly resolution that minimises impacts on financial stability, maintains the continuity of critical functions, and avoids exposing public funds to loss”.
From submission 166 from Adams Economics: At the 2010 G20 Seoul Meeting, the Australian Government committed Australia to the Summit Document13, which included paragraph 30:
“We reaffirmed our view that no firm should be too big or too complicated to fail and that taxpayers should not bear the costs of resolution.”
9. Conclusion
If I may give the last word to Queensland LNP Senator Amanda Stoker. On the 5th November 2018, Senator Stoker explained in a letter to a constituent her view of the Act:
“The legislation facilitates bail-in as a type of resolution power which is available for dealing with financial institution distress. This was done after the G20 leaders endorsed a new Financial Stability Board standard for Total Loss-absorbing Capacity.”
I thank the Senator for that clarity. Clearly the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was in fact an implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s requirements for member nations to have legislation that allows a bank bail-in as a way of preventing public funds being used to bail out a bank.
Could it be that as our international agreements require bail-in rather than taxpayer funded bail-out and the Government, The Treasury and APRA have spent two years hoping nobody notices? I wonder because New Zealand have enacted their bail-in laws in the open, based on the same agreements we are signatory to.
The Government has a simple choice:
Either: Oppose our bill and admit the wording of the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Bill 2018 was indeed to give APRA the power, and the banks the right, to bail-in depositor funds. Then be honest with the electorate that banks have been given bail-in powers under a smoke screen of ambiguous wording.
Or: Pass the Banking Amendment (Deposits) Bill 2020 to give depositors confidence in their bank deposits and provide clarity for stakeholders.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/image.jpeg?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=16751200Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2020-08-17 10:58:132020-08-17 12:51:41Senator Roberts makes submission to Bank Bail-In Inquiry
