Posts

Real Vision for Genuine Prosperity vs. Empty Promises

,

When the Prime Minister talks about ‘Future Made in Australia,’ he really means unworkable renewable projects made in Australia but owned by mostly foreign multinational corporations. There’s no national pride in this; it’s simply a cash cow for the PM’s renewables mates.  The money is election fairy floss and not much more. 

In this speech, I highlight projects that are genuinely made in Australia and involve mostly Australian companies and will grow the wealth and prosperity of our beautiful country. This includes the Iron Boomerang project, which will create a rail crossing across the top end, benefiting Aboriginal communities, grazing, and mining. It will also drive the Capricornia steel project at Port Hedland and Abbot Point, which will generate 40,000 breadwinner jobs, add $100 billion to our GDP and contribute $25 billion in government revenue. 

One Nation builds, while the Albanese Government delivers press releases. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia Bill 2024 provides a legislative framework for parts of the government ‘s Future Made in Australia policy. This provides for an investment of $22.7 billion over the next 10 years to ‘help Australia become an indispensable part of the global economy as the world transforms to net zero emissions and undergoes the most significant changes since the industrial revolution’. The government talks about maximising the economic and industrial benefits of the move to net zero and securing Australia’s place in a changing global economic and strategic landscape. Specifically, the following claim is made by the government: 

Given our critical and abundant natural endowments and skilled workforce, Australia is well positioned to strengthen priority supply chains and become an indispensable part of the net zero global economy. 

One Nation are big supporters of the first part of that statement. Australia is blessed with abundant and substantial mineral resources, and it’s our obligation to share those with the world so other countries can enjoy the standard of living we have. That is, we used to have it. Now our economy is in a race to the bottom, with the Greens, teals and Labor in a race to see how many wealth-generating projects they can shut down. 

The Future Made in Australia agenda includes broader investments in the government’s growth agenda, including critical technologies, defence priorities, skills in priority sectors, a competitive business environment and reforms to better attract and deploy investment—in particular, projects where some level of domestic capability is necessary for efficient delivery of economic resilience and security and the private sector will not deliver the necessary investment in the sector in the absence of government support. That’s an important point. I have been working with the project sponsor of Capricorn Steel, a steel park project in northern Queensland, which I will speak more often a moment. This project, known also as Project Iron Boomerang, includes a railway, port and new energy efficient ships. This is a $50 billion project, initially, which is to be entirely financed through private equity, who have the money ready to go but will not commit it, because they don’t trust the Australian government. After watching a litany of cancelled projects—like Adani, where a billionaire from India wanted to invest $17 billion in Australia, and we did our best as a country and as the state of Queensland to keep him out—long legal delays and general incompetence, financiers are taking their money elsewhere. 

This is why the government is now creating an investment pathway to get things built again. It’s the government or nothing. The prime function of the government is to build infrastructure projects that allow private enterprise to grow the economy and raise the wealth and prosperity of all Australians; to improve productivity in a way that protects the natural environment. This bill adds a layer on top, which is that the development must be net zero friendly. 

One Nation doesn’t believe in the United Nations’ globalist net zero agenda. There is no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points and no policy basis. We’ve seen that repeatedly. We believe it involves a massive transfer of wealth from everyday citizens into the pockets of the world’s predatory billionaires—billionaire parasites sucking solar and wind subsidies. It forms a highly regressive tax on the poor using electricity. We wonder when the Left signed on to a crony capitalist agenda that hurts everyday Australians for no environmental benefit. That’s a separate issue. One Nation does agree the national environment should be protected. We are stewards of the most fragile ecosystem in the world, and we must act with care. This bill doesn’t actually mention good stewardship of the natural environment, but it’s okay; One Nation does that as part of our core party values. 

The Future Made in Australia policy includes the following broad stated aims: firstly, attracting investment in key industries through the national investment framework, streamlining approval processes for investment and encouraging private sector investment in sustainable industries; secondly, investing in net zero industries and increasing the demand for Australia’s green exports; thirdly, strengthening resources and economic security by investing in resources and critical mineral supply chains, as well as investing in manufacturing of clean energy technology; and fourthly, investing in new technologies and capabilities, reforming tertiary education, providing a training and skills pipeline for Future Made in Australia priority industries, strengthening defence capability and increasing drought and disaster resilience, among other things. 

The bill establishes the National Interest Framework, to be used for sector assessments which will determine which sectors of the economy are ones in which Australia could have a competitive advantage in a net zero economy and that require government investment, or where some degree of domestic capacity is required for the economic resilience and security. The government’s stated guidelines in this section include a community benefit test which includes promoting safe, secure and well-paid work; developing skilled and inclusive workforces; working with communities to achieve positive outcomes, in particular First Nations communities and those affected by the transition to net zero; and strengthening domestic industrial capabilities, including local supply chains. This sounds like socialism—government wanting to control. 

One Nation agrees with the intent. In particular, the industrial and mining sectors are being hollowed out through net zero measures to the detriment of the workers, unionists and their families. If the government is telling the truth, they will be able to rectify what they’ve already done in hollowing out the bush and the mining and manufacturing. Otherwise, fine Australian workers will join the tent cities that have sprung up under this Labor government. It should be pointed out that local supply chains are in fact part of the United Nations 2030 sustainability goals. It is more commonly called short supply chains. This goal encourages local supply of all goods and services, especially food. This may seem fine until you realise that, under this goal, anything which can’t be supplied locally will not be available at all. That’s the design. Except it will be available to the nomenklatura who can afford the carbon dioxide tax on long supply chains. If Australians want to live in a world that even vaguely resembles the world we grew up in, then local manufacturing is essential. 

This bill seems to represent a newfound realisation by the Albanese Labor government that their union bosses and union members are running out of jobs, the economy is tanking and the next election is moving way out of reach. One Nation can get on board with making things here again. We can’t, though, get on board with all the net zero nonsense in this bill. The bill is written generally, allowing the minister wide powers to completely stuff things up. I don’t see this as any different to the general stuffing-up the Albanese government is already doing. Giving it more ways to make mistakes seems like a bad idea. 

The bill has some good qualities. The economic resilience and security stream relates to sectors where Australia requires a degree of domestic capacity and resilience for domestic, economic or security reasons, and there’s an absence of private sector investment with that government support. The provisions around this section are quite extensive and seem to be a genuine attempt to provide for Australia’s sovereign industrial capacity—without using the word ‘sovereign’, of course! 

Let me give you an example of a project that fits the economic resilience and security rules like a glove and provides breadwinner, family friendly, secure jobs for tens of thousands of Australians. Capricorn Steel is a project to create an Australian steel industry using new, zero-emission steel plants located at Abbot Point near Townsville and Port Hedland in Western Australia. Boomerang ships would take beautiful Queensland coking coal around to Port Hedland in Western Australia, where it’ll be used with their iron ore to produce Australian steel. This will be the world’s highest-quality steel, produced at 10 to 15 per cent less than China—the cheapest quality steel in the world. 

From Port Hedland this steel can be exported to markets in the subcontinent—India and Europe. The development crescent of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia will become the world’s largest steel market over the next 20 years; Australia is perfectly placed to capitalise on that. Those ships will return to the Port of Gladstone carrying iron ore which will be combined with Australian coking coal to create a second steel park at Abbot Point. From there, Inland Rail can take this steel anywhere in Australia to help meet Australia’s steel needs—steel that is critical to net zero, housing, construction and our modern lifestyle, steel that is critical to Australia’s defence capability. Abbot Point, or the Port of Gladstone, is perfectly situated to export this steel to Asia, China and the United States. 

Development of a railway across the Top End to open up areas currently served by road as well as new port facilities and new high-efficiency shipping are all projects that satisfy the development criteria in this bill—plus a water pipeline, plus a communications link to open up Central Australia and northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and northern Western Australia. Capricorn Steel and Project Iron Boomerang will add $100 billion to Australia’s gross domestic product, provide 40,000 secure breadwinner jobs and provide $25 billion in government revenue every year. Capricorn Steel will be emission free, for those who believe this global warming nonsense. Every ton of steel produced in the zero-emission steel plants to be constructed at Port Hedland and Abbot Point will save two tonnes of carbon dioxide from steel produced elsewhere. That’s a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 88 million tonnes a year. 

There is no net zero without steel. Yet all the messaging coming from the government around this bill is nothing but net zero, which is nonsense. I get it: even net zero carpetbaggers are running out of interest in this failed net zero scam, so the government has to steal taxpayers’ money to keep net zero going. 

One Nation has no confidence this bill will achieve anything positive for Australia. If the government wants to move the provisions around economic resilience and security into a new bill, with Infrastructure Australia in charge, One Nation would be delighted to support those measures. 

/2 Comments/by

Australian Houses for Australians – Ban Foreign Ownership!

,

The government says less than 1% of houses are bought by foreigners. I don’t believe them. State governments say it’s at least double that, real estate agents say it’s 10%!

I have been asking for detailed data on how they get to that number for 9 months now without answers. 

The government is hiding the true extent of foreign ownership from Australians while we’re in the middle of a housing crisis.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Overwhelmingly, Australians don’t believe foreigners should be allowed to own residential property in our country. I first asked at Senate estimates in November last year how many potential foreign buyers the ATO is detecting through its data-matching program? The government failed to answer. In February, Senator Bragg asked and was given no answer. In June estimates, I asked again and did not get an answer. Answers to my questions on notice for how many potential foreign buyers are detected are now overdue, again. Minister, why is your government hiding from the Australian people the data on potential foreign buyers of residential property? And when will you actually answer the question I’ve been asking for nine months?

Senator GALLAGHER: I recall you asking these questions, Senator Roberts, and I understood they were answered at the time by officials when I was sitting at the desk. If there have been follow-up questions you have asked notice that have not been answered, I can certainly follow that up. I think the evidence we gave during Senate estimates was that foreign investment plays an important role in bolstering Australia’s housing stock and creating additional jobs in the construction industry. But it is monitored very closely for good reason. It is tightly regulated, with foreign persons generally requiring foreign investment approval before acquiring an interest in residential land, regardless of its value, with a few exceptions. Foreign investors make up a very small proportion of the total Australian residential property market, accounting for approximately 0.93 per cent of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in 2022-23. Out of 479,257 transactions, based on ATO data from 2022-23 only 4,463 transactions were by foreign investors. It is a very small component—less than one per cent—of new and established dwelling purchase transactions in the 2022-23 financial year. I think senators have raised this through estimates as something they are interested in—raising concerns about foreign investors squeezing out local residents from being able to purchase housing. But the evidence would show that it’s a very small component of the residential property market in the transactions that are being monitored, as was explained in estimates by the ATO. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The New South Wales state government reported more than twice the number of overseas purchases of property that the Foreign Investment Review Board recorded in 2021. The board claims foreigners buy less than one per cent of residential property—and you just confirmed that. Yet in the first quarter NAB property survey, real estate agents say they’re selling 10 per cent of Australian housing to foreigners. Minister, if you have confidence in the Foreign Investment Review Board, why won’t you hand over the data?

Senator GALLAGHER: Again, I’m not sure which part of the data hasn’t been answered. I was sitting at estimates when you were given figures, Senator Roberts, so I’m not sure which data is the data you’re seeking. The ATO data I just read out—and I can provide this in writing to you—shows that it is 0.93 per cent for the 2022-23 financial year, and that it has come down, as I understand it, from a peak in 2015-16. The ATO do residential real estate compliance investigations—so they follow this up and check that people are compliant with the requirements of foreign ownership of residential property. They identified 428 properties for compliance, they did 410 investigations and found 145 properties in breach, and 55 of those resulted in— (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you want foreign investment, yet foreign ownership is against Australians’ interests. Minister, this country is in a housing crisis. When will you ban foreign ownership of residential real estate and put Australians in Australian houses first?

Senator GALLAGHER: We’re not going to do that, Senator Roberts. The numbers show we need good strong rules around it, and there are strong rules around it. We need compliance with those rules, and there are good compliance processes. It’s less than one per cent, and this country has benefited from foreign investment. We benefit in terms of our economy and in terms of jobs—

Senator Whish-Wilson interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator Whish-Wilson, order! Please continue, Minister.

Senator GALLAGHER: So it isn’t something we are seeking to ban. It would help if some of our housing programs, which are currently stalled in the Senate, were given approval by the Senate because then we could build more supply, which is the actual issue. I know there wants to be a lot of distractions about who’s to blame, and it’s easy to blame foreign ownership. The statistics don’t support that. I say to the Senate that there are a couple of bills that are stuck in this chamber that would help people into home-ownership and help increase the supply of housing in this country, and I say: let’s get on with that job

Questions on notice from 17 June 2024. Still unanswered and overdue as of 21 August 2024

Q0214_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
Q0212_Economics_2024-25Budgetestimates_TreasuryDownload
/11 Comments/by

Foreign Buyers Snatching Houses Away From Australians in a Housing Crisis

,

The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.

Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.

Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.

That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…

Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?

Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?

Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?

Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?

Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.

Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—

Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?

Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?

Ms Kelley: That would depend.

Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.

Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?

Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?

Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.

Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.

/3 Comments/by

How to fix a housing crisis

, ,

Mortgages are skyrocketing, rents keep increasing, two thirds of young Australians believe they will never own a home and it’s hard to blame them.

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

The median house price in Brisbane is 10 times the median income.[1] In Brisbane it would take the average income 13 years just to save a deposit.

Rents are also rising on the back of a record low national vacancy rate of 1%.[2] Experts consider a 3% vacancy rate to be tight, a national average of 1% is an absolute crisis.

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

Like any market there are two things and two things only that affect housing prices: supply and demand. Decades of successive governments have mismanaged both sides of the equation.

This is how One Nation would properly manage our economy and deliver cheaper houses and cheaper rent:

Cut overseas arrivals, ban foreign ownership, increase supply and stop pumping up profits for the Big Banks.

Cut the flood of overseas arrivals

In the short term, we need to stop pouring fuel on the fire. A huge amount of overseas arrivals are driving unsustainable demand.

Excluding tourists and short stay visitors, there are currently 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need housing.[3]

These working visa holders, students and others are putting enormous strain on the rental market, fighting Australians for a roof over their head and driving up rent prices.

The arrivals that can afford it are also buying houses, pushing up prices even higher.

The Albanese Labor government issued a record 670,000 student visas in one year when we only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds.

In addition to these 2.3 million visa holders likely to need housing, there are roughly 400,000 tourist and other visa holders in the country.

While tourism is good for Australia, in the middle of our rental shortage this high demand is motivating owners to take their properties out of the rental pool and convert them to lucrative, full-time AirBnBs.

That means less rental supply for people needing a place to live and higher rents.

2.7 million visa holders, more than 10% of Australia’s population, are in the country right now fighting Australians for a roof over their head.

The country cannot sustain this level of overseas arrivals. It must be cut to take immediate pressure off housing availability and affordability.

Why haven’t we cut arrivals already?

Powerful lobby groups who rely on high immigration have been able to falsely label anyone who talks about this problem as “racist”.

Talking about reasonable levels of immigration is about securing a prosperous future for all Australians, including those who come to the country. Ruining our economy is a bad outcome for immigrants as well.

As the problem gets even worse, even mainstream media is now being forced to acknowledge the huge negative effects Australia is seeing from an unsustainable amount of arrivals.

The biggest winners from high house prices and big immigration are the big banks and multinational corporations relying on cheap labour.

Mortgages are so profitable for banks that they have become over-reliant on housing prices.

The ratio of borrowing for mortgages versus borrowing for business has skyrocketed to more than 200%, up from less than 40% in 1990.[3A]

That means the Big Banks are less diversified and will lose more money if housing becomes affordable.

As the Reserve Bank raises interest rates, the big banks pass that on at up to 7%, yet the banks borrowed long term funds from the RBA at just 0.1%.

They’re pocketing the huge difference leading to record-breaking profits.

There is billions of dollars at stake for the banks and other big businesses if housing became more affordable. The questions have to be asked whether government is putting the profits of greedy banks and multinational corporations ahead of Australians having affordable housing.

One Nation would never repeat the mistakes of the COVID period, where the Reserve Bank was allowed to create $500 billion out of thin air.[4]

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

This only pumps up the big banks profits.

Ban Foreign Ownership

Finally, on the demand side solutions, we need to ban foreign ownership of Australian assets.

The government has no idea exactly how bad foreign purchases are.[5] A single real estate agent in Sydney sold $135 million in property to Chinese buyers in just six months.[6]

Australians can’t own a house in China, so why should we let foreign citizens buy property here?

Australian property is also a hotbed for suspected money laundering, with much of this happening in foreign connected purchases.[7]

We need to ban foreign ownership of Australian homes to decrease demand and give Australians a shot at owning their own home.

Let tradies build homes

On the supply side, government needs to get out of the way with their restrictive building codes, green land restrictions and a spider web of employment law.

Our tradies know how to build homes. Government just needs to get out of the way and let them build.

While increasing supply is an important part, it is important to note that supply can only be increased so much in the face of overwhelming demand, fuelled by overseas arrivals and foreign purchasers.

Australia has typically built homes at nearly the fastest rate in the world, fourth out of all OECD countries.[8]

Supply chain issues, high interest rates and rising construction insolvencies mean its very unlikely we will be able to easily build even more supply than the high amount we already do.[9]

Looking at how Australia punches above its weight in building houses and increasing supply already, it’s clear the biggest issue we have to fix is the demand side currently driven by overseas arrivals.[10]

One Nation would make home ownership a reality for Australians

A home is a castle.

The family unit and our society flourish when we have stable places to build our lives and raise families.

Decades of indifferent governments from both sides of politics have ruined this dream for many.

Only One Nation has the guts to make the decisions that will make the dream of home ownership a reality for all Australians.

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

[1] Housing unaffordability hits grim new peak (afr.com)

[2] The Latest Rental Vacancy Rates around Australia (archive.is)

[3] Tarric Brooker aka Avid Commentator 🇦🇺 on X: “A new all time high for the number of temporary visa holders in Australia likely to require some form of housing.https://t.co/6NQ8HXu3i4” / X (archive.is)

[3A] (57) Tarric Brooker aka Avid Commentator 🇦🇺 on X: “Why Australia’s productivity growth is sub par when not being juiced by a resources boom or an expansion of household debt summed up in one chart. Businesses have gone from a peak of 74% of bank lending to 34% today. All that capital is flowing into housing instead. https://t.co/ZfyJMvAK7y” / X (twitter.com)

[4] RBA creates inflation by printing money out of thin air – Malcolm Roberts (malcolmrobertsqld.com.au)

[5] Housing ‘scandal’: Foreigners buy twice as many homes as recorded (archive.is)

[6] Chinese millionaires snap up Australian properties in Toorak, Armadale, Malvern, Hawkthorne and Kooyong | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site (archive.is)

[7] No questions asked: money laundering thrives in Australia because of professionals willing to facilitate it | Crime – Australia | The Guardian (archive.is)

[8] [Title] (oecd.org)

[9] ASIC data shows insolvencies in the building and construction industry have hit pre-Covid levels | news.com.au — Australia’s leading news site

[10] Why more supply will never fix the housing market – MacroBusiness

/7 Comments/by

The Rental Crisis is Running On Empty

One million Australian homes are sitting vacant. That’s twice what we need to solve the housing crisis. They don’t need to be built they are unoccupied right now.

The government isn’t solving this problem. It pretends it doesn’t exist and doesn’t want to know how to solve it either, because it’s too busy playing at politics.

According to recent data, it’s likely that around 5000 foreign buyers could be buying as much as $5 billion worth of residential property in Australia every year.

With immigration being pushed up again in the wake of COVID, what we have is a supply and demand problem that has a simple solution – net zero immigration, meaning we don’t add to the crisis and actually introduce a ban on foreign ownership.

In a housing crisis the government needs to put Australians first.

/3 Comments/by

How Many Australian Homes are Foreign Owned?

Australia has a rental crisis and yet we continue to allow foreign entities, including shelf companies, buying and locking up homes.

According to recent publicly available data, NSW Treasury figures as much as $5 billion of residential property is purchased by foreign buyers in one year.

With one in ten homes unoccupied and the rental crisis making Australian families homeless, how dare Minister Farrell sideline my questioning for an opportunity to lobby for a bill which is nothing but a ‘drop in the ocean’ against the Australian housing crisis. A crisis that is caused by unbridled immigration and failure to even inquire as to why so many homes are vacant.

The answer to this crisis couldn’t be more clear: put Australians first!

/5 Comments/by

When will the ATO stop foreign buyers?

,

I highlighted the dilemma facing Aussies who are getting squeezed out of the property market by cashed up foreign buyers.

I was told that purchasers of new properties by foreign investors are monitored through the Australian Tax Office but they were not prevented from purchasing the property.

I told the ATO that this was not good enough and asked when the government would stop selling off the farm to the detriment of Aussies at a time when there is a grave housing shortage in Australia.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 1

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here this morning. The Foreign Investment Review Board makes recommendations to the government about approving certain large investments in projects in Australia. One concern of Australians is the seemingly large number of Australian residential homes and residential land that is being purchased by foreign investors, to the exclusion of Australian homebuyers—are you aware of that?

Mr Writer: We are certainly aware that there are publicly reported concerns about the acquisition of property by foreign investors, yes.

Senator Roberts: Anecdotal evidence is of land banking, where properties are purchased by foreign interests and then held vacant, in the middle of a housing crisis where thousands of Australians are left homeless.

From 1 July 2020 to 30 June 2021, one year, there were 5,310 residential real estate purchase transactions by foreign buyers, with a total value of $4.2 billion. Eighty-six per cent of those were for new dwellings and vacant land. Minister, why does there appear to be no governance or restriction on overseas ownership of residential property in Australia?

Senator Gallagher: There is, and I’m sure officials can take you through it.

Mr Writer: There are restrictions. Generally speaking, foreign investors, in relation to residential real estate, cannot purchase existing properties. There is only one real exception, which is for temporary residents who need somewhere to live. Generally, they will only receive approval for the acquisition of newly built properties, not existing properties. That’s designed to encourage the construction of new residential properties in Australia.

Senator Roberts: So foreigners can’t buy existing property, but they can build new property?

Mr Writer: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Who gives the approval?

Mr Writer: In general, the residential real estate proposals are considered by the ATO under delegation from the Treasurer.

Senator Roberts: The Australian Taxation Office as designated by the treasurer?

Mr Writer: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Given that many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential properties, why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with little or no restriction?

Senator Gallagher: We’ve just gone through that there are restrictions. The other thing I would point to is the changes that we’ve put in place to double the penalties applicable to breaches of the foreign investment rules applicable to residential properties, which we implemented on 1 January. We’ve doubled the foreign investment application fees from 29 July 2022. Fees now start at $13,200 for acquisitions of residential property valued at $1 million or less and $26,400 for acquisitions of $2 million or less. The settings under the approval process are designed to increase supply, which is essentially the big challenge we’ve got in the housing market at the moment—we need more supply of housing, and that’s why the settings are targeted to increase that.

Senator Canavan:  Can I ask a quick follow-up, Senator Roberts? I believe our foreign investors can buy established dwellings with approval from the FIRB. Is that correct?

Mr Writer: With approval from the ATO, yes.

Senator Canavan:  How many approvals have you provided over the past year?

Mr Writer: I’d need to go to the ATO about that question, but what I can say is that in 2020-21 the total number of purchases of residential dwellings in Australia was 588,176. Of those, 4,355 concerned foreign investors.

Senator Canavan:  Sorry, 355 in total?

Dr Kennedy: Yes, 4,355.

Senator Canavan:  Sorry, 4,355.

Mr Writer: Yes. It’s still less than one per cent of the total.

Senator Canavan:  Yes. It’s still quite a lot. That’s of established dwellings?

Mr Writer: No, that’s of all residential dwelling purchases.

Senator Canavan:  Okay, so it includes, potentially, new ones. So you can’t tell me how many approvals.  How many times did you reject somebody who wanted to buy an established dwelling?

Mr Writer: I’d have to take that on notice. The ATO will be here later this afternoon and may be able to answer that.

Senator Canavan:  I thought it was FIRB that does that rejection.

Mr Writer: In relation to residential property, no. The ATO manages that.

Senator Canavan:  Finally, the new penalties the minister mentioned—how many times has a foreigner been penalised for illegally purchasing an established residential dwelling over the past year?

Mr Writer: I couldn’t answer that. The ATO would need to respond to that.

Senator Canavan:  Does it happen? Was there one?

Mr Writer: The ATO certainly took action, I think, last year, and were successful in obtaining a penalty against a foreign investor, yes.

Senator Canavan:  The issue seems to be—notwithstanding your figures—anecdotally, that the foreigners are always turning up at auctions and buying established dwellings. It doesn’t seem to me that hard to get around our rules, to just get someone else to buy it in their name. Does that happen? How do we know? What sort of efforts do you put into making sure people aren’t trying to avoid these restrictions?

Ms Kelley: Again, the ATO is responsible for the compliance in that regard. I would also note that Australian citizens and temporary residents are able to purchase as well, regardless of their background.

Senator Canavan:   Of course, but they could also do so on behalf of others. Is that illegal? Would it be illegal to do so on behalf of someone—

Mr Writer: That would be a scheme to avoid the application of the act. Yes, it would be.

Senator Canavan:   I’m just asking. I know you’re saying the ATO is enforcing it, but presumably you’re the policy area.

Mr Writer: We are.

Senator Canavan:  So how confident are you? You don’t seem to understand the details of the prosecutions that go on. How confident are you that this restriction is actually being implemented?

Mr Writer: We rely on the ATO to do this. It administers and enforces the law in accordance with the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act and the relevant policies that the successive governments have put in place around this area of activity.

Senator Gallagher: And I think the numbers that were read out before give you an indication that that—

Senator Canavan:  That doesn’t go to my question, because it doesn’t capture people doing it illegally.

Senator Gallagher: No, but you were saying anecdotally, basically, that foreigners are out buying up all the houses, and I think—

Senator Canavan:  You can’t even tell me how many people you prosecuted.

Senator Gallagher: It’s not about prosecution.

Senator Canavan:  If you were taking this issue seriously, you’d know that, Minister.

Senator Gallagher: That doesn’t relate to prosecution, and we can deal with that through the ATO.

Senator Canavan:  My question did.

Senator Gallagher: That deals to the scale.

Senator Canavan:  Clearly people are not obeying the law.

Senator Gallagher: And that question has been answered, and obviously your anecdotal information is incorrect.

Senator Canavan:  No, it’s not, because you don’t even have any evidence about how many prosecutions you’ve made.

Chair: Order!

Senator Canavan:  You’re obviously not taking it seriously.

Chair: Order! I’d like to return to Senator Roberts, who I believe has the call. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator Canavan for his questions. Minister, doesn’t it mean, though, with the current housing crisis, that the ability for foreigners to buy or to construct a new house crowds Australians out of the market or certainly raises the prices?

Senator Gallagher: Again, no, I wouldn’t accept that. Again, it goes to the numbers that Mr Writer has outlined. But the fact is that the settings are targeted, essentially without exemptions, to new housing supply. It’s focused on generating that new housing supply to be available for people to live in, and part of what we have to deal with in the housing market at the moment is a shortage of supply.

Senator Roberts: According to Mr Writer’s figures, 4,355 were bought by foreigners, out of 5,186. That’s almost 80 per cent.

Senator Gallagher: No. You’ve got that wrong.

Mr Writer: It’s 588,000.

Senator Roberts: I’m sorry. That’s my mistake.

Ms Kelley: It’s 0.74 per cent, to be precise.

Senator Roberts: Quite often, though, foreigners will lock up their houses rather than rent them out. So they’re vacant. They’re not available to Australians.

Mr Writer: I don’t think we can confirm that kind of statement.

Senator Roberts: That’s widely known. You won’t confirm it, because you haven’t got the exact numbers.  I understand that and I appreciate that.

Mr Writer: I don’t think we have any actual evidence of that fact.

Ms Kelley: Part of the ATO’s responsibility is also around the amount of time a property is vacant and ensuring that it’s not left vacant as well. That is part of the compliance regime.

Senator Roberts: That’s the ATO’s responsibility, is it?

Ms Kelley: Yes.

Senator Roberts: So you’re just responsible for the policy?

Ms Kelley: In terms of residential real estate, Treasury has a policy responsibility. The ATO implements the policy.

Senator Roberts: Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of the FIRB to include residential purchases go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?

Senator Gallagher: If FIRB were assessing them?

Senator Roberts: If FIRB were extending their authority over all residential property.

Senator Gallagher: It would slow it down—is that what you’re saying?

Senator Roberts: Yes.

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure how those two things go together. Essentially, we’ve got Treasury with the policy side of the work and the ATO then enforces those arrangements, so I’m not sure how FIRB extending reach into residential property would slow down the sale. As you’ve heard, it’s 0.75 per cent of residential sales.

Senator Roberts: So FIRB would have authority as to whether or not to approve or recommend—they don’t approve anything. They make recommendations.

Senator Gallagher: The ATO currently does. We have an approving entity that does that work—

Senator Roberts: Which basically has no teeth.

Senator Gallagher: I don’t accept that, but, by all means, put those questions to the ATO.

Senator Roberts: Isn’t it time, though, for the government to start buying back the farm and limiting sales of Australian land to Australian purchasers only, like China and several other countries do?

Senator Gallagher: No. That’s not the policy of the government. We have in place an arrangement that allows, under specific circumstances, foreign investors to purchase residential properties in this country. We’ve got those settings—they’re here; we can answer questions about them—but they are the arrangements that are in place.

Senator Roberts: I understand they’re here, but I’m saying why not change them so that only Australians can buy Australian land, not just Australian residential real estate but Australian land?

Senator Gallagher: That’s not the government’s policy. We are an open-facing economy. We are a country that has relied on foreign investment. We believe there need to be suitable controls in place to manage that, and those settings are the ones that we’ve been talking about this morning. That remains the government’s policy.

Chair: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: This is not a radical thought, Minister, as many other countries protect their sovereignty by not selling their land to foreign interests. Why is it that Australians can’t buy land in those countries but foreigners from those countries can buy land in our country?

Senator Gallagher: I’m not sure of the countries that you are referring to.

Senator Roberts: China’s one of them. There are a number of countries.

Senator Gallagher: We’re here, and we do have arrangements in place, through FIRB and through the arrangements with the ATO, to put restrictions and limits on the sale of housing or, in FIRB’s case, on foreign investment matters. They are looked at and assessed against the national interest.

Senator Roberts: It’s a one-way street for foreigners. Australians can’t buy property in their countries, but they can buy it in our country.

Click Here for Transcript | Part 2

Acting Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here tonight. My questions are in two streams: registration information for the Australian Taxation Office and foreign investment in real estate. I’ll get on with the first one.

Senator Gallagher: Senator Roberts, FIRB are no longer here.

Senator Roberts: No, it’s to the ATO. You referred me to the ATO this morning.

Senator Gallagher: That’s right; I did. That was a long time ago.

Senator Roberts: A very long time ago. I understand the registration information for the ATO was displaying incorrectly on the business and company registers. It displays a record named ‘ultimate holding for all company’. This was updated in early March. Can you please explain when this error was brought to your attention and what part you had in correcting that?

Mr Jordan: Is this on the Australian Business Register for the ABN?

Senator Roberts: I think that’s where it was, yes.

Mr Allen: I’m not aware of that issue, but I can take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator Roberts: Okay. Could you also answer these questions then please? How did that information come to be displayed on the registers in this way?

Mr Allen: Again, I’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Yes. And also take on notice what information the ATO supplied to the business registry service or ASIC that caused the registration to be displayed in this way. Can you take that on notice?

Mr Allen: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Was it an error from ASIC or the business registry service or the ATO that caused the information to be displayed in this way?

Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator Roberts: How did BlackRock come to be displayed as the owner of ‘ultimate holding for all company’?

Mr Allen: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Can you please take on notice to provide a full chronology of this incident, including data and correspondence—who it was sent to, who it was received from and what was addressed in it?

I’m raising it because it suggests that there may be other errors for entries that are not as high profile that are still there. What routine audit of this database do you have in place to detect such errors? After this embarrassment, have you gone looking for more?

Mr Allen: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. That’s all on that thread. Now I’ll get on to housing. Minister, why does there appear to be little governance or restriction on overseas ownership of existing residential property and newly constructed residential property?

Senator Gallagher: I think we answered this earlier today. Weren’t the issues that were to be referred to the ATO over essentially the approval for foreign investors to buy—

Senator Roberts: I want to put it in context that the ATO understands. Many countries do not allow foreign ownership of their residential property. Why does Australia allow foreign investment in residential property with minimal restriction?

Senator Gallagher: Is that to the ATO?

Senator Roberts: It’s to you, Minister.

Senator Gallagher: As I think I went through this morning, there are restrictions in place. It is something the government—

Senator Roberts: On older properties, but not on newly constructed or first residencies; isn’t that correct?

Senator Gallagher: No. For foreign investors it is targeted at new properties, unless you get an exemption. That’s my understanding. We don’t have that group of officials here—they’ve gone—

Mr Jordan: We have a deputy commissioner of international here.

Senator Gallagher: but that was the evidence this morning.

Mr Jordan: He’s responsible for the registers that we maintain. He will try to answer any questions.

Senator Roberts: So you’re purely a registry?

Mr Thompson: No. As was touched on this morning, in the residential property space the foreign investment regime essentially seeks to promote the growth and development of housing stock. The way it does that is by restricting foreign investment to new builds, development of existing builds or vacant land. There’s only one circumstance in which approval for an established dwelling would be granted under that regime, and that’s for temporary residence. Those properties will need to be divested when that person ceases to be a temporary resident.

Senator Roberts: Established properties cannot be purchased by foreigners?

Mr Thompson: The scenario where an established property would gain approval to be purchased by a foreigner is where they’re a temporary resident.

Senator Gallagher: It’s also when it’s their primary residence, isn’t it?

Mr Thompson: They will be required to live in that—

Senator Roberts: But, other than that, they can’t purchase existing residential properties?

Mr Thompson: That’s correct.

Senator Roberts: Can they build a new property?

Mr Thompson: Broadly speaking, there are three classes of properties that a foreign resident might get approval to purchase. One would be vacant land. One would be redevelopment of an existing property—so you could perhaps subdivide and convert a single dwelling into two dwellings. One would be a new build, yes.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. Doesn’t it still mean that the system is fairly unregulated, since people can come in and develop?

Mr Thompson: There’ll be conditions around our approval, so there’ll be a time period. If you were to seek approval to develop an existing property, there would be time periods around that approval being granted, if it’s not an open-ended approval.

Senator Roberts: Do you know how many properties are being developed or redeveloped every year with foreign ownership?

Mr Thompson: I don’t have that level of detail. We have a register of foreign ownership of residential land that we publish every year. That actually breaks down transactions between vacant land, established dwellings and new dwellings. That would probably be the most disaggregated split I can provide.

Senator Roberts: I’m being asked to wind up. Minister, wouldn’t the widening of the mandate of ATO to include all residential purchases by foreign purchasers go a long way to slowing down the sale of residential properties to foreign speculators?

Senator Gallagher: They do.

Mr Jordan: I think we do. Some are not allowed—

Senator Roberts: Do you register all?

Mr Jordan: and some are allowed, depending on their circumstances. All purchases asked by foreigners to be made are looked at and regulated.

Mr Thompson: I know there was conversation this morning. It is a requirement to seek approval to purchase properties if you’re a foreign resident. We do undertake compliance activity. We do, in some cases, force a divestment of properties. There was a reference made to a civil matter in 2022 where the court imposed penalties of $250,000 on an individual for purchasing four properties without approval.

Senator Roberts: How many existing residential properties have been bought by foreign purchasers in each year over the last five years?

Senator Gallagher: We’d probably take that on notice.

Mr Thompson: Yes. We can take that on notice.

Senator Gallagher: We certainly had some figures that we gave you for the 2020-21 year. But if you want us to go back five years, we’ll take that on notice.

Senator Roberts: What monitoring is in place to keep track of foreign purchases of existing residential properties?

Acting Chair: Can I ask you to see if you can put questions on notice? We need to wind up.

Mr Thompson: I have four years.

Senator Roberts: That’d be good. I can put most questions on notice. How many residential properties, new or existing, are sitting vacant after purchase by foreign purchasers? Do you track things like that?

Mr Thompson: There is a regime that is known as the ‘vacancy theme’. Under that regime, foreign owners are required to notify us if the property is vacant. If they fail to notify us in a given period we deem the property to be vacant and there is a vacancy fee charged for that.

Senator Roberts: Thank you. I will put the rest of my questions on notice.

/15 Comments/by

Huge Immigration numbers causing rental crisis

Has your rent gone up in the previous year? Well you can thank Anthony Albanese. He’s bringing in up to 400,000 immigrants a year and every one of them needs a house too.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people making our amazing Queensland community, I know rental prices are a savage problem. Interest rate rises are increasing mortgage repayments and forcing more investment property owners to dip into their own pockets to pay their mortgage. If owners do not have that extra money, then negative gearing is not going to help. Inflation of 7.8 per cent means that council rates, water rates, maintenance costs and insurance are making it harder and harder to hang on to investment properties.

Now the Greens propose a rent freeze, which is really a 7.8 per cent rent reduction each year that it goes on. The only effect of a rental freeze will be to drive investment property owners out of the market. Australia needs investment property owners to provide a home to people who are renting. Driving them out of the market will hurt the 400,000 new Australians who arrived last year and the one million likely to arrive during the course of this government. 

Rising rentals are a product of too many people chasing too few rentals. We know 10 per cent of Australian homes are owned by investors who are not renting them out. Their investment strategy is to buy a new home and keep it locked up while it appreciates in value. Having a tenant in there is a complication they don’t want and lowers the resale value because the home is no longer new. Most of these properties are foreign-owned.

One Nation would give these owners 12 months to sell those properties to Australians. Bringing that number of homes onto the market would do more to bring prices down than a price cap. And One Nation would reduce immigration to net zero, meaning there would be only enough arrivals each year to replace those that leave. This will allow time for the housing construction industry to catch up with demand. It is about supply and demand.

These sensible, honest policies are One Nation’s solutions to high rents, which will protect real estate values from the chaos a rental cap will introduce. 

/6 Comments/by

The Drums of War – 2SM with Marcus Paul

,

Governments are destroying our country which is making it harder to stand up to China. I talked to Marcus Paul this morning about that and how I was reminded over the weekend about just how good Australian manufacturing used to be.

Transcript

[Marcus Paul] Hello, Malcolm.

[Malcolm Roberts] Good morning, Marcus, how are you?

[Marcus Paul] All right, thank you how are you?

[Malcolm Roberts] Very well, thanks.

[Marcus Paul] What do you make of it all, the drums of war beating and all this rubbish?

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, I think you summarised it very well, when you said marketing. It’s about pretending that the government is strong. Whereas in fact, I’ve just finished an inquiry report for the Northern Agenda. You know, what’s happening in our country, Marcus, is that the North is being held back along the same issues that the South is destroying. Energy, water, taxation, the basics. And the fundamental point about security is you have to have a strong economy. And the wombats in Canberra are destroying our economy through pandering to overseas bureaucrats, and selling our country out. It’s treasonous. So the fundamentals: we have to have a strong economy, a strong country, and that’s what we need to get back to.

[Marcus Paul] All right, with the fact that the, you know, the whole issue of quarantine during the pandemic, which is a federal responsibility, is being completely ballsed up, and palmed off by Morrison and his mates, with the fact that that’s completely being stuffed up. Be, you know, some of the reasons for the distraction, do you think?

[Malcolm Roberts] Possibly quite possibly, because you know, these politicians in Canberra have a habit of distracting, as you just said. But the whole pandemic has not been managed well. What we’ve got is an absence of data, that’s driving the plans. And we don’t have a plan, actually. We don’t even have a strategy. It just seems to be lurching from one thing to the next. One moment, one message to sell. Every single week, different message. There’s no coherent plan, that’s based on data. And I’ll talk more about that in a few weeks time, at senate estimates. But we need a plan for managing our economy, because that is fundamental to health. What we’re doing is destroying our economy, with some of the responses. I mean, people, you know, the Premiers of the States talk, and the Prime Minister talks about going and spending money in your state, and travelling. How the hell can people make plans when they could fly to Western Australia for example, and get locked down because they’ve got one positive test. They’d have to come back and spend $3,000 in quarantine. It’s just capricious. It’s destructive, it doesn’t consider the people.

[Marcus Paul] Your mates up there in the upper Hunter, might be as unhappy as what labor are at the moment, because I’m sorry, Pork-Barrelarow is out there with his chequebook, story this morning. And they’re promising funding to a number of women’s business organisations. While you know, there are other areas, probably should be prioritised. There’s a bit more pork barreling going on by the Berejiklian Barrilaro government, to sort of like keep your heads up on that, mate.

[Malcolm Roberts] I’m not surprised, are you?

[Marcus Paul] Well, of course not.

[Malcolm Roberts] But you know what these people are going around. What we have in this country is a system of having options every four years at the state level, every three years at the federal government level. And people don’t seem to realise that these promises have to be paid for. And who’s gonna pay for them? The very people who have taken part in the election, the voters. So, it’s a disrespectful way of running government, but it seems, the people seem to fall for it quite often. So we’ve gotta get more people aware of what’s going on in government, so that people realise that these promises are just hollow, and that they’re wasting money, quite often

[Marcus Paul] Aussie ingenuity and initiative, what’s happened to it? We used to make engines and wonderful pieces of technology.

[Malcolm Roberts] Well, you’re absolutely correct, Marcus. A lot of your listeners, the older listeners will remember names like Lister, Southern Cross, Cooper, Sundial, Barzakov. These are just some of the names on old engines, old diesel engines that were purring and puttering along at the Dalby, I went out to the Dalby Show. You know, you would have gone to shows when you were a kid.

[Marcus Paul] Oh yeah, yep.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, Royal Easter, where did you grow up?

[Marcus Paul] Sydney’s West, the Luddenham Show, the Penrith Show. You know, they were wonderful.

[Malcolm Roberts] Yeah, and so what we saw at Dalby, which is west of Toowoomba on the Darling Downs, beautiful Darling Downs, it’s definitely a rural town. And we saw one whole field dedicated to 400, more than 400 engines, old engines. Had to be more than 30 years old. Some of them are a 100 years old that were puttering along, and they set a record for having the most engines running concurrently in a small area. But could you imagine this? Hundred metres long, five lines of engines, all with the enthusiasts with them, tinkering them along. You know and these engines, as I said, had to be more than 30 years old. But they worked across our country. They were essential in farming industry. Many were designed and built in Australia, highly dependable, highly reliable. Some were built under licence from overseas countries. We make none of these engines now, none at all. Yet we have great people like Jack Brabham, for example. He’s the only person ever, to have been an owner of a Formula One team, a designer of a car, and the driver, the only one ever. And he won three world champions. He’ll never be repeated. We’ve got the talent in this country. We’ve just destroyed our capacity to be productive.

[Marcus Paul] Ah, gee. All right, Malcolm. Great to have you on the programme, mate. We’ll catch up again next week. Thank you.

[Malcolm Roberts] Thank you, Marcus. Have a good one, mate. One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the Morning.

/by

ANZAC Day: Lest We Forget

,

Last week I talked to Marcus Paul about ANZAC Day, the decision to tear up Victoria’s Chinese belt and road deal and how our politicians have no vision for this country. Transcript on my website: https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/anzac-day-lest-we-forget/

Transcript

[Marcus] As we do each and every Thursday, we catch up with One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts, G’day Malcolm, how are you?

[Malcolm] I’m well, thanks, Marcus. How are you?

[Marcus] Yeah good mate, good to talk to you. ANZAC day, a very important day on our calendar, probably one of the most important.

[Malcolm] Yes. And it really symbolises the forging of our nation, doesn’t it? Our nation officially began in 1901, but Gallipoli and ANZAC spirit was really the birthplace of Australia on the world stage.

[Marcus] Well, absolutely, and at least this year, there have been restrictions, or relaxation of COVID restrictions, which means that more and more people can take part, which is good news, but I didn’t mind the way we commemorated last year at the end of the driveway and stuff, I thought that was a really good way of personalising it for people in suburban Australia.

[Malcolm] Well, it was a way of participating, that’s for sure, but it wasn’t as good as ANZAC day. You know I’ve noticed in the last 30 years in particular, so many young kids now coming out and really celebrating and taking part. It means something to be part of that and belong to that community, that’s Australia now. So last year was a bit underplayed for me. I love ANZAC day.

[Marcus] Yeah. And you’ll be commemorating how this coming Sunday?

[Malcolm] We’ll be out at Dalby, which is a couple hundred kilometres west of Brisbane, we’ll do the dawn service there, and then we’ll go to another service in Toowoomba which you know, is a much larger town. And then we’ll go to the service there as well. And then I’ll be going to stay with my brother and sister-in-law for a little while with my wife, I’ll have the afternoon with them.

[Marcus] Lovely. Look, the Morrison government has torn up Victoria’s controversial Belt and Road agreement with the Chinese government, saying it falls foul of our national interest. It’s a move that will further inflame tensions between Canberra and Beijing. And while they’re at it, while Ms. Payne is flexing her newly-found muscle, can we perhaps ask for the Port of Darwin back?

[Malcolm] Oh, Marcus, you read my mind. Well, what about this, too? So it’s a good first step from the federal government to reclaim Victoria, but what about the restoration of our property rights? It was stolen from farmers by the Howard-Turnbull government in 1996, sorry, Turnbull wasn’t involved then, but 1996.

And the John Howard government went around the constitution and went directly to the states to steal these property rights, so the farmers wouldn’t get compensation, and the purpose? To comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. I am sick and tired of the federal government, Labour, and liberal, and nationals, all pushing the UN agenda, the Kyoto protocol, the Lima declaration, which savage manufacturing, the Paris agreement, on and on. We need to get our country back from the UN, and please let’s have our country back.

[Marcus] All right, tell me about this Western Australian pipeline.

[Malcolm] What an achievement that was. So Anzac day was the start of our nation on the world stage, but prior to that, even before our nation was formed in 1901, in 1896, the Western Australian premier was looking for permanent solutions to water supply in Eastern Goldfields. He commissioned Charles O’Connor, who was a competent and innovative engineer, to build a pipeline.

Now get this, this is what? 124 years ago 125 years ago one and a quarter centuries ago. It was to cover 566 kilometres from the coast, inland into Kalgoorlie, carry 23 million litres of water per day, over a lift, upward vertically at the dam site on the west coast, of 400 metres, 1400 feet. Amazing. It was the longest water supply pipeline in the world, and that’s still the case today. It was the first major pipeline in the world constructed of steel. It used more steel than any other structure in the world at the time, 70,000 tonnes.

And this O’Connor was a proven engineer, but small minded politicians ridiculed him and tried to kill it for political purposes, and they said it was too complex, would never work. Well mate, listen to some of these figures. The benefits of the pipeline were immediately apparent, and it costs two and a half million pounds, which in today’s money is 300-and-something million dollars. But in its first few years, it generated 25 million pounds worth of wealth, and today, it opens up 8 million acres of wheat cropping, that’s almost half of the nation’s wheat.

It has fine wool sheep, and mining, which was in decline before this pipeline was built in Kalgoorlie, it restarted again, and away it went, and in 2017, these are the only figures I’ve got, $11.1 billion of gold was produced in Western Australia, and much of that would have come from Kalgoorlie.

[Marcus] See why don’t we have this sort of vision today? Why are all the naysayers and objectors around, stopping this sort of vision for us to build? I mean, if we could build it back in 1896, this wonderful solution to water supply, why on earth can’t we do it in 2021?

[Malcolm] Well, vision Marcus, as you just pointed out. Vision is not about talking, and not about backstabbing, and not about putting petty agendas and personal egos and fears ahead. Vision is about a dream for something that could happen, and then having the guts to confront those fears, the political fears.

We don’t have politicians today, with very few exceptions, we don’t have politicians who will confront their fears, confront the naysayers, and stand up, and really do what’s needed for Australia. And in 100 years time or 200 years time. That’s what’s needed is politicians with courage to say what is needed.

[Marcus] Yep. Mate you don’t happen to know where this Indonesian submarine is, that’s gone missing off Bali, do you? For goodness sake?

[Malcolm] No, I don’t, but perhaps we could ask the CSIRO, because the CSIRO was in a joint venture with the Chinese government, to explore North, the coast between Australia and Papua New Guinea, can you imagine that? I’m serious!

[Marcus] I know. Talk about in our national interest! No, it’s not. Alright, mate. Good to have you on, we’ll chat next week.

[Malcolm] Same here, thanks Marcus. Enjoy the weekend, mate.

[Marcus] You too, all the best. Oh, there he is. One Nations’ Malcolm Roberts. Marcus Paul in the morning. 13 12 69, the open line number to have your say.

/by