Posts

Labor’s Failures in Immigration and Security

,

The recent admission by Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, that the Labor government has lost control of Australia’s borders is deeply troubling. A government’s primary responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and this revelation is a national disgrace.

It seems that the government has ceded control of our borders to the courts. The hasty release of dangerous criminals into the community following a High Court decision last year was a direct consequence of this failure to prepare.

Labor’s mismanagement is further underscored by the recent statistics from the ABS, revealing a record influx of 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals in January 2024 alone. This represents a 40% increase over the previous January record, placing immense strain on infrastructure and services.

This government’s actions that include reissuing visas to released detainees – murderers, rapists and child sex offenders – demonstrate a profound inability to govern effectively and responsibly. Labor has proven itself untrustworthy and incapable of fulfilling its duties to the Australian people.

Transcript

On immigration, this government is lost. Its failure to prepare for the anticipated High Court NZYQ decision last year enabled the rushed and ill-considered release of dangerous criminals from detention straight into the community. With no backup plan, Labor lurches from one disaster to another. Labor issued invalid visas to the released criminals. Labor charged at least 10 of those criminals for breaching visa conditions. Labor were forced to withdraw the charges because the visas were invalid. Labor then reissued new visas to all released detainees, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. It now appears that potentially another 150 criminal detainees will soon be released into the community without appropriate safeguards. Some detainees maintain that, if they do not cooperate with deportation processes, they cannot be deported and should be released into the community. 

The revelation from the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, over the weekend that the Labor government has lost control of our borders is a national disgrace. A government’s principal role is to provide security for its citizens, and the minister’s admission is terrifying and absolutely damning. It appears that the government has relinquished to the courts the power over our borders. 

Most recently, two boatloads of illegal immigrants made it to our shores, getting past border security, making a mockery of national security. There was the rushed issue of visas to Palestinian refugees from Gaza, some visas taking only an hour or so to issue. What about the cancellation of the visas in transit, then the reissue of most of the visas? This is a hopelessly inept government trying to look good, not do good. ABS statistics for January reveal a staggering 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals. Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals in January was 55,330, 40 per cent higher than the previous January record intake way back in 2009, putting enormous strain on infrastructure and services. This Labor government does not know how to govern. This Labor government cannot be trusted. 

/6 Comments/by

Make Immigration About Quality Not Quantity! 

I have concerns about two aspects of immigration.  Quantity, which refers to the number of people who are let in, and quality. We should only allow new people to come and live here if they’ll make good citizens. The debacle with the released detainees putting the Australian public at known risk should never have been allowed to happen. 

Immigration numbers are currently absurd. One Nation wants to reduce immigration to zero net. That means only letting in as many people as we are seeing depart from Australia. Zero-net immigration will reduce inflation, the housing market including rentals and reduce pressure on essential services and infrastructure. It’s what many people are wanting. 

The bar for quality of immigration needs to be raised. Those who will comply with Australian laws and whose culture and values are compatible with our society are the people who will benefit our nation.

It’s quality, not quantity that Australia needs to secure our future.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that the Albanese Labor government’s response to the High Court’s decision of NZYQ v Minister for Immigration,
Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs & Anor handed down on 8 November 2023 has been a debacle, actually, a dark humour catastrophe threatening Australians. It is clear the government was caught on the hop and totally unprepared for the decision that was openly predicted long before the High Court handed down its decision. The plaintiff’s successful argument was based on a mainstream interpretation of the concept of the separation of powers that underpins and is part of our Constitution, the Australian Constitution. This principle, fundamental to the Australian system of government, ensures the power to make and manage laws should be shared between three groups—the parliament, the executive and the judiciary. This avoids one group having all the power. The first three chapters of the Australian Constitution define the parliament, the executive and the judiciary and the roles they each play in making and managing laws in Australia. Each group has its own area of responsibility and each keeps a check on the actions of the others.

The Australian parliament makes and changes the law. It consists of the Governor-General representing the King, the Senate and the House of Representatives. The executive implements the law. It is comprised of the Governor-General representing the King, the Prime Minister, other ministers and members of the Public Service generally.

The judiciary interprets, makes judgements and rules on the law, comprising the court system, with the High Court of Australia as the highest court in our system. A feature of the judiciary is that it has the exclusive power to impose penalties or other punitive measures. No other body can impose penalties. The executive does not have this power. This means that even ministers do not have the power to impose punitive measures. The High Court confirmed this interpretation, affirming the separation of powers.

The logical conclusion was that the minister’s decisions to detain indefinitely a large number of persons under ministerial direction was predictably struck down as unconstitutional. So what should the government have been doing in the interim? Has this Labor government ever thought of the concept of a plan B? I don’t think it has a plan A. It was highly likely the High Court would apply the concept of the separation of powers. Wasn’t it logical that what would follow on would be the release of detainees who had not lawfully been detained? If a law to detain is unlawful ab initio—from the beginning—it is as if the law never existed and the detaining would be considered unlawful. I wonder how many lawsuits are being prepared right now, as I speak, against the government for unlawful detention—more taxpayer money flushed down the toilet.
Let’s consider what the government did as a response to the High Court decision. Firstly, after the initial stream of expletives, the government tried to put together a knee-jerk response by releasing some detainees under
subsequent conditional visas. A condition of some of these visas was the requirement to attach electronic monitoring devices and comply with curfew obligations. Many in the community would consider the obligation to wear monitoring bracelets and to be subject to a corrective services curfew to be punitive. Did the judiciary or executive authorise this action? Did a judge authorise this? Does this all sound familiar? The executive is deciding punishment, again. How enforceable these conditions will be may well come before the High Court. Whether these conditions will be effective in protecting the community remains to be seen. One detainee absconded and was relocated soon after. Another four detainees initially declined to be monitored with bracelets, the number now being two. What other steps are being taken to ensure the safety of people in the community? Already media is reporting considerable fear within the community. We know of at least two assaults due to these people. Surely we’re all entitled to live without fear of injury from violent offenders dumped the community without rehabilitation or proper planning.

Some of these detainees are rapists, murderers, a contract killer, paedophiles—the worst scum of humanity unwanted in any country and plopped into our neighbourhoods. Most people, with the exception of the Greens,
would be abhorrent to this. The worst of these is Mr Benbrika, a convicted terrorist who planned to murder thousands of Australians at large public gatherings. He will complete his prison sentence shortly and must be considered an undesirable resident of Australia and should be deported. Most people in Australia, apart from the Greens, would consider that true.

I certainly would wish to know what alternatives were considered to prevent circumventing the monitoring devices and committing an offence before action could be taken to intervene. Have victims’ families been warned of the offending detainees’ release? Amazingly, the latest government bills in this area do not include either compulsory reviews or considerations of the separation of powers principles. They do not. One Nation is placing before the Senate options to consider now that this bill is under consideration.

What’s the cost of this government’s hopeless management skills? The cost to taxpayers in terms of personal security is shot. The protection of a sound legal system has been abused. And there is an actual dollar cost. Labor has a well-deserved reputation for lousy money management and is now running for cover as its lack of foresight in managing predictable outcomes of poor political solutions emerges yet again. Bring on the next election so that Australians can bring on a better government for all Australians.

What’s needed is transparency. In yet another embarrassing response from this lame-duck government, which has never shown leadership and has repeatedly failed to read the mood of the Australian public, how wrong could the Albanese government have been when promoting the catastrophic loss at the recent Voice referendum? It was completely out of touch. It relied on the vibe. It was not good governance.

The Labor government’s policies on immigration and home security are woefully inadequate and are contributing to the high costs of living, high interest rates and waste of public funding, and they are now gutting home security. The heightened apparent antisemitism within Middle Eastern immigrant populations is on display for one and all to see. How shameful was the government response to the disgraceful demonstration on the Sydney Opera House steps? How many of the people demonstrating in support of the Hamas terrorists and Palestinian rights could be said to demonstrate or even pass the good character test required for many visas?

The rise of antisemitism, fear and hatred in the community is in many ways the result of a failure to exclude from Australia those who can never accept Australian standards, principles of equality and fairness, and abiding by the law. Letting anybody into Australia without conducting a genuine assessment of suitability is unacceptable. Issuing hundreds of visas to Palestinians without appropriate assessments immediately after the Hamas atrocities in October was a huge folly. There was stupidity, recklessness and irresponsibility.

We are concerned about two aspects of immigration: quantity—the number of people who are let in—and quality. Immigration numbers are currently absurd. One Nation wants to reduce immigration to net zero. That means only enough people being allowed in to equal the number of people who leave. This will reduce inflation, house prices, house rentals and pressure on infrastructure. It’s what many people want. Quality of immigration needs to be raised so that only people who comply with Australian laws and fit in with our culture and values are admitted. Who pays for this government’s mismanagement and spin? As always, it is the people—today’s Australians and future Australians not yet born—and that’s a responsibility of today’s government. The government needs to start with data and facts when developing its policies and legislation and put the needs of Australians first. It needs to get it right for national security.

As senators serving the Australian people, please remember that government has three roles: to protect life, to protect property and to protect freedom. Prime Minister Rudd opened the immigration and refugee floodgates. Pressure from the people and the polls forced him very quickly to reverse his policies, but the damage had been done. The Albanese Labor government has made an art form of blaming the coalition. Now it’s becoming a joke. The Albanese slide in the polls looks steeper than the Gillard slide and even the Rudd slide as both previous governments fell into disarray and their leaders were found deficient.

Finally, the Labor government tells us this is a matter of urgency, and it is, yet the Albanese government in charge of the House of Representatives gave itself Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday off. Why didn’t it call the House of Representatives back and get on with it? Don’t just talk urgency; take urgent action. It’s time for Labor to genuinely listen to the views of the community and to act quickly and accordingly to protect Australians and ensure justice.

/8 Comments/by

$400m in Running Costs for Nauru?

,

I asked Home Affairs if $400 million in annual running costs was reasonable. In their opinion it is reasonable, however what exactly are Australians paying for? I couldn’t get an answer out of them about how many people the facility can hold. We know there were two people there until a boat interception took place in September, which means the facility is now playing host to another 11 residents.

This facility is a sinkhole for hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars. The department is tight-lipped about details around the cost-effectiveness of this clearing facility. I touched on Senator Lambie’s question about a potential threat to our security which came from a whistleblower. The Minister responded and a statement was provided to allay any concerns around the vetting of asylum seekers in the current geopolitical climate.

How much does Nauru cost per person? I don’t think we’d like the answer. It isn’t reasonable at all to expect Australians to foot the bill for this facility without a breakdown of the costs versus the benefits. We need better decisions around asylum seekers and better outcomes at a time when too many Australians are struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table.

$400 million for a handful of asylum seekers doesn’t make sense, so who is profiting out of this?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions have to do with the costs and, since hearing some things in the last two hours, the cost-effectiveness of maintaining Nauru. We’ve learned that there were two people in detention on
Nauru until September and now there are 13; correct?

Ms Foster: There are two people on island. We didn’t say they were in detention. There are now 11 people who are being held in the regional processing facility. I just make that distinction—that there are 11 people being detained in that facility and there are two others on island.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for that clarification. The two people are free to roam, are they?

Ms Foster: I’ll ask Mr Thomas to help me here.

Mr Thomas: There are different circumstances for the individuals. I’m just trying to think of the best way to explain this, noting the privacy reasons for the individuals.

Ms Foster: We are hesitating only because it’s a small number of individuals and speaking about their particular circumstances could well identify people and be an invasion of privacy. They are in different stages of
arrangements with the Nauruan government. That meant that they were unable to leave Nauru earlier this year.

Senator ROBERTS: So they are not in detention but are living in Nauru?

Mr Thomas: They are not in the regional processing centre. So they are not part of the regional processing detention arrangements in terms of their location.

Senator ROBERTS: How much is it costing taxpayers per year to maintain Nauru as an offshore processing facility for asylum seekers?

Ms Cargill: In relation to regional processing, the portfolio budget statement for 2023-24 lays out the project budget for IMA offshore management. For 2023-24 the budget is $400 million.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the capacity in terms of the number of people it can hold?

Mr Thomas: It varies depending on the make-up of any individuals in that. There are a number of facilities in Nauru associated with regional processing.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total capacity?

Mr Thomas: It will depend on the make-up of any grouping—for example, family groupings, different genders and different ages. There might be requirements to house people differently. It just depends on the make-
up. It’s variable. Different sites will come online at different times to accommodate different numbers of individuals depending on the make-up of them.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand it’s complex, but what would be a rough estimate of, in practice, what you could hold at Nauru?

Mr Thomas: I’m sorry. I hesitate to give you an estimate of the number just because it goes to operational capability.

Senator ROBERTS: How many single males could be held there?

Mr Thomas: For the same reason, putting that number out in public would potentially breach operational sensitivity.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go, then, to the arrivals. I think a few of us were caught by surprise that there had been arrivals. How many new arrivals have arrived at Nauru since May 2022?

Mr Thomas: Just the recent 11.

Senator ROBERTS: That it? Okay. That’s September. Can you give us the breakdown by gender and age?

Mr Thomas: As noted to the previous senator, I am hesitant to provide that level of detail. I will take it on notice and come back to the committee.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Also, I’d like to know their source in terms of where they boarded the boat and their country of origin.

Mr Thomas: Same as previously, I would ask any operational questions be directed to the ABF at the next outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: On your figure of $400 million per year as a cost, is that reasonable to maintain an offshore facility?

Mr Thomas: The short answer is yes in terms of the requirements to maintain the facilities and services, noting that the enduring capability requires a certain baseline level of capability to keep it at a ready state.

Senator ROBERTS: The key, Minister, is to ensure Australia selects who enters and that we allow no security risk; correct?

Senator Watt: I said before that I’m confident that the security issues surrounding individuals are taken into account by ministers.

Senator ROBERTS: The key is to ensure that Australia selects who enters our country?

Senator Watt: Yes, that is obviously the Australian government’s position.

Senator ROBERTS: And a big part of that is to make sure there are no security risks coming in?

Senator Watt: Yes. There are always, whatever type of entrant to Australia we are talking about, basic health and security checks that are undertaken.

Senator ROBERTS: Surely the best way to reassure the people as to whether or not Hamas sympathisers are coming in is to produce the facts? That’s all Senator Lambie was asking for.

Senator Watt: Yes, there are, and surely the best way to not inflame the community is to have some evidence for making those sorts of claims, like those you’re making now, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Unfortunately, with this misinformation-disinformation bill and so on being bandied around by the Labor government—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you know that’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Lambie said quite clearly to you that she got inside information. She’s not going to give you the names.

Senator Watt: I know, and we are getting this matter checked. But, Senator Roberts, I would encourage you and all senators be really, really sure of what you’re saying if you’re going to suggest that terrorist sympathisers are entering Australia. That is a very big call to make, and—

Senator ROBERTS: That’s an inflation of what I said.

Senator Watt: at a time when the community is really worried, understandably, around the Middle East conflict—and we’re seeing a lot of tension within the community—it doesn’t help to suggest, without providing
evidence to back it up, that terrorist sympathisers are entering the country.

Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I did not suggest anything. I was supporting Senator Lambie’s call. Senator Watt, what you’re saying means that you need to be very, very clear and very, very prompt.

Senator Watt: We’ve got a bit of an update on this matter, and it might be helpful for Ms Foster—

Senator ROBERTS: Did you hear what I just said?

Senator Watt: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: You need to be clear and prompt in your answers—

Senator Watt: We are—

Senator ROBERTS: and not make sensational claims.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, the minister is attempting to answer your question while you’re interrupting him doing so. If we could get that update, that would be helpful, I think.

Senator Watt: Ms Foster has an update, yes.

Ms Foster: Senator, we undertook to get back as quickly as possible in response to Senator Lambie’s question. I can provide an assurance that no-one with security or terror links has been brought to Australia for a temporary purpose. I understand Senator Lambie may have been informed that there were some, amongst the cohort, who had character concerns; that’s a much broader definition. The ministerial intervention process allows consideration for management in Australia for individuals with character issues, including keeping them in held detention. Some of these, of course, may have been resettled in third countries.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Foster. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIR: Thank you very much, Senator Roberts. I’m glad we got that answer in the end.

/5 Comments/by

Rule of Law must prevail

https://youtu.be/gF9ofK-WnqA

We have to leave the investigation of criminal offences to the police. If the presumption of innocence is abandoned in this country, many things will fall in this country. Also in this interview: Labor proposes giving preference to gay, lesbian and trans refugees, Woolworths backs down on proposed cash ban in stores and Nationals join One Nation in support of vaping.

Transcript

[Marcus] G’day mate! How are you, Malcolm?

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

[Marcus] Good, thank you. It’s been a very busy morning. Ministers are like all people, entitled to presumption of innocence. Parliament is not a court. It should not get into police work other than holding police accountable when police have failed the people. I mean, in your opinion, is there a problem with the culture under, you know, one of our most sacred roofs, Parliament House in Canberra?

[Malcolm] Marcus, I think there’s always a problem with where there’s an imbalance of power. Senior levels of corporations, we’ve seen some union bosses in strife over these kinds of things, and it really comes down to the human condition, and people having that ego, and let’s face it: there’s a lot of power in Parliament and a lot of people there for the wrong reasons that have come to exercise their power.

I’m not just talking about politicians, I’m talking about staffers, and so wherever you’ve got something like that, there’s potential for the people who want to exercise their power to have power over other people. So that’s the real issue, and that does come down to culture, but it’s not going to be fixed by a law.

Culture is up to people like myself, for example. We had a cultural statement that guided all of our recruiting, and we made that very clear to everyone who was interviewed for a job in my office that they had to abide by that culture, and we wanted their commitment before they even started. And so that’s how we sorted things out, and we have systems in place to make sure that people abide to that way, but what we really need is to understand that culture is so important.

It’s the most important driver of productivity in any company, Marcus, and so we know it’s that important. So it’s a huge driver of behaviour, so it’s up to individual politicians, and I think the media should be chasing people, but ultimately, it’s the law that convicts someone, no one else. The police officers, the courts, that’s the process we need to follow.

[Marcus] All right. What about the government or Parliament as a whole? I mean, if the prime minister himself, and Anthony Albanese a short while ago, again, repeated calls for the prime minister to launch an inquiry into this culture, into the whole Christian Porter affair, et cetera, I mean, if the prime minister feels there is a culture that needs addressing, then of course he should address it, but I don’t think he has.

I’ve got to be honest, I do not believe Scott Morrison has done the right thing, this is just my opinion, by the women of Australia. I think he’s a victim blamer, I think he’s almost misogynistic, and I think that he’s lacking in empathy.

[Malcolm] I don’t agree with those verdicts that you have, but I do agree that he’s a facade builder and he’s a marketing person. He likes to look good, not do good. And he had a– Remember when Christopher Pyne and Julie Bishop retired as ministers, and they went straight into cushy jobs, each of them, that looked to have conflicts of interest with their past work as ministers.

Now he appointed, after a lot of pressure Scott Morrison appointed an internal investigation, and it was headed by Martin Parkinson, who was, at the time, the top bureaucrat in the country. He was the Secretary or Head of Prime Ministers and Cabinet office.

Now, the Labor Party and I, and a couple of liberals, pursued him in an inquiry into the investigation, and I got pretty relentless and held him accountable Martin Parkinson, the top bureaucrat in the country, and eventually after a lot of questioning from me he said, “Hey, I don’t have any power to investigate,” and I went, “What?! You’re investigating this, “but now you tell us after relentless questioning from me “that you don’t have any power?”

So what Scott Morrison has done has appointed, I believe Gaetjens, I’ve forgotten his first name, to investigate this, and that’s not adequate, but we need to leave it in the hands of the police. Now, if it comes to investigating culture, then we need to have a proper committee, an external committee. But you know what, the best thing of all? If we had an independent corruption inquiry committee that looked into corruption in Parliament.

That’s what we need. And so Scott Morrison has run away from that, the Liberal Party has run away from that, the Labor Party is not that powerful about it either, but ourselves, the Greens, and the independents are pushing for that a, fair dinkum one.

[Marcus] All right. What about Grace Tame? I mean, you’ve mentioned her this morning. Well, on the notes that I’ve got here, callers have mentioned her as well. What did you make of her commentary yesterday? Am I reading right here, saying that you think she’s hijacking this issue?

[Malcolm] No, no. I think she’s criticising. She’s really done a great job, full credit to her. No, as I understand it, Marcus, I haven’t seen the actual note, but Grace Tame has criticised the media for using victims and hijacking issues.

[Marcus] Sure, okay.

[Malcolm] And I watched that young lady’s speech when she accepted the award for Australian of the Year for 2021, what a remarkable woman.

Did you hear her criticism yesterday of the prime minister?

[Malcolm] No I didn’t. What did she say?

[Marcus] Well, she basically turned around. There was a really good question that was asked of her. I’ll play it for you, I’ve got a bit of time here. I’ll just make sure I get it up on my screen. She basically turned around and said that the prime minister, well, she called him out on a little bit of the language that he’s used in this whole debate, I’m just trying to find it here. Sorry, mate. I’m just trying to– anyway, what we might do, we might– have you got time to hold on till after eight?

[Malcolm] Yeah, sure.

[Marcus] Yeah, I might do that, ’cause I think I want to talk further with you on this issue and the news is, we’re about to bump into it. So Malcolm, just hold on there please, mate, and my apologies for today, holding you up, because I want to get onto your thoughts on Labor’s immigration policy as well, the Woolie’s cash ban that’s been defeated, and also we’ve had some conversations recently with Matt Canavan, good conversations on this programme about vaping and e-cigarettes.

I want to get your thoughts on that as well. So I’ll just get you to hold on there, mate. Thank you for being so patient and understanding.

[Malcolm] You’re all right, Marcus.

[Marcus] Just hang on there. Malcolm Roberts, he’ll be back after the eight o’clock news, some other issues I want to get into. All right, Malcolm Roberts, welcome back, mate, thank you.

[Malcolm] You’re welcome, Marcus. All right, now I’m going to play you the audio that Grace Tame was involved in yesterday. Australian of the Year Grace Tame was asked what she thought of Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s use of the phrase “as a father”, referring to a chat that he had with his wife Jenny when he responded to the allegations by Brittany Higgins, this was her response to it yesterday. I’ll play it now.

[Grace Tame] It shouldn’t take having children to have a conscience. And actually, on top of that, having children doesn’t guarantee a conscience.

[Marcus] And it’s been reported widely this morning that she didn’t miss. What do you make of that?

[Malcolm] I’ve got goosebumps listening to it. What a wonderful lady, what a very bright young woman, admired. I agree with her totally. You know, conscience is a matter of what our inner guidance says, and that is what should be driving this, and that should be about values that are tied to Australian values.

And you know, Marcus, in many ways, rape is the most horrendous crime there is because it invades someone. I mean, it’s just sickening because that person has to live with that for the rest of their life. Now, murder is terrible too, obviously, you can’t take away someone else’s life, but a murdered person, that’s the end of it for them, but a raped person has to live with it for the rest of their life, and it’s just, it’s never– it’s always been something that has just repulsed me. It’s just beyond it.

[Marcus] Let’s move on to another issue here. Labor’s immigration policy of–

[Malcolm] Before we do Marcus, I think that, you know, there is a need to understand something else that drives Parliament.

[Marcus] Right.

[Malcolm] Parliament is no longer driven by data and facts. We don’t have policies and decisions coming out of the Liberal and Labor Parties based on data and facts, and when that happens, fantasy takes over. It’s okay to fudge things. It’s okay to tell lies. It’s okay to wield power over people.

But the people who pay the price are the everyday Australians. That’s who pays the price, and what we need to do is call out the voters, because voters are putting up with this nonsense. We have family law that’s been an issue for 50 years.

[Marcus] Mm, very true.

[Malcolm] It took Pauline Hanson to get stuck into that, ’cause that drives a lot of the abuse. We have energy prices that are being driven on an insane whim, that carbon dioxide affects the– that human carbon dioxide affects the climate of the whole world, it’s absolute nonsense.

There’s never been data presented to Parliament for that. Then we have question time. I mean, you look at the behaviour of Parliamentarians in question time by Senate and House of Reps, absolute disgrace. There is no respect for the institution of Parliament amongst those MPs, there’s no respect to the voters who put them there, and the voters need to say, “I’ve had enough “of the Labor Party and Liberal Party playing games.”

These are too important. We need to see people being held accountable for data and facts and decisions based on data and facts. While ever the voters keep putting these two parties in, they will keep getting the crap being dished out to them.

[Marcus] All right. Immigration has been a volatile topic for the Labor Party in the past two decades. In the 2021 draft platform, the party proposes giving more government support to asylum seekers, especially gay, lesbian and trans refugees, while maintaining support for offshore detention.

Obviously like, look, I don’t need to really go too far. I mean, I’ll probably speak tomorrow to your colleague, Mark Latham, about this. He’s been very critical of this, but what do you say?

[Malcolm] Well, you know, the ultimate– the first thing we need to take care of is our own Australians, put them first. We’ve got veterans currently homeless in our country. Then we need to accept sensible, genuine, sorry– genuine refugees in sensible numbers, and not accept them based purely on what gender or sexual orientation they currently claim to be or identify as.

Australia has a very generous refugee intake and welfare. We have very strong welfare systems that look after people. They can come here and they get a lot for nothing. Now, Labor’s policy, as the Australian reported, is based on giving preference to gays and transsexuals. Well, it’s entitled to have that policy, but I don’t think that reflects the everyday Australian.

Entry to Australia should be on the basis of merit, and how people fit into Australian culture, values, laws. When someone, you know, a gay man in an Islamic country where they throw gays off roofs and kill them, or a white South African farmer, if they’re the two options they should be treated objectively. They shouldn’t be treated on the basis of race or religion or colour or anything else.

They should be treated on how they will contribute to our country and the values they uphold. But why are we discussing this when we can’t even allow people into the country right now? It’s just beyond me.

[Marcus] That is true. All right, but again, that’s– I dunno, look, maybe, the cynic in me says, because, well, you know what’s happening this weekend. It is Mardi Gras time, and it’s a time when this community does get a lot of the spotlight.

I’ll agree to slightly disagree with you there, Malcolm, I think we should be welcoming people who are sadly objectified and vilified and even worse in other countries around the world. But one thing we do have common ground–

[Malcolm] Well, we should be welcoming them but we shouldn’t be discriminating against them, we shouldn’t be discriminating in favour of them.

[Marcus] Fair enough.

[Malcolm] We should be treating everyone on the merits of the case.

[Marcus] The Woolie’s cash ban. It’s a bit of a win. We know that in a number of cities, they’ve been trialling you know, card only terminals and all the rest of it. I think it’s bad enough that these big corporations are sacking checkout operators and replacing them with machines.

I don’t go to do my shopping to replace workers. I shouldn’t have to scan my own groceries. They say, it’s all, you know, to save you time and so we can keep our prices low. Well, that’s bullshit. What they’re doing basically is trying to save or cut back on their costs. Malcolm.

[Malcolm] Yes, that’s an interesting perspective. We just looked at the cash ban as something that was brought in for the wrong reasons. They told us it was about anti-money laundering, which is complete nonsense, and we’ve got the facts to show that. Initially, when the government brought this into the lower house, the cash ban bill, Labor supported it in the lower house.

It got through to a Senate committee. We went to work very strongly. We convinced the Greens to join us, We convinced in opposing the cash ban. We convinced the crossbench senators, who weren’t aware of it at the time, to jump in.

Then we actually embarrassed Labor into it, and then the government realised it was dead, so we moved a motion to get that bill, cash ban bill, off the books in Parliament, and that’s what happened, so we won. Then we put pressure on Woolie’s with our recent petition. But the real thing here is that there’s people power, and we listen and work actively with people, and what the people have done is told Woolie’s, “Stick your cash ban.”

And so while it is an interesting argument you make about preserving jobs, people will go to whoever gives them the best service, you know, and so it’s important to let people have the freedom to decide whether they will use cash or not. It’s not up to some government implementing an IMF policy from overseas globalists to tell us we can’t use our cash because they want to control us. That’s where it’s headed.

[Marcus] Well, it’s current tender, and to be perfectly honest, if you turn up somewhere and you’ve only got cash, you know, you should be able to use it regardless.

[Malcolm] Exactly.

[Marcus] All right, finally, e-cigs and vaping, we spoke to– who did we speak to on this last week, Scruff? There’s so much going on at the moment. Oh, Matt Canavan, we spoke to Matt about it. He’s been doing a little bit of work on this issue. Senator Stirling Griff’s motion in the Senate against vapes and e-cigs has been defeated.

Your position is that vaping and e-cigarettes are as safe as the solution that they’re in. They should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for Schedule 3 pharmacy-only medication.

[Malcolm] Yes, we’ve been pushing this issue for a number of years now, and it’s very good to see Senator Matt Canavan at last join us. I pushed a bill with David Leyonhjelm when he was in the Senate back in 2016-17, but, you know, e-cigs have been shown to be a way of getting people to cut smoking altogether.

They have reduced smoking rates. They do not introduce people to smoking. That is nonsense. They have been very effective in cutting down the use of cigarettes, which are harmful. E-cigs look as though they’re not at all harmful, at all, and a good way of getting people away from harmful activities like smoking.

So that’s why we’ve been in favour of it, and it’s pleasing to see that Matt’s joining us on this as well as some other policies that they have long opposed, they’re changing as a result of the pressure we’re putting on them.

[Marcus] All right. Thank you, mate, great to have you on the programme as always. We’ll talk again next week.

[Malcolm] Look forward to it, Thanks, Marcus.

/by