30 Comments

  • Malcolm Hosking

    Less side stepping and more frank speaking would be greatly appreciated from those we pay to pull the wool over our eyes. Bureaucrats dont rule nor should they. Unelected and seemingly plenty of self interest.

  • Calan MacLeod

    These public servants just don't like having to answer any question relating to what they are supposed to be doing for the Australian people.

  • Axe Man

    not used to being asked difficult questions or being exposed to the light of publicity these bureaucrats are they?
    they don't like it much it seems.
    Go get em Senator Roberts, they are weak and cowardly people that can only function when they aren't subject to public scrutiny.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

  • interpretation 21

    I notice the real ethnic people whom founded Australia are hardly sitting there. Ethnicity, as is well known to the globalist factions is the natural culture .it has that natural vitality! Shameful to represent another people's culture !!! Fake! Fraud! Warcrime of the highest nature! At least they should admit they have no franchise with the original culture! Shameful!

    Dong Zhou! You were a tyrant!!!! You came in to help your emperor and you enslaved him in his own palace!!!

    These foreignors have been brought in to destroy the ethnic foundations of Australia! Canada! USA! UK!

    Shameful!!!

    Do I have enough nuclear warheads on hand ???? 🙂

  • erepsekahs

    1:16 That was a very hard big word and so he needed to consult his boss, and she pushed the piece of paper in front of him. My God, and these people actually graduated from High school. It all seems, like all governments to function upon a BSBB basis. ANJEW PAY THESE PEOPLE WITH YOUR TAXES!!! Hahahahahahahahahahhha. It's Monty Pythons Flying Circus in the flesh.

  • -][][-

    Mr Roberts. Could you please raise the issue publicly relating to the report on the Currency Restriction Bill regarding its meeting of legal requirements relating to the engagement with Human Rights. Part of the report stated the setting of the threshold to $10,000AUD was sufficiently high as to not seriously impact the various human rights in an unbalanced nature. Ie; the limit was high enough to adequately offset the impacts of human rights. This infers the subsequent lowering of the threshold would effectively make the Bill null and void pertaining to the original investigation (By the official body charged with supplying a report on Government legislation ‘validity’) and findings issued in the supporting report.

    I understand the premise of the environmental circumstances that any future amendments are based on can be later altered to suit the desired narrative but I think it is a good point to raise at this time, on record, in an attempt to have this matter implemented into the Bill in a manner which meaningfully limits the Governments ability to make such future amendments, as it pleases. Even forcing the relevant ministers (Future candidates for the top job.) to go on record with their intentions for the future implications of this Bill. And at the very least, raise public awareness of this, somewhat, legal implication relating to the current proposed threshold. This will give the wider community the chance to observe the ‘character’ of the reception the raising of this notion receives and the response of the major Parties in relation to this notion, in regards to including a more limited ability for future amendments of the threshold and/or offical commitment to uphold the investigations findings and not make future amendments that are not ‘out of character’ with the requirements of the government to implement this Bill in the particular manner which has been found to not impact human rights in such a manner that would be deemed a violation of them.

    The wording of the report is quite useful in this regard as the emphasis was not so much on the $10,000 AUD limit being a requirement to balance the needs of the Governmentto fight the ‘black economy’ but rather, it quite literally defined the threshold as being adequate to meet the requirements of the Government to sufficiently offset the level of engagement and limitations of the human rights. If this is successfully approached, raised and actioned, future arguments for lowering the threshold are a lot more difficult to justify.

    *(The rest is simply a bit of speculative brainstorming (but credible and partially supported by the facts obtained thus far… So if you made it this far, congrats, and are about to quit anyway, now is the time. Thanks for your time if you made it this far, Mr Roberts and people.)

    Unless of course future UN law places the rights of the ‘world economy’ above those of the individual. (Which is the case when considering the rights of individuals being under the rights of the ‘world government’ which would undoubtedly cover virtually all aspects of its functions and power.

    So we better get in quick and at least TRY get the limit locked in at $10,000AUD.
    And PROPER amendments drafted that excludes private individuals, as stated but upon reading the bill, the amendments are only good for cases where prosecution of a private transaction is not a key aspect of the legal cases intentions. There is more than adequate scope in the Bill for interpretation to cover any and all ‘single’ ‘transactions’

    Such as the filing of your tax return and the settlement of the return/bill. Ie; if convicting an individual was of high enough concern, (and it will be, eventually. Just as the 1996 NFA was implemented to remove high risk firearms capable of catastrophic harm on the community, but now restricts gelblaster toys and effectively bans airsoft toys.) then there is scope in the bill for EVERY dollar earned and spent to be ‘verifiably’ accounted for. This future ‘red herring’ will be the means by which the Bill, in conjunction with other legislation, will shift from merely transactions to effectively include all private holdings and transfers of ‘wealth’ and/or ‘property’
    Ie; EVERYTHING will be registered and you will effectively loss legal ‘ownership’ of everything. (Over say, $500.) And ALL monetary/currency transactions will be done by a registered banking institution and all holdings of transferable wealth/goods/services will be facilitated by a registered financial department of some nature.

    You will trade your sweat and labor for currency you are not permitted to hold and have no legal ownership, or absolute legal title of.
    In short, u won’t (by 2030) own the money you earn from your labour…..

    Im willing to take bets if anyone doubts that.

  • Billy The Kid

    So that's what a cockroach looks like when it sweats. I love how they use medium size words to clamber on to the falsey potrayed intelligence they all claim to have. Rats at the local tip have more honour then these lifeless cockroaches.

  • Peter Sampson

    Well now Senator Roberts, you see that the associated proclivity or inclined and productive amalgamation of relative engagement is closely confined unilaterally if not in a more cogent mannerism deeply, I mean deeply aligned if not progressively, with ongoing commitments going forward. I sincerely hope and fully expect this your question, has been with great alacrity, been answered.

  • David Cullen

    We will never get a straight answer from these lying & deceitful bureaucrat muppets, but one day they will have to look into the eyes of their creator and justify lying and deceiving millions of innocent people for money and prestige.

  • Truth Comes 1st

    Every-one should BE-IN-A-INSTITUTION four falls that are padded. Dumb on.. what will be given is nothing. All babble this one has answered with NO-SENSE.

  • dante dante

    *HOW LONG WILL IT BE BEFORE THE ""SHEELBERIGHT MATE WAKE UP ***THIS IMPOSTOR FAKE GOVERNMENT HAS SOLD OUT AUSTRALIA …SOLD TO THE CHINESE….AUTHORISED THE BANKS TO ""CONFISCATE YOUR SAVINGS ..SUPER. AND .PENSIONS….AND NOW GOING TO BAN CASH WITHDRAWALS TO PROTECT THE ""CORRUPT BANKS BAILIN BILL""…LOCK YOUR MONEY INTO THE BANKS SO YOU CANNOT WITHDRAW IT….FOR NEGATIVE INTEREST RATES *******************************************************************************************************************
    WAKE UP AND GET RID OF THIS CORRUPT GOVERNMENT AND THEIR CORRUPT MULTINATIONAL ASSOCIATES INCLUDING THE CORRUPT BANKS ……….DO IT NOW OR LOSES YOUR MONEY SAVINGS …BUT MOST OF ALL YOU WILL COMPLETELY LOSE AUSTRALIA FOREVER …………..WAKE UP …THESE IMPOSTOR POLITICIANS MUST BE IN OUR JAIL ….NOT OUR GOVERNMENT ..

  • lost in space

    Its good to see government on big money , you get what you pay for ,, OK , ARR .. you get nothing ,,, for lots of money

  • [:CRAIG - GOODEY.]

    Hell yeah and when you get pulled over buy the police you have to answer all questions or you get locked up. Australia has to leave Ed the UN

  • Kazeee Vaughan

    I do NOT recall the Australian people being asked if they wanted our country to be involved with the UN's Agenda 21/30. WHY was this done without our knowledge & or permission???

  • Philip Manuel

    Good job, Malcolm, for exposing the holes in this audit they are doing. It is bound to simply turn out to be a bag farce.

  • Complexed Mind

    Keep asking the questions Malcolm, you're doing great.
    Instead of asking if they will acknowledge something, ask them. Do you have knowledge of that "thing".
    Glad to see the comments open👌👌

  • tigressnsnow

    CASH BAN
    "Very soon spending anything more than $10,000 in legal tender could become illegal.

    The idea is that cash will instead need to be deposited in the bank, and purchases will be made by electronic transfer.

    If proposed laws get Senate support as expected, anyone using cash for a purchase over $10,000 will face a $25,000 fine and two years jail.

    It’s true that most of us don’t have $10,000 cash lying around, but there are those who do, and cash is still legal tender. And anyone who has saved up to buy a second hand car or boat, or pay for a holiday, or a new garden shed, should be allowed to do it.

    The Liberals and Labor have already said they support the cash ban, despite members in both parties being concerned. One Nation opposes the ban.

    The government says the laws are designed to stop crimes like money laundering and tax evasion, but I am concerned that there might be a hidden motive. Is the economy in a much more drastic position than we are told? Does the Government want cash back in the banks to prop up Australia’s finances?

    Whatever the reason, if you don’t want the loss of this freedom, you should let your loacal Senators know before it goes to the vote soon.

    Who knows what freedoms will be lost next.'
    (Ref One Nation Statement 5.3.20) million

  • col

    Multilateral what… The banking cabal and self appointed corrupt UN clearly have a stronghold on the private corp. COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA regd. in DC. Well done senator Roberts for providing as much resistance as you can

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *