Speaker 1: Thank you for listening to de Pictures Media Radio.
Speaker 2: Welcome to Policy and Writes, Show Up, Welcoming Policy, Human Joy.
Speaker 2: This is Policy and Rights with your hosts Kelly Reaver
Speaker 2: or known as DJ Ray If you're counting on me
Speaker 2: on gums and maples. Anyways, Yeah, so I'm going to
Speaker 2: talk to you about the future of Australia. Adam Stokes,
Speaker 2: one of the interviewers, sat down with Senator General Rennick
Speaker 2: about the future of the with well mostly Australian politics
Speaker 2: and the economy from his point of view, the policies
Speaker 2: of inflation, central banking, national sovereignty, etc. So they go
Speaker 2: on to continuing on issues like labor and liberal liberal
Speaker 2: and labor through their debate stages from the elections. Who's
Speaker 2: in charge in Australia? Have you ever been threatened? Where
Speaker 2: the politicians judges exempt from taking the vaccine and talk
Speaker 2: about a lot of vaccine situations, How Australians feel so poor,
Speaker 2: Where is Australian text, money is going, et cetera. Those
Speaker 2: kind of issues. So right now it's about well, the
Speaker 2: clip's about thirty four minutes and fourteen seconds on the clip.
Speaker 2: If you want to have any comments or questions about
Speaker 2: either myself or with Michael Clogg's Depictions Media. You can
Speaker 2: go online wo wo wo dot Depictions d E P I,
Speaker 2: C T I O N S dot Media and follow
Speaker 2: the links there to get a contact to Otherwise, his
Speaker 2: email address is Michael at Ribbon's Marketing and Networking dot
Speaker 2: com or his Depictions Media Michael at Depictionsmedia dot com. Anyways,
Speaker 2: I'm going to go over to now the clip of
Speaker 2: the Senator Jerald Rennick on Australia's future and their beliefs
Speaker 2: on it, mostly again on Australian politics and Australian economy.
Speaker 2: You can always email me sent to DJ that's my
Speaker 2: old email. Sorry, Gums and met Poles at gmail dot
Speaker 2: com for you know, for music that I do for
Speaker 2: Gums of Meat, Poles Radio or on Depictions Media. Thank
Speaker 2: you very much, and of course here's the clip, and
Speaker 2: I will talk to again soon. Have a great day
Speaker 2: and we'll again. We'll talk to you again soon.
Speaker 3: This morning I had the unique opportunity to speak with
Speaker 3: Senator Jared Rennick to get his insight on the Australian
Speaker 3: economy and political landscape. Note I neither paid for this
Speaker 3: interview nor was given any money to conduct it. I
Speaker 3: simply reached out to many Australian leaders to give them
Speaker 3: the opportunity to speak my platform beyond what labor and
Speaker 3: liberal get on the mainstream media. Note also, this is
Speaker 3: neither an endorsement nor disendorsement for the Senator, but rather
Speaker 3: just an opportunity for us to hear what he has
Speaker 3: to say and provides you insights therefore options when it
Speaker 3: comes time to vote. To all Australian political leaders, irrespective
Speaker 3: of what side of the aisle you sit on, you
Speaker 3: are always welcome on this channel, so you can speak
Speaker 3: freely and Australia can hear what you have to say.
Speaker 3: Whilst on this channel we're typically accustomed to interviews going
Speaker 3: for several hours. We have to respect that the Senator
Speaker 3: is an immensely busy man. Therefore, I'm very grateful for
Speaker 3: the time that he gave me. This is my interview
Speaker 3: with the good Senator, Senator Rennick. Thank you for joining
Speaker 3: me this morning.
Speaker 1: It's good to be here. Thanks for having me on
Speaker 1: Adam Senator.
Speaker 3: Last week there was a televised debate between Dunton and Albanesi.
Speaker 3: I felt that it implied that Australia was a republic
Speaker 3: with only two choices about being label or liberal. If
Speaker 3: this isn't the case, why don't we see other parties
Speaker 3: on the debate stage.
Speaker 4: That's a very good question, Adam, and it's something that
Speaker 4: needs to be addressed. As we've just speaking of camera before,
Speaker 4: the primary vote of the two major parties is slipping.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, the media refused to look
Speaker 4: at alternative options. Now, you know, I'll admit that the
Speaker 4: minor parties have a lot of work to do in
Speaker 4: terms of improving their professionalism and becoming more aerodyite and polished.
Speaker 4: We need to become that and that's one of the
Speaker 4: things people first wants to do. But at the same time,
Speaker 4: people are looking for alternatives, and I think it's up
Speaker 4: to the mainstream media to provide those alternatives. And I'll
Speaker 4: give you another good example. Just last night Sky News,
Speaker 4: Paul mara on Sky News had Bob Catter, Pauline Hanson,
Speaker 4: and Matt Cannaban on and was calling them the renegades.
Speaker 4: And yet that's true, but two of those candidates, Pauline
Speaker 4: and Matt canaban weren't even running, you know. And yet
Speaker 4: again it's sort of like we're Whiting. You have Senate
Speaker 4: candidates from Queensland who were running. But you know, this
Speaker 4: is the sad fact. Even Sky that used to start
Speaker 4: off as sort of so called being an alternative of
Speaker 4: the mainstream media, they're not at all. They're just part
Speaker 4: of the establishment as well. And you know, when you've
Speaker 4: got people struggling with the cost of being and having
Speaker 4: many people have suffered through government neglect, whether it's through
Speaker 4: bank loans. You know, they've lost money from banks and
Speaker 4: then the government hasn't held the bank accountable, whether it's
Speaker 4: the vaccine injury issues, farmers having their farm land, or
Speaker 4: their neighbors put up a dirty, big stinking wind turbine
Speaker 4: next to them. People are tired of being stood on
Speaker 4: by the establishment. And that's one of the things we
Speaker 4: want to do people first is protect the individual, and
Speaker 4: we're bringing in word protection isn't back.
Speaker 1: It's not a dirty word.
Speaker 4: We do want to protect the individual, their families, our culture,
Speaker 4: and our country and your capital. By the way, you
Speaker 4: can be a protectionist and a capitalist, because we want
Speaker 4: to protect people's capital and that means keeping it out
Speaker 4: of the hands of the establishment. So look, yeah, it's
Speaker 4: annoying how the mainstream media're only focused on the two
Speaker 4: major leaders because that neither of them have much to offer,
Speaker 4: and there are alternatives out there will be the miners,
Speaker 4: I think, do need to lift their game as well.
Speaker 3: So who's in charge? I'm not convinced we have political
Speaker 3: parties in charge. We can see that we have this
Speaker 3: interesting system that prime ministers can be fired overnight and
Speaker 3: there was a time we're waking up every morning to
Speaker 3: a different prime minister. So you have the parties kind
Speaker 3: of as a puppet masters at the bottom, the voters
Speaker 3: as a puppet masters perhaps at the top. Then you
Speaker 3: have the lobbyists and the media. Senator, who's in charge.
Speaker 4: Adam, That's easy. It's it's the people behind. So it's
Speaker 4: the institutions, right, and so the institutions are the bureaucracy.
Speaker 4: They are big corporations, they are big super funds and
Speaker 4: they are big media. Now the bureaucracy will they'll have
Speaker 4: an agenda. You know, before I got into Parliament, I
Speaker 4: used to think the bureaucracy was just a bunch of
Speaker 4: bumbling bureaucrats, you know, like we all make mistakes and
Speaker 4: they'd engage in a bit of ass covering, you know,
Speaker 4: which is a natural sort of human trait for people
Speaker 4: to do. But since I've been in there, I've realized
Speaker 4: a lot of these people now have adopted the narrative
Speaker 4: or an agenda that's against the Australian interests of the
Speaker 4: Australian people. And when I say agenda, a lot of
Speaker 4: it the agenda is purely self interest in the sense
Speaker 4: that they don't want to speak up because they'll lose
Speaker 4: their job, like I did with the Liberal Party. So
Speaker 4: obviously the first agenda is self interest when you but
Speaker 4: this is where the media and the big super funds,
Speaker 4: and when I say big super and big corporations are
Speaker 4: pretty much hand in hand. Now we have over three
Speaker 4: trillion dollars tied up in capital in non self managed
Speaker 4: super fund superinneration. So when you control that much capital,
Speaker 4: you do control industry. So an industry now is controlled
Speaker 4: by let's say between twenty five so about almost twenty
Speaker 4: industry funds and about ten big retail funds. None of
Speaker 4: their boards are elected, they're selected. So we have all
Speaker 4: this capital now that is controlled by people who were never,
Speaker 4: never held to account. And then of course there's big media,
Speaker 4: and since we've abolished across media ownership laws. Big media
Speaker 4: has been basically reduced to the ABC News Corp And
Speaker 4: Fairfax nine. I mean Channel seven and Channel ten have
Speaker 4: a little bit of influence, not much, so.
Speaker 1: There's three big players there.
Speaker 4: So it's an ogilarchy of as I said, for the
Speaker 4: big government bureaucrats, big corporations who in many respects now
Speaker 4: are controlled by Big Super and Big Media. Yet again,
Speaker 4: and big Media in many respects are actually controlled by
Speaker 4: Big Super as well now because these central eye wealth
Speaker 4: funds control have large stakes in the media corporations as well,
Speaker 4: so they're the ones in control. Look the executive. And
Speaker 4: here's the other thing too, the executive. We don't have
Speaker 4: true separation of powers in this country.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: What I mean by that for your listeners, if you
Speaker 4: don't know what I'm talking about, is we should have
Speaker 4: a judiciary an executive in a parliament. Our executive sits
Speaker 4: inside of parliament. Now we use the Westminster system. People
Speaker 4: say we use the Westminster system, and we do, but
Speaker 4: it's not entirely the same because in the UK they
Speaker 4: have six hundred and fifty members in their lower House.
Speaker 1: We have one hundred and fifty.
Speaker 4: So if you add just seventy six senators, you get
Speaker 4: two hundred and twenty six parliamentarians. Your governing party now
Speaker 4: that we seem to have smaller majorities and looks like
Speaker 4: we're going to have a minority government this time will
Speaker 4: be less than one hundred. Our ministers make up thirty,
Speaker 4: you know, and if you add your assistant ministers, maybe
Speaker 4: even up to close to forty people inside the party
Speaker 4: room who are part of the executive as well as
Speaker 4: the parliament. Now those forty people control the other fifty backbenches.
Speaker 4: And I saw it in my time in the Liberal
Speaker 4: Party that very few people today will get up and
Speaker 4: speak in the party room against what the ministers want
Speaker 4: because they know their careers will be damaged. So I
Speaker 4: would we need I mean, this is hypothetical, but it
Speaker 4: doesn't have to be. We need to get our ministers
Speaker 4: outside of parliament and do it to the United States
Speaker 4: doesn't have their executives, so your secretary of State, secretary
Speaker 4: of Trade or whatever, outside of the actual parliament itself,
Speaker 4: because they have way too much influence. And of course
Speaker 4: the executive the executive are the ministers. Most of these
Speaker 4: ministers come from safe seats to win a pre selection
Speaker 4: in a safe seat in one of the major parties,
Speaker 4: you have to be a party hack. In other words,
Speaker 4: you know you joined the party when you started university.
Speaker 4: You know you're sucked up throughout the young OLMP, young labor.
Speaker 4: So you spent your life sucking up to get into
Speaker 4: the ministry, and then by the time you're in the
Speaker 4: ministry you don't know how to say so. And very
Speaker 4: few of these people are subject matter experts. I mean,
Speaker 4: you look at the last two health ministers, Greg Hunt
Speaker 4: and Mark Butler, or even Jim Chalmers is an economist,
Speaker 4: did his poh down Paul Heating? I mean would he
Speaker 4: doesn't really know? You know, he would if I asked
Speaker 4: him what the way to average cost to capital is?
Speaker 4: To calculate way to average cost to capital? I doubt
Speaker 4: that he'd have a clue about what I was talking about. So,
Speaker 4: you know, economists aren't accountants. That's something that many of
Speaker 4: you listeners might be aware of. So ultimately it's this
Speaker 4: punch and duty show between the two major parties. But
Speaker 4: the real puppet masters are the ones behind the stage,
Speaker 4: and they're the big four that I just mentioned before,
Speaker 4: big media, big bureaucrats, big corporations, big Suber.
Speaker 3: You speak so differently to other politicians. For the record
Speaker 3: and the viewers out there, I'm not being paid for this.
Speaker 3: I'm not sponsored by anyone. I'm just an Australian seeking
Speaker 3: the truth. I've reached out to many politicians and so
Speaker 3: you were the only one who responded. So thank you.
Speaker 3: And this is an indication of how you are different
Speaker 3: to the other politicians. And my audience has been screaming
Speaker 3: to hear you speak more for the work that you're doing.
Speaker 3: Have you ever been threatened for being a Senator of
Speaker 3: the way that you speak.
Speaker 4: Oh, I've had a couple of death threats from people
Speaker 4: over the Ukraine issue. Yeah, my staff have had some threats.
Speaker 4: We've had some threats that way. And then i had
Speaker 4: threats from colleagues when I'm going to tell my vote
Speaker 4: over COVID that they were going to lose the election.
Speaker 4: I needed to put my head in and I was like, well,
Speaker 4: you know, people have been killed and injured, permanently injured
Speaker 4: and losing their jobs.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to walk past.
Speaker 4: I mean the climate change stuff right, well, you know
Speaker 4: the climate change is that's a tautology. Who was wet
Speaker 4: climate change?
Speaker 1: Right?
Speaker 4: But that stuff isn't going to necessarily destroy someone's life
Speaker 4: in twenty four hours, whereas the vaccines did. And I
Speaker 4: was overwhelmed. Actually funny, I was overwhelmed enough to know
Speaker 4: that this wasn't just sort of one in a million injuries.
Speaker 4: This was very high rate of injury, and in my view,
Speaker 4: occurring to younger people who weren't going to necessarily have
Speaker 4: a bad injury from the flu itself. So yes, I've
Speaker 4: been threatened by my colleagues, not in a physical sense,
Speaker 4: but you know, with my pre selection and in the
Speaker 4: end I lost my pre selection because of what I did.
Speaker 4: But you know, I've got to live with my own conscience.
Speaker 4: And even though I'd like to get back in and
Speaker 4: serve for another six years, it would have killed me
Speaker 4: during another six years inside the Liberal Party living in
Speaker 4: the law. So I sort of if I don't get
Speaker 4: back in, at least I can sort of free my
Speaker 4: conscience of the self loathing, of not being true to
Speaker 4: myself and true of my values and serving Australian people
Speaker 4: and hence, while we call that party people first. But so, yeah,
Speaker 4: I've been threatened.
Speaker 3: I'm sorry to hear that you were outspoken about the
Speaker 3: vaccine you've just mentioned it now. Is it true that
Speaker 3: judges and politicians were exempt from taking the vacs?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Absolutely, yeah, you can't technically, no one. I mean I
Speaker 4: think some state MPs. I think Victoria motive. I think
Speaker 4: a few state MP's were locked out of parliament, and
Speaker 4: maybe in a couple of other states. But yeah, no,
Speaker 4: And the reason for that. Ad Morrison tried that on myself,
Speaker 4: Creig Kelly, George Christensen, alexandik to name a few. We
Speaker 4: wouldn't have taken it and then they wouldn't have had
Speaker 4: the numbers on the floor. So technically I report to
Speaker 4: no one in the sense that even when I was
Speaker 4: in the Liberal Party, you know, you can defect. I mean,
Speaker 4: once you're in, you're in. I mean you're basically you
Speaker 4: can only get kicked out if you're a bankrupt or
Speaker 4: commit a crime. If I'm not saying, I think they're
Speaker 4: the two ones you can get kicked out for, so effectively,
Speaker 4: that's correct. I mean, I think the proper way to
Speaker 4: put it is is that it was in mandates when
Speaker 4: it plays on federal politicians and judges in the same
Speaker 4: way that it plays on everyone else.
Speaker 3: So I understand what you just said about that political questians, Yeah,
Speaker 3: why not the judges? Why were we forced to take
Speaker 3: the vacs? Noting also Australia signed up to the Numberg Treaty,
Speaker 3: which prohibited medical experiments or forcing medical procedures on humans.
Speaker 3: Yet countless Australians were forced to take a vax or
Speaker 3: lose their income. So why were judges exempt from it
Speaker 3: and not us?
Speaker 4: Well, that's the question you've got to ask Scott Morris.
Speaker 4: But yet again, so that's separation of powers, So politicians
Speaker 4: can't tell judges what to do. My understanding of it
Speaker 4: was I do know someone who was in the judiciary
Speaker 4: or sort of quasi judiciary, if you want to call
Speaker 4: it that, and I think you couldn't enter some of
Speaker 4: those buildings. There are a couple of legal buildings that
Speaker 4: a couple I do know, a couple of people in
Speaker 4: that industry that couldn't get to work, to work from home.
Speaker 4: But technically that's because of the separation of powers. So
Speaker 4: you can't tell a judge what to do. Politician can't
Speaker 4: tell a judge what to do for the obvious reason,
Speaker 4: and that every time that you wanted to sue a
Speaker 4: politician or the government, the politician tell the judge to
Speaker 4: say not guilty. Right, that's why it happened. I mean,
Speaker 4: the issue isn't that they've got exemptions. The issue is
Speaker 4: the double standards, because it's not we like I said,
Speaker 4: we couldn't tell the judges. What's not not that I
Speaker 4: was telling them what to do this this is obviously
Speaker 4: the ministry. But it was the double standards. It's the
Speaker 4: hypocrisy of the double standards. And that's what stemps There's
Speaker 4: one law for them and another for us. Even though
Speaker 4: I am one of them, I see myself as one
Speaker 4: of you.
Speaker 1: So that yeah, there was.
Speaker 4: And that's the thing. It's the double standards. I mean,
Speaker 4: it's like to define benefits scheme for retired bureaucrats. I
Speaker 4: mean it's like, you know, that's that's the liability of
Speaker 4: three hundred and forty billion dollars cost about ten billion
Speaker 4: dollars a year. David Anderson from the ABC has been
Speaker 4: paid seven over a million dollars for the last seven
Speaker 4: years around a million dollars for the last seven years.
Speaker 4: He's just retired as many as director of the ABC.
Speaker 4: His final salary is thirty seven per cent of his
Speaker 4: final income, which is four hundred hours knowledge a year
Speaker 4: until he dies. If he's fifty six now, it lives
Speaker 4: under thirty years till he's eighty six. That's twelve million bucks,
Speaker 4: despite the fact he's probably already a multi millionaire, given
Speaker 4: that he's been paid over a million bucks in the last
Speaker 4: seven years. So yet again, why isn't he means tested
Speaker 4: to get his pension? And I'm talking about the define benefit.
Speaker 4: I'm not talking about your contributions. That's a different thing
Speaker 4: where it's vested. I'm talking about the part where it's
Speaker 4: not vested and the tax payer has to stump up
Speaker 4: the difference. And the thing about that scheme is the wealth.
Speaker 4: The more you are paid throughout your working career, the
Speaker 4: more you get when you retire, when it should be
Speaker 4: the other way around. The whole idea of the pension
Speaker 4: is to help those people that had low incomes throughout
Speaker 4: their working career but kept working because there's always you know,
Speaker 4: the cost of aasets, the cost of living and all
Speaker 4: that stuff's a relative concept, right, There's always going to
Speaker 4: be people earning the bottom in the bottom, the lower
Speaker 4: fifty percent of wage journers, right, So the cost of
Speaker 4: everything is a function of purchasing power. So it's the
Speaker 4: bottom fifty percent that still worked for forty years. You know,
Speaker 4: I was just here late last night in the office
Speaker 4: and a cleaner came in eleven o'clock. You know, it
Speaker 4: should be paid pittance, But they're are cleaning rooms and
Speaker 4: things like that. And those people deserve our respect because
Speaker 4: they work hard. They work shift with a lot of
Speaker 4: these people's shift workers. And you know, they're only getting
Speaker 4: through a percent of a fifty income, whereas the wealthy
Speaker 4: people get to a percent of a high income. So
Speaker 4: the whole idea of this define benefit been percentage of
Speaker 4: your final incomes. Quite it's counterintuitive because really it's the
Speaker 4: other way around. It's the lower incomes that should be
Speaker 4: getting the high well not not necessarily a higher pension
Speaker 4: other people, but you want to pension that's acts as
Speaker 4: a safety net, but not as a hammock. And this
Speaker 4: defined benefits schemes are hammock. I mean, some of these
Speaker 4: people are just not they're getting paids outrageous.
Speaker 3: It's a good segue into our economy in Australia. We
Speaker 3: have an abundance of land and resources, ingenuity and the
Speaker 3: big demand on our products, yet equally We've never been
Speaker 3: so poor. That is, I've never earned so much money
Speaker 3: in my life and had so many assets, yet I've
Speaker 3: never felt so poor, and I see the same around me.
Speaker 3: What's going on.
Speaker 4: What's going on, quite simply, is the fact that we
Speaker 4: have allowed equity to become debt the biggest brain washing exercise.
Speaker 4: So we are familiar with how our children believe that
Speaker 4: the extra one hundred parts per million and one part
Speaker 4: per ten thousand CO two molecules in the atmosphere is
Speaker 4: heated up the degree by atmosphere by a degree one
Speaker 4: and a half degrees. Now, we were brainwashed in the
Speaker 4: eighties with the idea that you can't print money out
Speaker 4: of thin air. Now that's an oxymoronic statement. All money
Speaker 4: is printed out of thin air, and it's been printed
Speaker 4: out of thin air, but in the last four decades
Speaker 4: by the Japanese Central Bank, originally in the late eighties,
Speaker 4: and then green Span started to turn it on in
Speaker 4: the late nineties early two thousands, as did ThEC BE.
Speaker 4: So all central banks print money. They've been issuing bonds
Speaker 4: through quantitative easing for about well, if you start with
Speaker 4: the Japanese in the late eighties. For what's that three
Speaker 4: decades now, so that's a myth, and central banks have
Speaker 4: been doing it except for except for the RBA, for
Speaker 4: the one exception of COVID where they did print three
Speaker 4: hundred million dollars which was to pay people to stay
Speaker 4: at home and do nothing right, which was completely absurd. Now,
Speaker 4: if you know what a balance sheet looks like, you've
Speaker 4: got an asset on the right hand side of your
Speaker 4: balance sheet. On the right hand side, you've got this
Speaker 4: thing called capital, which is either debt or equity. Right,
Speaker 4: this is an arbitrary construct. Debt or equity is either
Speaker 4: it's either a mortgage it's a legal document mortgage or
Speaker 4: its title. We have title, so that equity title is equity.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 4: We are a sovereign country with access to seven million
Speaker 4: square kilometers. Now, while it's foolish to print money and
Speaker 4: spend it ie print and spend which will increase demand,
Speaker 4: it is not foolish to let's call it issuing shares.
Speaker 4: So we all know that companies on the Stock Exchange
Speaker 4: issue shares. If BHP were to issue shares to build
Speaker 4: a new cold mine tomorrow, the nearly rules wouldn't be going. Well,
Speaker 4: you can't print shares out of thin air, can you right?
Speaker 4: Like that happens all the time on the stock market.
Speaker 4: As a country, we can issue new shares against assets
Speaker 4: that produce wealth or give us wealth.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: So if you're going to issue credit out of thin air,
Speaker 4: which is what everyone does, it's an arbitrary construct. You
Speaker 4: need to be responsible and secure that credit against a
Speaker 4: debit right, not an expense on the balance at or
Speaker 4: a debit expense credit debt. You want a debit asset,
Speaker 4: credit equity right, and those assets that we have the assets.
Speaker 4: So if we're going to print money out of thin air,
Speaker 4: we match it with assets that come out of thin air.
Speaker 4: What are those assets? Rain, sunlight, soil and the minerals
Speaker 4: in those soils. How do we get wealth? We answer
Speaker 4: that question every time we sing the national anthem. It
Speaker 4: is wealth for toiled.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: If I go out to the farm and start digging
Speaker 4: a hole, I can basically with toil and with the
Speaker 4: dirt and the rain, I can build a dam. Then
Speaker 4: I can build irrigation, then I can grow crops. Right
Speaker 4: that comes from hard sweat. That is all stuff that
Speaker 4: comes out of thin air. So what we want to
Speaker 4: do at people first is we want to issue shares
Speaker 4: or the equivalent of infrastructure bond. So we're going to
Speaker 4: issue rue share and call it unsapped wealth. It is
Speaker 4: going to own an infrastructure bank owned by the people
Speaker 4: of Australia via the federal.
Speaker 1: Government and by the Parliament.
Speaker 4: It can only issue infrastructure bonds, which is the equivalent
Speaker 4: of shares for seven sovereign our sets dams, power stations, tunnels,
Speaker 4: rail ports, airports and telecommunications. And what happens is we'll
Speaker 4: issue a fifty a billion You know, if you build
Speaker 4: a dam for billion dollars today. I'm just going to
Speaker 4: go slightly off on attention to here. If we build
Speaker 4: a dam for billion dollars today and we borrow that
Speaker 4: money from offshore, which is what we do, that means
Speaker 4: the first billion dollars in wealth we create we have
Speaker 4: to repay offshore because we're using another country's printing press.
Speaker 4: We then have to play at least another billion dollars
Speaker 4: in interest, let's say twenty five years at four percent.
Speaker 4: We've just given up two billion dollars worth of capital
Speaker 4: of wealth because we don't understand capital management right. Capital
Speaker 4: management when you're dealing with a business is king okay,
Speaker 4: And we have to understand, we have equity over all
Speaker 4: these resources. So if we issue a bond to the
Speaker 4: Queensland State government to build a dam, for anyone, an
Speaker 4: issue a billion dollar bond, you just paid five million
Speaker 4: dollars a week to pay for concrete wages, you know,
Speaker 4: the d tens to build a dam whatever. So a
Speaker 4: lot of that money would be generating profits. A lot
Speaker 4: of that money be coming straight back to camera in
Speaker 4: the form of taxes anyway, right and employing people, and
Speaker 4: then you'd get payroll tax, you'd get GST et cetera,
Speaker 4: et cetera. So after say two years of dam construction,
Speaker 4: you'll end up with two billion dollars in work in progress.
Speaker 1: You convert that to an asset.
Speaker 4: But over the next fifty years that loan is repaid
Speaker 4: back to the federal government. The federal government collects interests
Speaker 4: from the Infrastructure Bank and that either it then goes
Speaker 4: into a development bank that then re lands the profits
Speaker 4: to councils, so the councils don't have to pay interest
Speaker 4: to private banks. So that way we lower rates and
Speaker 4: we are basically keeping the cost of finance in our
Speaker 4: own countries, so we are not paying other countries to
Speaker 4: use interest to use our own currency or to use
Speaker 4: someone else's currencies, and we're retaining the capital wealth, you know,
Speaker 4: the capital, the true wealth ie capital equity, capital that
Speaker 4: is generated when that's rainfalls from the sky every year.
Speaker 4: So if we drop a bull in a paddic with
Speaker 4: twenty cows and if he's any good as a bull,
Speaker 4: and we come back next year, we've got fifteen twenty carbs.
Speaker 4: That is wealth coming out of the sky every year.
Speaker 4: We just need to make sure that wealth is directed
Speaker 4: back to us and stays in our country, so it
Speaker 4: goes as dividends to our children and not as interest
Speaker 4: off shore.
Speaker 1: Does that make sense?
Speaker 3: Everything you're saying is perfectly logical. But where's the money
Speaker 3: going now? Who's making all the profits in Australia.
Speaker 4: Well, the banks make all the profits and it's becoming
Speaker 4: more and more concentrated right now. The other thing is
Speaker 4: a lot of it's going offshore. So the second part
Speaker 4: of this solution, in terms of big ticket items here
Speaker 4: in structural changes. We have to change our tax system.
Speaker 4: So we've got a thirty cent on short company tax rate.
Speaker 4: We've got an off short company tax rator between zero
Speaker 4: and fifteen cents in twenty and twenty two, fian made
Speaker 4: one point four billion dollars dollars in sales here. They
Speaker 4: shifted a billion dollars off shore to Island for royalties
Speaker 4: White Island and because file Advisor most of the factories
Speaker 4: that aren't even in Ireland. You know, if I engage
Speaker 4: a plumber here on in Queensland on Facebook, that Facebook
Speaker 4: ad goes over ease. That's ridiculous, right, like the money
Speaker 4: we paid Fiser Island to advertise on Facebook, for example.
Speaker 4: So the reason for that is Island has a withholding
Speaker 4: tax rate on royalties of ten percent. Right, they have
Speaker 4: a company, so we have a withholding tax rate paid
Speaker 4: to Island of ten percent, so that's money going off shore.
Speaker 4: And Island has a company tax rate at twelve and
Speaker 4: a half cents, So ten plus twelve and a half
Speaker 4: is twenty two and a half cents. That is less
Speaker 4: than thirty cents. So one of the big myths we've
Speaker 4: been told is that you can't have double taxation. That's
Speaker 4: a lie. What you can't have a nonstructured tax deals
Speaker 4: it's the cumulative rate of tax that matters. So you
Speaker 4: can go through four countries. When I work the Westfield
Speaker 4: when they shift money home, they would go through four
Speaker 4: countries to zero zero zero, and then there was a
Speaker 4: ten percent with holding tax on dividends paid back to Australia.
Speaker 4: We were taxing money coming back into Australia, but we
Speaker 4: let often let money go off shore for free. Right,
Speaker 4: So there's a couple of other sections the Act to
Speaker 4: goes off shore for free. So we need to lift
Speaker 4: the offshore that the rate of tax on offshore profits
Speaker 4: and bringing the onual rate of tax here. Now, I
Speaker 4: might offend so many viewers here because I know everyone
Speaker 4: in this country loves franking credits. But franking credits is
Speaker 4: killing us because what's happening is more and more people retire.
Speaker 4: They paid no income in their super funds. As I
Speaker 4: said before, super funds are getting bigger and bigger and bigger.
Speaker 4: They estimate super had about eight to nine trillion dollars
Speaker 4: in capital by twenty fifty. That means all that money
Speaker 4: that is paid to Canberra, like for thirty cents and
Speaker 4: a dollar, more and more of that is getting refunded
Speaker 4: back to people in retirement. Now, I think we should
Speaker 4: have a ten percent company tax rate. But he's the
Speaker 4: rub No franking credits and then people pay again on
Speaker 4: their marginal rate attax. Notwithstanding, we want to increase the
Speaker 4: tax tree threshold the forty fifty to sixty thousand dollars.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 4: The reason why we need to do that is but
Speaker 4: we then lift the withholding tax rate on profits paid
Speaker 4: off shore to twenty cents so that because currently it's
Speaker 4: between zero and fifteen now, so that we stop money
Speaker 4: going offshore. So you take that example with Fizer, when
Speaker 4: they shifted that billion dollars in profit offshore, we lost
Speaker 4: three hundred big dollars sorry, three hundred million dollars in
Speaker 4: company tax. Now amediately we've got one hundred million back
Speaker 4: with holding tax. We're worse off two hundred million dollars.
Speaker 4: Island's better off one hundred and twenty five million dollars,
Speaker 4: and Files is better off by seventy five million.
Speaker 1: Dollars, So a lot of money.
Speaker 4: So everyone jumps up and down about our gas and
Speaker 4: how we ripped off on gas. That is the tip
Speaker 4: of the iceberg. It is our entire economy where we
Speaker 4: are being ripped off. Like every multinational that either is
Speaker 4: Australian based or foreign multinational operating in this country is
Speaker 4: shifting enormous sums of wealth offshore.
Speaker 3: But of course if you stand up to that, or
Speaker 3: any politician stands up to it, you're facing billions of
Speaker 3: dollars of revenue and legal teams and marketing and centralized
Speaker 3: media to make you look like the bad guy. Is
Speaker 3: that fair to say?
Speaker 4: Yeah, they'll try and distort it. They will try and
Speaker 4: distort it, And it's pretty hard to argue. Like that
Speaker 4: argument that I just made about all that money going
Speaker 4: off shore Fiser Island, I don't see how you can
Speaker 4: argue with that, Like, if you're putting Australia first, it's
Speaker 4: just such, you know, it should just grind people's gears.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not the only one.
Speaker 4: There's another section of the Tax Act that gives an
Speaker 4: exemption to foreigners if they own less than ten percent
Speaker 4: of the shares a listed company here in Australia, they
Speaker 4: don't pay capital gains tax, Like what do we do?
Speaker 4: And the argument that goes, oh, but we've got to
Speaker 4: track foreign capital, that's complete lie saying for there's another
Speaker 4: section of the Act in one thirty six Act that
Speaker 4: says if big banks lend into Australia, they don't have
Speaker 4: to pay tax on the interest that they pay off. Sure,
Speaker 4: so you will me putting you know, put money in
Speaker 4: the bank and earn interest on that. We have to
Speaker 4: pay tax on that. Big banks, if they do it
Speaker 4: through yeah, they've got it's a public offic test. So
Speaker 4: they do have to issue it in a primary market.
Speaker 4: But if they hold those bonds from the primary sale,
Speaker 4: they don't pay withholding tax on that. So yet again
Speaker 4: you can't justify giving foreign banks tax break. So I
Speaker 4: would like to think that if we were to wake
Speaker 4: people up on these issues, and hence why I'm asking
Speaker 4: for people to vote for me, just ye, league, because
Speaker 4: not many people understand the Tax Act like I do,
Speaker 4: and we've got to close these tax loopholes. This is
Speaker 4: what we've got to do, is that we've got to
Speaker 4: get the word out there is how we've been shafted
Speaker 4: with our monetary system. As I've just explained before, So
Speaker 4: our monetary system, so people understand with our renewables, how
Speaker 4: we've shut down locally domestically sourced energy supplies and then
Speaker 4: replaced them with foreign renewables that are seventy percent aimed
Speaker 4: by foreigners. We've done that for our debt, our money, right,
Speaker 4: our capital. We're doing it with our taxation system, we're
Speaker 4: doing it with immigration. I was just talking to a
Speaker 4: hairdresser last night. If they know they can't get hairdressers,
Speaker 4: but I think the standard wage for a hair dress
Speaker 4: is about fifty five sixty thousand dollars, or at least
Speaker 4: the starting wage they import hairdressers. They've got to pay
Speaker 4: those hair dresses seventy five thousand at least. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 4: that's yeah. So it's amazing all these little things that
Speaker 4: are out.
Speaker 3: There, everything that you've described here. My opaque is that
Speaker 3: perhaps the people won't understand because I found Australia is
Speaker 3: financially illiterate. That is, we're taught about many things at school,
Speaker 3: but we're not really taught what money is. Taught how
Speaker 3: to earn money, but not how to hold it and
Speaker 3: what it is. And by background, one of my degrees
Speaker 3: is in economics, and I've got to admit I actually
Speaker 3: didn't truly understand money until I really got into bitcoin
Speaker 3: and crypto, and I'm now seeing that there's this huge
Speaker 3: issue with of course inflation, and we're blamed for inflation.
Speaker 3: When I buy a cup of coffee, the government says
Speaker 3: it's my fault because I spent too much money. But
Speaker 3: the reality is inflation is the inflation of the money
Speaker 3: supply as opposed to me buying a cup of coffee.
Speaker 4: Well, Adam, there's another thing that's not just increasing demand,
Speaker 4: it's the lack of increase in supply. Well, so that's
Speaker 4: the thing about this Infrastructure Bank. It's one of the
Speaker 4: reasons why we're not building infrastructure is that because we
Speaker 4: have to borrow the money, so the bureaucrats will go. So,
Speaker 4: as I pointed out, before you buy cost a billion
Speaker 4: dollars to build, the cost of finance to build will
Speaker 4: be more than a billion dollars because it's a long term.
Speaker 4: It takes twenty five twenty years to get a damn construction.
Speaker 4: Some of these infrastructure projects have a very long lead
Speaker 4: time before they start being used. So the interest costs
Speaker 4: is huge and the cost of finance is killing the
Speaker 4: capacity of the government to build it. The Infrastructure Bank
Speaker 4: will increase the supply of goods and services, ie more
Speaker 4: power stations, more dams, better roads, faster roads you can travel.
Speaker 4: That will make it more efficient. If you build more
Speaker 4: power stations that supply more energy, you will push down
Speaker 4: the price of energy. So that's the other thing, and
Speaker 4: that's why this Infrastructure Bank.
Speaker 1: It's another way.
Speaker 4: So we've seen the brutal impacts of qualitative easing through
Speaker 4: just changing the price of money, which is a very
Speaker 4: blood instrument. We need to complement that with genuine, productive
Speaker 4: quantitative easing that increases supply in a productive manner, not
Speaker 4: in an irresponsible borrow and spend or print and spend,
Speaker 4: but in tap into that capital, tap into our natural
Speaker 4: recurring wealth that falls out of the sky every year,
Speaker 4: and then generate wealth that way, but secure it to
Speaker 4: our children.
Speaker 3: I'm cognis of your time. So I want to close
Speaker 3: off with this question that my community will hammer me
Speaker 3: if I don't ask it. In the States, we've seen
Speaker 3: the US government adoptor Bitcoin Strategic Reserve, the biggest fund
Speaker 3: managers on Earth have introduced Bitcoin ETFs nations is to
Speaker 3: choose and investors invest in bitcoin. The Australian government recognizes
Speaker 3: bitcoin by taxing it. Meanwhile, bitcoin has the ninth biggest
Speaker 3: market cap of any industry globally, bigger than any bank,
Speaker 3: car manufacturer or supply retailer. So in Australia we embrace
Speaker 3: the Internet of knowledge. Now that we have the Internet
Speaker 3: of value. Why aren't we adopting a bitcoin reserve in Australia,
Speaker 3: particularly when you're also consider with the amount of gas
Speaker 3: flittering in Australia, that's a lot of free energy that
Speaker 3: we can tap into and simply mind free money. What
Speaker 3: are your thoughts.
Speaker 4: My thoughts is is that I don't think the government
Speaker 4: should get involved in bitcoin. I think ultimately bitcoin is
Speaker 4: want government freedom from government, and I respect that if
Speaker 4: you want to have a monetary system outside the government control,
Speaker 4: that's fine, but you can't have it both ways. You
Speaker 4: can't want to operate outside the government and then also
Speaker 4: want the government to back something that's you mean, So
Speaker 4: you're free to back go hard on bitcoin and good
Speaker 4: luck to you. We as a government, our responsibility is
Speaker 4: very simple. Get out of people's personal lives, but protect
Speaker 4: but provide them the essential services that an individual can't build,
Speaker 4: like tunnels, ports, power stations. So my reserve would be
Speaker 4: an infrastructure reserve, a little bit like a wealth fund,
Speaker 4: but a wealth fund that delivers essential services. So we've
Speaker 4: got to own the ports, to power stations and those
Speaker 4: things where there's very inelastic choice. So you know, there's
Speaker 4: only one road between well, there's actually a couple of
Speaker 4: roads between Brisbane and Sydney.
Speaker 1: You could take the new.
Speaker 4: All Lord of the New England, but ultimately you have
Speaker 4: limited choice in the roads. And even if you wanted
Speaker 4: to build a road, you can't just build a road
Speaker 4: through everyone's private property between here and Sydney.
Speaker 1: For example, I'm in Brisbane if you listeners.
Speaker 4: So that's why we need to government is to provide
Speaker 4: essentral services. Is that deliver those services as efficiently as
Speaker 4: possible and do it in a manner that is going
Speaker 4: to stimulate production in the country but without destroying competition.
Speaker 4: So that's why I'm happy to back in monopolistic infrastructure
Speaker 4: where there's a lack of elasticity of choice whereby. And
Speaker 4: not only that, if you privatize infrastructure you then get
Speaker 4: obviously agency cost because those people that are running those
Speaker 4: big power stations or ports or whatever aren't going to
Speaker 4: better if a power station, if your energy prices go up,
Speaker 4: No one's going to go and protest out in front
Speaker 4: of Macquarie Bank. They're going to protest in the front
Speaker 4: of government. So our role is to provide essential services
Speaker 4: pretty much full stop. I mean obviously includes the fans
Speaker 4: of course, but in terms of the way the private
Speaker 4: market works, and I see bitcoin as a private market facility,
Speaker 4: then it's up to you guys to make it what
Speaker 4: you will. And if you want to adopt a set
Speaker 4: of rules or whatever within that market, that's fine. But
Speaker 4: that's when we like So I don't think government should,
Speaker 4: for example, become fruit wholesalers dealing fruit, become butchers or
Speaker 4: sell fruit, or engage you have become bricklayers or anything
Speaker 4: like that. It's purely those big monopolistic, inelastic competition type
Speaker 4: assets and generate profits from that to provide hospitals and schools.
Speaker 3: Don't we have gold though? Doesn't Australia have preserves of gold?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: We do, yeah, and that is basically to back our
Speaker 4: currency if, for example, the current the whole point of gold.
Speaker 4: The reason why the RBA holds gold, central banks hold
Speaker 4: gold is if there's the doll if the paper market collapses,
Speaker 4: and that is that is because gold will be accepted
Speaker 4: by any other country if if and so technically we
Speaker 4: don't technically need to hold gold, but by holding gold
Speaker 4: it gives our paper some value because gold will be
Speaker 4: internationally recognized. And even if the if the our paper collapses.
Speaker 4: That's the point of gold. It's a store of wealth.
Speaker 4: It's not a it's not a transaction item where you know.
Speaker 4: I mean people can use it and it will be
Speaker 4: if we collapse as a country, you'll be using it
Speaker 4: to transact in goods, goods and services because no one
Speaker 4: will recognizes training dollary to sort of suddenly not be
Speaker 4: Australia anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but gold is physical.
Speaker 4: I mean, good luck trying to trade bitcoin with Indians
Speaker 4: and the Chinese. You know, they'll want something physical to
Speaker 4: back up.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 4: That's but as I said, like you guys, you know,
Speaker 4: the big cooiners are welcome to pursue this and see
Speaker 4: how they get, and good luck to them.
Speaker 3: Well, of course there's a lot of hype and a
Speaker 3: lot of excitement around this digital gold. Most certainly it's
Speaker 3: something that changed my life. We can see huge strategic
Speaker 3: moves around the world, and there's a lot of buying
Speaker 3: from a lot of different players around the world. But
Speaker 3: of course there's a lot of education around this is
Speaker 3: a measurement.
Speaker 4: And yeah, now I should point out if bitcoin becomes
Speaker 4: backed by gold, so it has a physical asset behind it,
Speaker 4: that will become a different ballgame. So if you've got
Speaker 4: bitcoin back by one bit coin's worth an ounce of gold,
Speaker 4: then you will be then you will have something tangible
Speaker 4: to fall back on then, because you've got to know,
Speaker 4: so then you'll actually have something. So that's a different thing.
Speaker 4: And it's a bit like paper money, where you've got
Speaker 4: a bond secured by infrastructure asset. Right, you've got security
Speaker 4: against the paper asset, right, similar for bitcoin until such
Speaker 4: time as it's got security against the hard asset, it's
Speaker 4: still only electronic asset in this case.
Speaker 1: Right.
Speaker 4: Ultimately, I'm an account and I believe in substance over form.
Speaker 4: So you know, if the entire world went to hell
Speaker 4: and a hand basket tomorrow, if I had land and
Speaker 4: a shovel, and you know, a couple of animals and
Speaker 4: could milk my own cows and add some chickens, and
Speaker 4: I wouldn't need currency at all. Right, So ultimately, if
Speaker 4: you're going to get if it's all going to go
Speaker 4: to hell and a hand basket and we're going to
Speaker 4: go back to sort of subsistent living, and you know,
Speaker 4: it's sort of some sort of crazy sorry, you know,
Speaker 4: Lord of the Fly scenario, you want your own self
Speaker 4: reliant skills.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean.
Speaker 4: You want to know how to bloody you know, plant
Speaker 4: crops and butcher a cow and all that stuff to
Speaker 4: feeds yourself, you know what I mean. And that's what
Speaker 4: we need to be as a country as well. You know,
Speaker 4: we need we need electrical engineers, mechanical engineers, civil engineers.
Speaker 4: We don't necessarily need any more financial engineers. And I
Speaker 4: am a financial engineer, but I've always been very I've
Speaker 4: always been very cognizant of the fact that if the
Speaker 4: world did go to hell and a hand basket, I
Speaker 4: often think to myself, what skills do I have? It
Speaker 4: all went outside of pushing your panic shock like paper,
Speaker 4: So that's what I mean. Like, ultimately the end of
Speaker 4: the day, you know, there's a lot to be said
Speaker 4: for having something real world skills.
Speaker 3: I'm very grateful for your time, and I asked you
Speaker 3: for thirty minutes. You've given me more than forty. If
Speaker 3: people want to learn more from you, where can they.
Speaker 4: Go ww dot People First Party dot AU. If anyone's
Speaker 4: in Queensland and you want to help hand out how
Speaker 4: to vote cards at the upcoming election, please contact us
Speaker 4: at contact at people first party dot au.
Speaker 1: We'd really love your support.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Senator Rennick, Thank you for joining me.
Speaker 4: Thanks Adam, thanks for having me on. The show has
Speaker 4: been produced by Depictions Media. Please contact us at depictions
Speaker 4: dot media for more information