BOOK NOW – Come and join us for cocktails and conversation of all things politics at this one-off event at one of Brisbane’s most picturesque and historical venues.

With an auction, a raffle and a lucky door prize on offer, it will be a fun night and a rare opportunity to put the world right with a couple of experts.

RSVP Essential: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

Friday, 16 June 2023 | 6pm to 9pm

Story Bridge Hotel
200 Main St
Kangaroo Point, QLD 4169
Australia
Google map and directions

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/bridging-conversations

Queensland is experiencing an escalation in violent youth crime, causing tensions to rise among concerned households.

Join me this Saturday, 17 June 2023, as we discuss the issues of Queensland’s current lawlessness epidemic, the role of law enforcement and the criminal justice system in Queensland.

RSVP here: https://www.onenation.org.au/senatorroberts_crimeforum_bribie_jun17

Saturday, 17 June 2023 | 2pm to 3:30pm

Bribie Island RSL
99 Toorbul Street, Bongaree QLD 4507
Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | 07 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/senatorroberts_crimeforum_bribie_jun17

Monday, 12 June 2023: If you can’t make it to the Highway Hotel and want to catch up before I head off to Bundaberg on Monday morning, I will be at the Grind and Grow Coffee House from 8:30am until around 10am.

40 Mulgrave Street, GIN GIN.

I will be in Gin Gin this Sunday, listening to locals about their concerns.

Come along to the Highway Hotel around 5pm and join me for a chat. See you there!

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/dinner-with-senator-roberts-gingin

When: Sunday, 11 June 2023 | 5pm to 7pm

Where:

The Highway Hotel
73 Mulgrave Street
Gin Gin QLD 4671

Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/dinner-with-senator-roberts-gingin

I will be in Monto this Sunday, listening to locals about their concerns.

If you want to chat, please feel free to join me.

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/lunch-with-senator-roberts-monto

When: Sunday, 11 June 2023 | 12pm to 2pm

Where:

Albert Hotel
58 Newton St
Monto, QLD 4630
Australia
Google map and directions

Contact: Senator Malcolm Robert’s Office | senator.roberts@aph.gov.au | (07) 3221 9099

RSVP: https://www.onenation.org.au/lunch-with-senator-roberts-monto

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

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

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

Everyone’s power bills are going up, which made me wonder why the Australia Council was happy to make their power bill 7% more expensive for no reason at all.

Despite the same power coming through the plug (probably from a coal fired power station) the council elects to make their bills 7% more expensive so they can buy “green power”. What a scam and a waste of money.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I want to follow up on something we discussed last time. You may recall that last estimates we had a conversation about your power bills.

Mr Collette: Yes.

Senator Roberts: A lot of people are talking about power bills these days.

Mr Collette: They are.

Senator Roberts: This is estimates, and one of the purposes of estimates is to assess how you are spending taxpayers’ money. That is what I want to revisit. Firstly, thank you for your detailed response, when you took my question on notice. That was SQ 23-003317. I hope all of the Public Service takes notes from you about how questions on notice should be answered. We appreciate it.

Mr Collette: Thank you.

Senator Roberts: In that answer, you said that you elect to add the green power product to your power bills. That is totally optional. You opt in, and you take extra money from the taxpayer to pay that expense. That is making your power bill 6.8 per cent—say seven per cent—more expensive than otherwise. Whether you opt in to pay the extra for green power or not, the same power comes through the same plug, probably from a coal-fired power station. But you are choosing to waste taxpayers’ money on this optional expense that makes no difference to what is turning the lights on. How much did you pay for green power over the last year?

Mr Collette: I will have to take that on notice, unless my colleague has the answer.

Mr Blackwell: I don’t have it.

Mr Collette: We will try to come back to you with an equally exemplary response.

Senator Roberts: Good, thank you. I don’t expect this of you, but do you have any guess as to what your power bill is?

Mr Collette: I would not like to guess, no.

Senator Roberts: Can you also tell me how much you expect to pay this coming year?

Mr Collette: I can’t tell you that, but I will certainly get that information for you.

Senator Roberts: You were established under legislation; correct?

Mr Collette: We are.

Senator Roberts: So I assume you have been established with the objective of funding the arts.

Mr Collette: Yes, we have, investment and advocacy.

Senator Roberts: Investing in arts and advocacy on behalf of the arts. Thank you, that is clarifying. What part of your objectives enables you to waste an extra seven per cent a year on a core component, power, when it is literally the same power coming through the plug whether you pay the extra expense or not?

Mr Collette: What part of our objectives? I think the Australia Council—Creative Australia to be—does have sustainability goals, and we try to exemplify those, which are important to the sector that we serve as well. Given that we invest in the sector, and we advocate for the sector, I think this is generally respected by the arts and creative industry.

Senator Roberts: I think you are wasting taxpayer money and that should be cancelled. Would not that money be better spent on the art that you are supposed to be funding?

Mr Collette: There is always a cost to investing in servicing the art that we are funding, and I think you will find that this is significantly respected by the sector.

Senator Roberts: The point is that you are spending an extra seven per cent on a key component—

Mr Collette: I understand that.

Senator Roberts: Same plug, same power.

Mr Collette: I understand that. But there are different kinds of value as well.

Senator Roberts: I am not arguing with you on that point.

Mr Collette: So this would be a small contribution to social and environmental value that is respected by the sector, and I am sure if you ask their general view on whether we should save whatever the sum is—seven per cent of our power bill, and I confess I don’t know our power bill as I sit here—you would find very broad support for what we do.

Senator Roberts: I think there is a lot of ignorance—and I am not singling you out; I think it goes right through the community—about this green power, because the same power comes from the same place through the plug, regardless of whether you pay that seven per cent or not. So I would like to know what benefit you get from that seven per cent.

Mr Collette: I will take that on notice and come back to you, once I understand the argument that I think you are making—that there is actually no difference in this power. I need to satisfy myself on that argument and then we can come back to you with a response.

Senator Roberts: I am pleased to hear that. Thank you.

I asked the ACLEI if the new National Anti-Corruption Commission would have oversight of the workings of the Voice if it is established. The response was that the Voice would be purely advisory and not provide services or programmes.

The Commission did not provide a clear answer to the question and this runs parallel with the government position of providing as little as possible detail about the voice prior to the referendum.

Transcript

Chair: Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here again tonight. My questions are to do with the National Anti-Corruption Commission. The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations on 1 July 2023.  Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred some time prior to the commencement of the commission? There was some controversy about retrospectivity.  I’d like some detail.

Ms Hinchcliffe: I’ll hand that over to the department.

Mr Newnham: Could you just repeat your question for me, please?

Senator Roberts: The National Anti-Corruption Commission will commence operations from 1 July. Can the commission investigate alleged corruption that occurred sometime prior to the commencement of the commission?

Mr Newnham: Yes, it can.

Senator Roberts: That was very clear.  Are there limits as to how far back the alleged corrupt activity may be investigated?

Mr Newnham: There are no formal limits. There has been reference, obviously, to the fact that the commission would have to have regard to the length of time that has elapsed, the nature of the conduct that is being suggested and the extent to which materials are still available. So, it would take into account a range of circumstances on a case-by-case basis, but there are no formal limits that I’m aware of.

Senator Roberts: Another clear one. Are there plans to include the judiciary as an entity that may be investigated for alleged corrupt conduct?

Ms Jones: I may be able to assist with that. No, it is not intended that the judiciary would fall within the jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption Commission. But the Attorney-General has directed the department to prepare work on a national judicial commission. That will be established as a separate entity, to have jurisdiction over federal judiciary.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for that. Minister, I must say that I compliment the government for doing that, because I mentioned it to the Attorney-General’s staff some time ago and they said that they would definitely consider it.  It looks like they are.  So, thank you for that.  I think it’s extremely important.

Under the existing legislation, the National Anti-Corruption Commission is designed to cover federal agencies, politicians and public officials, under a broad definition.  Would those working under the Voice, should it become a reality, be included in the commission’s current, or imminent, jurisdiction?

Ms Jones: In answering that, obviously at the moment the issue of the Voice is subject to the referendum process and the outcome of the referendum. Then there will be consideration of the development of the model.

The current design principles that have been set out in relation to the Voice envisage a range of governance and accountability mechanisms that would be developed. But the final form of that will be subject to the Voice legislation being developed and passed by the parliament, following the outcome of the referendum.

Senator Roberts: This is not a criticism of you, but that’s yet another area where we don’t have the detail.  Okay, I understand that. It depends on the referendum and also on the subsequent legislation.

Ms Jones: Yes.

Senator Roberts: Former New South Wales Court of Appeal judge Mr Anthony Whealy has publicly raised his concerns about this issue, if you’d note that.  We’re concerned about the Voice because its predecessor, ATSIC, had a terrible reputation for—

Chair: Senator Roberts, is this a question that relates to ACLEI?  That’s the agency we’re referring to today.  We did deal with some similar questions yesterday in Attorney-General’s.

Senator Roberts:  I’ve just got two quick questions left, Chair. Ms Jones, I know you just said there’s uncertainty; it would depend on the legislation. The chances of corrupt conduct occurring will become statistically higher because the Voice will have hundreds if not thousands of people across Australia. Would the commission be able to scope out corruption in this area?

Ms Jones: I would make the point that the Voice is intended as a mechanism for advising the parliament. It will not have responsibility for programs and it will not have decision-making over funding. It is a mechanism for providing representation and information to the parliament, and it is not intended that it would itself manage any programs or make any funding decisions.

Senator Roberts: So, it would be difficult to say then, until the Voice is defined—if it passes—and the participants are defined, how the NACC will operate in regard to it.

Ms Jones: I think that is accurate. But I would draw a very strong distinction between bodies in the past, such as ATSIC, and what the design principles for the Voice are currently proposing, which is an advisory body, not a body that itself would manage programs or funding.

Senator Roberts: Thank you.

Fisheries Queensland has been under immense pressure from fishers who have had their livelihoods destroyed. Despite declaring the stocks of Spanish Mackerel “sustainable” as recently as 2018, a change in assumptions and modelling hugely cut the quotas that fishers were allowed to take.

These changes to the model have been labelled unscientific by industry groups and scientific reviews. I thought the Australian Fisheries Management Authority had at least reviewed the changes to see if they were scientifically sound, but unfortunately this wasn’t the case.

One Nation will continue to fight for fishers to ensure that fair quotas are issued based on proper science.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank you for being here today. Can you please discuss some of the background on the Spanish mackerel fisheries management, especially in Queensland? I understand that in recent times there have been significant changes in the management and the quotas are being reduced. Do you have more information on exactly what has happened?

Mr Norris: I’m afraid I don’t. The Queensland Spanish mackerel fishery is managed by the Queensland government. The only things I know about it are what I read in the media and from talking with colleagues. I don’t have a lot of insight to offer, I’m afraid.

Senator Roberts: Maybe I can share a couple of points and you can chime in. I understand that in 2018 the stocks of Spanish mackerel were considered sustainable, but a change in modelling has turned that on its head.  There is a lot of scientific disagreement about whether the new modelling is sound. Have you seen that?

Mr Norris: I have seen that play out in the media, yes.

Senator Roberts: On the new changes and a previous mackerel stock assessment, one reviewer named Klaer in 2021 said, and I quote: I am unable to support the conclusions regarding future harvest levels for the east coast Spanish mackerel stock until reservations regarding the most appropriate central value for steepness for the base-case are resolved.  Does AFMA have a view on whether robust science has been applied by Queensland fisheries setting the Spanish mackerel quotas?

Mr Norris: Perhaps I can make some very general comments. All fishery stock assessments are very sensitive to the assumptions built into the model. This concept of steepness is a particularly heavy driver. Certainly we have encountered disagreements about what steepness values should be in some of our assessments of Commonwealth fisheries. In terms of whether or not I am confident with the science done by Queensland, as I say, I haven’t reviewed the science because it is not a fishery we are involved in or manage. I would say as a general observation that I have a very high respect for the fishery scientists who work for the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Queensland. As I say, I haven’t been through the technicalities of this.

Senator Roberts: Could you tell us about steepness?

Mr Norris: Steepness is a value that comes from part of a stock assessment model called the stock recruitment relationship. What the stock recruitment relationship tries to explain is how many adults you need in the water to produce a certain number of babies for future cohorts. Traditionally, you might think it is probably linear; the more adults you have, the more babies you get. While that is true, it is very rarely a nice straight line. It’s a curve, and it is very difficult to estimate. Steepness is the gradient of that line.

Senator Roberts: I must say that you hit the nail on the head. A lot of people are disagreeing with the model used. The models have cut the quotas as a result of the modelling and the underlying assumptions; that is my understanding. We also had a really disastrous, I would say almost fraudulent, basis for the reef regulations that are decimating the east coast in Queensland. We questioned the scientists themselves at an inquiry that the Senate held in Brisbane. We showed just how false the science is; there is no basis for them. That is why a lot of fishermen are also now upset about the modelling and assumptions for their fishery quotas. So, what you are saying makes perfect sense. Thank you very much. Thank you for your clarity.

Canberra Health Autocrats have decided there is no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital. It seems nobody is going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

Transcript

There is trouble in Pan-em from Hunger Games. Or ‘Canberra’ as some still call it.

Australian Capital Territory Health Autocrats have decided there’s no place for religion in health care and are trying to take over the Calvary Hospital.

Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has been presented to the ACT Parliament.

Legislation developed over a long period of time. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health Autocrats have made to steal the Calvary Hospital.

Nothing irks autocrats more than an organisation that refuses to buckle to their heathen agenda.

The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed the ACT autocrats.

Nobody’s going to get in the way of the Health Autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly.

There are 14 Calvary Hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing millions of Australians since their start in 1885.

Churches around Australia provide hundreds of aged care homes.

Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what the Canberra Health Autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.

I urge all members of the ACT Parliament to reconsider this evil act.

If not this will go to the Federal Parliament which has precedence over ACT law.

If ever there was a time to use our power of veto it’s now.

The Federal Parliament must send a message to these autocrats and their heathen agenda.

And the message is this:

God decides who lives and dies, not you.