While in Townsville I spoke with Mark of the North Queensland Freedom Network about the upsurge in crime Queensland is seeing, as well as many other issues, particularly those relating to North Queensland.
I made this statement to the senate recently to highlight the insanity of the C40 scheme. This is a collaborative effort by many of the world’s largest cities which have been captured by the UN monolith and their financial backers, the world’s predatory billionaires.
C40 strives for a ‘zero-carbon future’ and of course it’s backed by those who will profit from the scheme.
In 2021, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, announced that 1000 city and local governments around the world have joined the ‘Cities Race to Zero’. The globalists and their mouthpiece media are supported by a captive political establishment in both the parliament and the bureaucracy.
The main outcome of C40 will be a massive increase in taxation to pay for the apparatus to police the scheme. This will require substantial reductions in personal sovereignty, taking away freedom of movement, freedom of speech, and the freedom to decide how and where you spend your own money.
C40 is about Government autocrats having more money and power, leaving everyday Australians with less. Much less.
In short C40 will regulate and tax individuals into serfdom.
The Lib-Lab duopoly and the Greens have been promoting this agenda for twenty years.
Only One Nation stands opposed to the United Nations, World Economic Forum and the World Health Organisation – all of which are dedicated to increasing their power and reducing your freedom.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw the Senate’s attention to C40 Cities, another campaign, from predatory billionaires who run the world, to destroy our standard of living and steal everything we own for themselves—all in the name of saving the planet. C40 Cities is a product of the usual suspects—billionaires Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, and the Clinton initiative. Sydney and Melbourne have already signed on.
As he calls on the world’s governments to do more on climate change, Michael Bloomberg is doing the opposite. In 2022, he made 702 flights in his five jets, covering 810,000 kilometres, burning 1.2 million litres of jet fuel, and, for those who are counting, producing 3,200 tons of carbon dioxide. Bloomberg’s No. 1 destination was not the Sudan or Afghanistan, where his money might actually help people; his favourite destination was the Bahamas.
Here are the top end C40 targets for 2030, just seven years away. There’s cutting steel and cement use 56 per cent. There’s increasing the number of people in each building 20 per cent—and the Reserve Bank governor recently made a similar comment. There’s eliminating—yes, eliminating!—meat consumption and dairy consumption. There’s limiting buying new clothes to three new items a year—three; that’s three pairs of undies. Food waste is to be reduced 75 per cent, mostly from homes. We’ll shop once a week, buy our allocated ration from bulk displays and eat everything we buy or starve until our next allocated shopping day. There’ll be programmable digital currency to ensure compliance.
These rules are for you, for us, not for the elites and their nomenklatura, their henchmen in the media, academia, the bureaucracy and politics. The rules never apply to the people who make them.
One Nation stands opposed to serfdom. One Nation works for freedom, basic rights and free choice.
This is a case of the Ombudsman adding insult to injury.
In the May 2023 Senate Estimates I asked the Fair Work Ombudsman how their office decided that Ready Workforce could be a person’s employer when payslips, PAYG summaries, employer Super contributions and all ATO records indicated that the true employer was Chandler MacLeod, a labour hire company.
Apparently the investigation is continuing.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Ms Parker, is it true that, prior to your position at the Fair Work Ombudsman, you were the assistant secretary for the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations?
Ms Parker: I was Deputy Secretary, Workplace Relations Group.
Senator Roberts: In your role as a deputy secretary of the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, were you aware of the appropriation monies that the department sent to Coal Long Service Leave?
Ms Parker: Yes, I was.
Senator Roberts: Were you involved in the production of documents table for the annual financial reports for the department whilst in that role?
Ms Parker: In terms of the Coal Long Service Leave, that agency provide its own reports and its own financial reports.
Senator Roberts: But, given that you were the deputy, wouldn’t you have taken an interest in something that was worth a few hundred million dollars?
Ms Parker: We’re going back a way, but it was part of the overall reporting, for example under the annual report. But they were independent, in that sense. They were an agency that managed their own resources, so we didn’t have—
Senator Roberts: But you compiled the report.
Ms Parker: No, not for their own financial—
Senator Roberts: Not for their part, but you compiled their report into your department’s.
Ms Parker: That’s generally speaking. I’m just trying to think back. Our own finance area within the department looked at every single outcome, so, while they sat under the workplace relations auspice, if you like, the financial arrangements and et cetera were done through our finance and corporate areas in the department.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman reported Simon Turner to New South Wales Police recently about a document?
Ms Parker: I’ve not heard that.
Senator Roberts: He was contacted by the police. He wondered what was going on, and the police said it was in regard to an email he sent. I think it was to Robert Evans, Fair Work Ombudsman investigator. Mr Turner then read the email to the police. The police then said he’d been through the wringer and ended by saying there was no need to see him. Why did the Fair Work Ombudsman involve the police?
Mr Scully: I recall the email. I looked at it. I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I was concerned about the language in it, and I was concerned about Mr Turner’s welfare based on that language. So I asked for a welfare check to be done by the New South Wales police on that person.
Senator Roberts: Given what he’s been through, I have the utmost admiration for Mr Turner. He’s very, very solid.
Ms Parker: He is, but there are times when we get aggressive, abusive emails—
Senator Roberts: I’m not criticising Mr Scully.
Ms Parker: That was this occasion. I take those things very seriously, and it’s not acceptable. I understand he has had some stress—
Senator Roberts: Stress? Wow.
Ms Parker: I understand, but it doesn’t entitle him to be aggressive towards Fair Work Ombudsman staff.
Mr Scully: If I can clarify, that was for a welfare check. I asked for a welfare check on Mr Turner to be arranged by the New South Wales police.
Senator Roberts: Thank you.
Mr Scully: To clarify that further, it wasn’t in respect of any interactions he had had with the Fair Work Ombudsman. It was the language within his email. I was actually concerned about his welfare.
Senator Roberts: How long has this investigation been going? I understand it’s been underway since 2018.
Mr Scully: I haven’t got the exact date in front of me, but it has been ongoing. Mrs Volzke might have some more information.
Mrs Volzke: There have been a number of inquiries or requests for assistance made by Mr Turner. The initial one, as I understand it, was subsequently completed, but then there are other concerns that he has more recently raised about pay slips, as you know. That investigation is still ongoing, but we hope to be in a position to finalise it shortly.
Senator Roberts: I hope so.
Chair: I’m a bit reluctant to be talking in detail about an individual. If it’s helpful, Senator Roberts, maybe we can talk about the particular case you’re taking forward, rather than the individual. I also might have a bit of a discussion with the committee. I don’t think this should be on—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner has given me his permission to divulge his name so that the case is clear.
Ms Parker: I would say that I know that you may not agree but the Fair Work Ombudsman staff have put an enormous amount of time and effort into this matter and have taken it very seriously. It’s a complex issue—
Senator Roberts: Very complex.
Ms Parker: and I hope you’d appreciate we have been doing a lot of work to try to assist. It has been going on, as you said, for some time, but it’s not a simple matter.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps you could ask that question of yourself after I ask the next few questionsinvolving one of your Fair Work Ombudsman investigators. Mr Robert Evans has a—
Ms Parker: Sorry, Senator; I thought we had agreed we wouldn’t talk about individuals. I’m very happy for you to talk about an inspector. I’d really prefer you didn’t name him. There have been some issues, as I mentioned before, including some aggressive behaviour towards my inspector.
Senator Cash: Chair, I don’t think Senator Roberts deliberately did that—
Chair: Absolutely not.
Senator Cash: but I think you are right, going forward, given the nature of the issues.
Chair: Yes. Given the nature of the issues that have been raised and the answers that have been given, can we be very mindful of the appropriateness of going into any details.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has an ATO document that states Ready Workforce was not the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: As I said, there is still an ongoing investigation in relation to the tax documentation and how that goes to the true employing entity of a particular individual. As you know, we’ve been looking at those issues and trying to engage not only with Mr Stephens and Mr Turner but also with the ATO. I’ll have to take on notice the question about that particular document that you refer to. I have to say I have no knowledge of it.
Senator Roberts: Is it true that the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator has been given a copy of a court decision that states that Chandler Macleod was the true employer of the aggrieved miner and not Ready Workforce?
Mrs Volzke: The name of the case escapes me at the moment, but what I would say is that that was a case that was particular to the individual in that matter. It’s not necessarily the case that you can extrapolate from those findings in that matter about a particular person and say that that must mean the same conclusions will be made in relation to—
Senator Roberts: I would strongly disagree with you. You’re entitled to your opinion. It’s quite clear tome. Can you explain how a Fair Work Ombudsman investigator could come to a decision that Ready Workforce, ABN 037, was the aggrieved miner’s employer?
Mrs Volzke: Again, talking at a broad, general level, whenever we’re trying in one of our investigations towork out who the employer is, the first place to start is always: what is the contract of employment that is enteredinto? It is from that that we work out where the entitlements flow. That’s on the basis of a number of High Courtcases—Rossato, Jamsek, Personnel—but even the current definition of casual in section 15A of the Fair WorkAct essentially gets you to the same place.
Senator Roberts: I understand you have to check, but the Fair Work Ombudsman’s decision is in direct conflict with all the evidence documents given to the Fair Work Ombudsman investigator, which showed payslips, PAYG summaries, tax documents, employer super contributions, Coal LSL contributions and all ATO records held by the aggrieved miner, who was paid his wages by Chandler Macleod using ABN 052.
Mrs Volzke: Again, we obviously don’t want to get into details, but you start with the proposition that, on the basis of the documentation at the time, that employment was entered into. Unless there’s a variation or some other sham or estoppel mechanism that casts doubt on that, those other matters don’t necessarily displace that. You’ll also know that we have made inquiries with the relevant employer in this case, as well, to seek an explanation about the discrepancy in relation to their ABN being on those pay slips.
Senator Roberts: The court ruling also stated that Chandler Macleod, ABN 052, was the true employer. The court affidavit showed that the mine contract was with Chandler Macleod and all payments from invoices from the mine went to Chandler Macleod, ABN 052. On this basis, I can’t see how it’s possible at all for your Fair Work Ombudsman investigator to arrive at a decision that is in direct conflict with all of this evidence.
Mrs Volzke: Again, Senator, I think you’re quoting that particular court case, which was in relation to another individual, and drawing conclusions. I would reiterate what Ms Parker has already said. We are doing the most thorough investigation that we can. We understand the concerns that have been raised. I don’t really know—
Senator Roberts: They’ve been raised, alright—with the Fair Work Commission; with the Fair Work Ombudsman; with the CFMMEU in the Hunter; with the local Labor MPs, state and federal; with the Attorney-General’s Department twice; with senators; with coalmines insurance; with Coal LSL; with state departments looking after safety, reporting injuries, workers compensation—
Mrs Volzke: It may well be in those—
Senator Roberts: He’s taken it up with me, and I’m the only one who has persisted. And it’s taken me four years to get to this point.
Mrs Volzke: It may well be that, in terms of what you’ve described, particularly in labour hire industrieswhere there are complex employment and corporate arrangements, it may be easier for there to be complexity inworking out who the employer is. I think these are issues that the government is looking at also, in the context of’same job, same pay’.
Senator Roberts: A hell of a lot of government departments have looked at it, and they just don’t do anything. They don’t come back with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’. They just don’t do anything, and yet they’ve given him assurances along the way. There have been so many parasites who’ve made money off these people along the way.
Mrs Volzke: Senator, as I’ve told you as well, it’s our job as the regulator to apply the law, and that’s what we’re doing our very best to do here.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s a bloody slow process. This man and one of his mates, who’s in a similar position, have been to the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations recently and had two briefingswith their senior people. The last was two weeks ago, and they still haven’t got back to him—not even anything.They were impressed with what he said and what he gave—but nothing. So I’d like to table this document, Chair.It’s a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU in the Hunter Valley.
Chair: You have another four minutes, Senator Roberts.
Senator Roberts: That should do it. This is a letter from Chandler Macleod to the CFMEU Northern Mining and New South Wales Energy District. That’s Hunter Valley CFMEU, if you like, with a few mines outside the Hunter Valley. I’ll read out clause (c), which is at the top of the second page:The CFMEU and Chandler Macleod would present this EA—that’s enterprise agreement—to employees for their consideration, noting that both parties support the approval of the proposed EA and a vote would beheld as soon as possible, and as early as 7 May 2015 seeking employees to endorse the proposed EA—There’s an understanding of an agreement between the CFMEU in Hunter and Chandler Macleod, the employer. Clause (d) states:The CFMEU would agree—this is what the employer is saying, in their understanding—to cease from any current and future actions and claims (in its own right or on behalf of members) directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coal mining production work may be entitled to “leave and other entitlements” associated with permanent employment or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their “lawful terms and conditions”. The union obviously agreed with this, because it went further. The union and Chandler Macleod are clearly colluding to strip entitlements and pay off workers at Mount Arthur mine. If it is the case that unions, purporting to represent miners, are actually colluding with employers and if all these government agencies are not doing their job over many years, what the hell does this man do?
Ms Parker: I have not finished, and we have been—
Senator Roberts: I certainly haven’t. I’ve got three aims. I’ll tell you about them later, if you like.
Ms Parker: We anticipate being in a position to finalise these in the near future, as we’ve said, and we’re still working on this. I’m sorry it’s so frustrating, but we have not stopped looking at it.
Senator Roberts: It’s more than frustrating. It’s damn painful. It’s hurting a lot of people in Central Queensland and in the Hunter and elsewhere.
Ms Parker: We understand, but we do have to apply the law as it stands, and that’s what we’re trying to do.
Senator Roberts: Are you aware of the many connections between various involved entities? For example, the lawyer representing the CFMEU in a case was Jennifer Short, who’s on the Coal Long Service Leave Board. She was employed as the CFMEU lawyer. These are just some of the interactions. There are many interactions between mining industry groups, mining companies, labour hire companies and the CFMEU in the Hunter. Are you aware of the many interconnections? You are now.
Ms Parker: Well, I think so. Certainly it’s not particularly relevant to our investigation, but it’s context.
Mrs Volzke: Certainly. Senator, the two clauses that you read out from that Chandler Macleod letter—when an agreement has been approved by the Fair Work Commission, which I’m assuming is what occurred here, then we take it as a given that it’s gone through the processes that need to occur within the commission. I know that Mr Furlong—
Senator Roberts: Mr Turner’s evidence shows that it hasn’t gone through correctly. It could not have gone through correctly, because it doesn’t comply.
Ms Parker: We heard our evidence this morning with the Fair Work Commission on that, which is theirresponsibility. We did listen to that.
Senator Roberts: Minister, quite clearly, the Fair Work Act has failed. It needs not just comprehensive reform; it needs replacement. We need something that is short, simple and clear, that workers can understand, that small businesses can understand and that is actually useful not to the industrial relations club but to the actual workers who need to be protected. Workers like these guys that we’re protecting in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley are without any protection right now. What’s going on with these people is stuff that would come from a Third World country or Australia 100 years ago. It’s unfathomable. I was shocked when I saw it. What is even more shocking now is that no-one can address it. That’s the Fair Work Act and its systems.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you’ve heard from Ms Parker that the ombudsman is investigating thesematters. But, as I said to you before, the government agrees that the Fair Work Act needs a major overhaul tobetter protect the rights of workers and to close loopholes that exist at the moment, many of which you havetalked about. I think, Senator Roberts, you know that I’ve spent a fair bit of time in coalmining regions inQueensland where we’ve seen a lot of exploitation of coalminers, and that was allowed to go on under the formergovernment. So we hope that we can count on your support when it comes to the amendments that we’re puttingforward.
Senator Roberts: You’ll get my support for amendments that actually fix the issue, not prolong it and add more complexity. The problem with this Fair Work Act is its inherent complexity. That’s what has enabled the IR club, some union boss, some large unions, industry groups, employers, consultants, HR practitioners, lawyers and bureaucrats to feed off this monster. It’s the loopholes in the details. If you keep addressing loopholes, you’ll just create more loopholes. We need something that’s gutting the Fair Work Act and replacing it with something for workers and industrial productivity.
Labor’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a direct attack on freedom of speech.
With the government taking aim at free speech and threatening the very foundations of our democracy, it’s vital that we stand against this bill. We must fight to protect our fundamental right to express ourselves.
There is a major problem with this bill and it is far more than just a slippery slope for our civil liberties. It is highly subjective in its definition of what constitutes ‘misinformation’ – in fact, ‘misinformation’ will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. That’s why it is being called ‘Orwellian’ with references to ‘The Ministry of Truth’ which featured in the novel ‘1984’ by George Orwell.
The information censorship being sought by this bill could easily include legitimate criticisms of the government, questions about the science underpinning climate change ideology, questions about high immigration, questions about gender dysphoria, and the ‘no’ campaign against the voice to Parliament. When the ‘truth’ becomes a subjective tool for the government of the day, you have to ask, who will be fact-checking the fact-checkers?
Petition (scroll down to sign)
https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech
Free Speech Conference
Reserve your seat here: https://www.onenation.org.au/free-speech-bne
Transcript
Fight Labor’s War on Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of Speech is an essential human right and the fundamental principle of Australian democracy.
Labor’s Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 is a direct attack on freedom of Speech.
This legislation targets everyday Australians, independent media and non-government political parties while carving out protections for government, mainstream Big Brother media and approved organizations.
It would give the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) draconian powers to silence critics of the government and impose fines up to $6.8 million on social media platforms if, in ACMA’s opinion, they have not done enough to prevent the dissemination of what ACMA considers to be misinformation or disinformation.
The big problem with this bill is its highly subjective definition of what constitutes misinformation. Basically, misinformation will mean whatever the government wants it to mean. This could easily include legitimate criticisms of the government. Questions about the so-called science underpinning climate change ideology, questions about high immigration, questions about gender dysphoria, and statements for the No campaign against the voice to Parliament.
Don’t believe for a second the senior Liberal-Nationals Coalition figures opposing Labor’s bill, because when they were in government the coalition proposed very similar legislation just before the last election. The major party’s hidden agenda is the protection of their two-party system. They’ve watched votes leaked to minor parties and independents over the years and they’re desperate to close down our communication efforts.
If this bill is passed, you could even be saying goodbye to the Please Explain cartoon series.
We must take a stand for freedom of speech, we must fight for it. As Thomas Jefferson said, the tree of liberty must be watered from time to time. Freedom requires constant vigilance.
Making sure that hard won individual freedoms endure in our society requires constant vigilance.
You can help defend freedom of speech in Australia by putting your name to One Nation’s petition against Labor’s anti free speech censorship bill.
We urge you to sign our petition and make this the biggest in Australia’s history, this issue is that serious.
Yet it goes well beyond that. We’re gathering One Nation members of Parliament and esteemed independent speakers from around Australia for a conference in Brisbane on August 26th. More details are to come.
We’re energized and ready to take this to the Liberal-Labor Uni-Party.
Let’s help Pauline Hanson’s One Nation protect the most important of individual human rights.
What went wrong?
The World Health Organisation (WHO) was established in 1948 to improve health outcomes in developing nations. Since the appointment of Tedros Ghebreyesus as Director-General in 2017, WHO has undergone a complete change of direction.
The WHO is now a means to advance the wealth and power of predatory billionaires like Bill Gates, and pharmaceutical companies who make huge sums out of the health responses WHO promotes.
At the same time, its staff are unsupervised, with some engaging in child sexual abuse, rape and sexual exploitation. I have spoken about this in Parliament (links to those speeches are below).
Now the WHO and its billionaire backers are ramping up their profiteering by promoting new powers that will allow the WHO to increase the use of products these billionaires make.
The proposed treaty
In September 2022 the United States, supported by Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand, proposed a Treaty enabling the WHO to have the power to take over member states’ health measures, allowing the WHO to mandate health measures directly on everyday Australians.
Proposed measures include compulsory vaccination through mandatory detention and forced medical procedures. Other measures include the power to order border closures (including internal borders such as between Australian states), shutdowns for businesses & schools, international vaccine passports, restrictions on product sales (such as those which may compete with approved pharmaceuticals) and much more.
The Treaty would also elevate the billionaire owners of the WHO to full member status as “stakeholders”, meaning Pfizer for instance could vote on declaring a health emergency and mandating Pfizer vaccines.
Fortunately, the constitution of the World health Organisation prevented their executive simply signing off on these new powers. The only body that can change the rulebook at the WHO is an assembly of all 194 members states, called a World Health Assembly (WHA).
International Health Regulations (IHR)
Tedros Ghebreyesus responded to the proposal by appointing the IHR Working Group to oversee the changes from a procedural perspective, and an IHR Review Committee with leading WHO health experts from around the world to flesh out the actual detail.
In December of 2022, Ghebreyesus called a special meeting of the World Health Assembly to adopt these measures. However, resistance from the African bloc prevented the changes from passing.
It is important to understand the WHA does not vote, they work off consensus. While the 42-strong African bloc are only 24% of the membership, a measure which only has the support of 76% of the Assembly does not have “consensus”, so the proposal was not voted in – instead it was deferred.
The IHR Review Committee was then tasked with refining the proposal for discussion at the May 2023 WHA before a final vote in the WHA set for May, 2024.
The Committee initially reported in January 2023 that the amendments to elevate the WHO as ‘world health police’ should proceed. However, their report was greeted with such strong opposition they immediately backtracked.
In February 2023 the Committee issued a final report which withdrew the onerous parts of the regulation changes that impacted human rights and dignity and left behind just the commonsense recommendations based on lessons learned during COVID.
The Committee also pointed out the WHO charter explicitly calls on the WHO to be a voluntary organisation that must be invited in by host nations. Giving WHO powers to compel is a direct breach of their charter and should prevent the proposed changes from passing.
The Committee went on to say the proposal has cost the WHO significant loss of goodwill and would take them away from their core business of providing health support.
This is the “victory” I mentioned in a video in early February 2023, which is being posted up by some people on social media 6 months later as though it were current news and without the context I provided. This is misleading people for clicks and subscriptions.
The one part that was left in the IHR amendments was the section that allowed for a global digital health certificate. However, the current wording only allows the WHO to co-operate when someone else introduces a digital ID, it does not allow the WHO to introduce one. This is why the WHO are partnering with the EU Digital Health Certificate, which nations around the world are adopting of their own accord.
So please be clear, the fight over a digital health passport is not with the WHO, the fight is with any national government that introduces a digital ID or digital vaccine passport.
The WHO has no power to mandate the use of digital ID or vaccine passports, our own governments are doing this to us by themselves, with the UN cheering them on, of course.
Australia has not announced plans yet. One Nation will campaign strongly against any form of digital ID/Health passport should the Labor Government attempt to introduce one.
Where to from here?
This is where the good news ends. Undeterred by the Committee’s change of heart the pharmaceutical lobby has pushed forward with their attempts to use health as a weapon against the people. A new proposal was introduced – a “World Pandemic Treaty” which would give the WHO the same powers their own Committee just recommended against.
The treaty actually goes further than the regulation changes by expanding the definition of “pandemic” to mean health, social or environmental emergencies. This would without a doubt include climate change and allow global health powers to be exercised across multiple events on a permanent basis.
The other issue with the Treaty is that it comes into force the minute it is signed. This is a new concept, previously any UN treaty had to be ratified by the Parliament in each member state first. This change leaves us exposed to the whims of our representatives in Australia’s permanent mission to the UN.
The evolving pandemic treaty
In May of 2023 the World Health Assembly (WHA) met and considered the two proposals – the International Health Regulation (IHR) changes and the Pandemic Treaty. The result was no decision. The Assembly kept to the published timetable which was a final vote in May of 2024.
To be clear, the WHO have no new powers. The IHR amendments are not in force and the Pandemic Treaty is not in force. The Treaty has been re-named as an “instrument” to make it sound better, but the powers to compel nations to follow WHO mandates are still in the proposal.
For those who ask, “how could the WHO force us to do anything?” the answer is through sanctions. Russia was recently sanctioned by the UN using the UN-adjacent SWIFT payment system, effectively blocking Russia from making or receiving payment for exports and imports. The SWIFT charter requires it to follow sanctions received from the UN. Iran was sanctioned in this manner in 2012, at great cost to their economy.
Looking ahead – the Committee is being called back to consider the feedback on all these changes that came out of the recent WHA. They resume work in November 2023. We can expect to see a working document by January 2024 and a final recommendation by March 2024, which will then be decided at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. That timetable has not changed.
I also note that Australia’s Chief Medical Officer has called this timetable “ambitious”, so there is no guarantee the matter will be resolved within this timetable.
The United Nations must feel the proposal faces an uphill battle because they have now introduced their own version of a Treaty. At this stage it is only a treaty “framework”, which sets out how the actual Treaty will be written.
With almost a year to go before the 2024 WHA it is too soon to start a campaign given the proposal may (and I expect will) change when the Committee resumes their work at the end of the year.
For now, it is important to make the public, media and our elected representatives understand that the WHO is a corrupt, festering cancer on world health and should be disbanded or at the very least, purged of Tedros Ghebreyesus and his henchmen.
One Nation strongly opposes signing away our national sovereignty to an unelected and corrupt United Nations agency.
Feel free to use the information in this article and in the videos below, and let your local member and Senator know what you think of the WHO and the terrorist in charge.
About the IHR: https://www.who.int/health-topics/international-health-regulations#tab=tab_1
Critical committee report: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
Recommendations accepted at the May WHA: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic
Zero draft of the Pandemic Treaty: https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
All the changes that were agreed to in May of 2023: https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA76/A76_9Rev1-en.pdf
Full agenda of WHA76 – https://apps.who.int/gb/e/e_wha76.html
Some of my recent speeches in Parliament on the UN’s WHO
I asked questions of two Army generals as to the viability of military EVs in the field. They spoke of the challenges of recharging in the field, considering factors such as solar charging and the use of hybrid vehicles.
I was told that the technology was not there yet but the hope was that technology would have matured by 2030-35 when the fleet of vehicles may be transformed to EV status and technological problems be overcome.
Transcript
Chair: Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: My questions are to do with the Army’s electric vehicles. Since the publicly released information of electric vehicle conversion of the Australian designed and built Bushmaster, has the Australian Army progressed to test the operational feasibility of other Australian electric military vehicles in the field? I understand from Minister Conroy, who gave us a crossbencher briefing, that this is at concept stage at the moment, nothing more.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I’ll begin, and then I’ll hand to my colleague Major General Vagg for any further comments. The concept demonstrator that you referred to was part of our power and energy work, which involves some studies to understand how we can use alternative sources of fuel (1) to ensure an operational capability and (2) to reduce the logistic footprint that is created by bulk fuel. There are a couple of important points to note. Firstly, we were able to produce an electric Bushmaster, but that was to really test the parameters of power generation and how that work would translate into the design of the vehicle and to really test the
art of the possible.
Of course, the operating environment would probably require us to have a hybrid approach, similar to a hybrid passenger vehicle, with both solar panels and also the fuel that would be required. So it is on a path of development to determine how we can continue to operate vehicles and reduce the logistics footprint and, obviously, the output of those vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What progress has been made? What stage are you at right now?
Major Gen. Vagg: As the chief has alluded to, we produced the capability demonstrator with Thales. One of the limitations is power generation and storage and the distribution — which I think you’d appreciate —
Senator Roberts: Easy to understand that.
Major Gen. Vagg: for operational use. We’ve got a number of studies underway to look at power generation and electrification of various sizes of wheeled and tracked vehicles. Those studies are indicating that the technology won’t be in a mature state until about 2030. We have plans from 2035 onwards to look at how we’ll transition the broader Army fleet as we move across.
Senator Roberts: So the time frame is you’re hoping to put something into operation by 2030.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s the time when the studies are indicating the technology will be mature enough so we can field it as an operational capability.
Senator Roberts: So at the moment there’s no real understanding based on anything concrete—it’s just studies at the moment. You haven’t got a plan or deadline or date.
Major Gen. Vagg: As I said, from about 2035 we’ve got plans to look at starting to convert Army’s fleets across to electric vehicles.
Senator Roberts: What are your findings on energy density? One of the advantages of hydrocarbon fuels like petrol and diesel and gas is that they have very high energy density—not as high as nuclear, but very high energy density. Sunlight is incredibly low.
Major Gen. Vagg: That’s a good observation. To inform some of that work, we’ve got trials with electric vehicles that are occurring this year. We have 40 electric vehicles—civilian—that are operating in the ACT. From 2024 we’ll look at a series of small, light commercial vehicles that will use hydrogen cells. We’ll use those capability demonstrators to inform further work and how we’ll look to operationalise that.
Senator Roberts: To what stage has the thinking gotten in terms of replacing the current diesel powered vehicles?
Major Gen. Vagg: Again, I go back to my first point. Looking at the levels of maturity for those technologies, we don’t expect that to mature to where we can deploy it as a legitimate operational capability until about 2030.
Senator Roberts: Is there any way in which our concrete operational plans assume electric vehicles, say, by 2035? Are we going to be reliant upon these things being developed?
Major Gen. Vagg: I don’t think we’d be reliant on them being developed, but that’s a goal where we’ll look to do that transition.
Senator Roberts: So it’s a goal, not a plan yet.
Lt Gen. Stuart: If I can describe the approach, there are a whole range of emerging technologies that we need to understand, and then we need to test their application to the set of tasks that we need to provide for the integrated force. In some cases, I expect, those will be successful; in other cases they may not be. What we want is to be informed and take advantage of the developments in technology as they’re developing. We work with both academia and industry to explore the art of the possible. We’re not making any presuppositions about exactly when, because we just don’t have the evidence or the data to support exactly where that technology may be. What we’re working on at the moment in the case of electrification is that we think, based on the advice we’ve received, that technology—noting your point about energy density and the requirement to operate vehicles in operational situations—is probably toward the end of this decade. That is our estimation based on the work we’ve done so far and the advice from experts that we’ve been working with.
Senator Roberts: Have you deployed the vehicle in the wet or in the north or in the desert or put it through any arduous tests, or is it still very much a concept?
Major Gen. Vagg: It’s still very much a concept.
Senator Roberts: What about battery charging? You mentioned that as one of your challenges. I think, from memory, on Friday afternoon the Minister for Defence Industry, Mr Conroy, said that you had some concepts for fast charging. Is that correct?
Lt Gen. Stuart: We’ll have to take that one on notice. As I say, as part of the power and energy work we’re doing, we’re looking at a whole range of things, which include both power generation and power storage—which includes battery technology.
Senator Roberts: What would power generation involve—what sort of concept?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Solar, hybrid engines—
Senator Roberts: Solar panels?
Lt Gen. Stuart: and those sorts of things.
Senator Roberts: Hybrid using hydrocarbon fuelled engines?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes.
Senator Roberts: You’re not far enough advanced, then, to discuss the recharging question for field operation?
Major Gen. Vagg: No. As I alluded to before, we’re still looking at how that technology matures. That’s one of the principal challenges that we need to overcome.
Senator Roberts: What’s your early gut feeling? Much of the science on this and the application of the science on these technologies is still hypothetical—wish.
Lt Gen. Stuart: I don’t think my gut feeling is particularly relevant. We’ll follow the science and what can be demonstrated and how that can be applied to the work that we are required to do. But we think it makes a
lot of sense to be understanding and to be working with experts on how we can apply new and emerging technologies to the business of Army in this instance.
Senator Roberts: I’m reassured now. Initially, I wondered if we were going to be dependent on something happening in the next few years, and I had visions of extension cords all across North Queensland and the Territory. That has put that to rest. Thank you very much.
Malcolm’s Fight
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am