I am alarmed with the direction superannuation in Australia has gone. With $3.5 trillion in super funds being influenced by unions, these funds are increasingly being used for social engineering and political purposes. Millions of dollars has been donated to the Labor Party to support their renewable energy agenda and other Labor policies.

Some funds have even leveraged their shareholdings to seek board positions at companies like Origin Energy, aiming to influence corporate decision-making. It’s startling to see super funds involved in social engineering rather than focusing solely on member benefits. The ALP-linked industry funds are now acting as fundraisers for the ALP, having contributed $13 million dollars of members’ money to the party in the lead-up to the last election.

An important question worth investigating is whether the mismanagement of these funds could be impacting wages and driving up the cost of living.

Transcript

Superannuation has become an institution in Australia, one that has not been reviewed for almost 15 years. The superannuation pot of gold is now valued at $3.5 trillion in an economy that is valued at only $2.6 trillion. While I say ‘pot of gold’, slush fund may be a better description—in the hands of some funds, anyway. Industry super funds are distorting the economy and using their huge wealth to invest politically rather than in the best interests of their members. The renewable energy monster currently devouring our economy and our beautiful countryside is substantially funded by industry super funds. These political investment decisions are made by boards that contain up to five members drawn from the union bosses that fund the service. Investment is made in a way that supports the Australian Labor Party’s political agendas. That is clear. 

Former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating, the man who had a fair bit to do with starting superannuation, has warned that super funds will start asking for board seats from companies in which they take a substantial position so they’re union controlled. Two investment funds tried to take over Origin Energy last year and led the company toward sounder investment strategies. Australian Super drastically increased a stake in the company to vote down the proposal. According to an article in the Financial Review

… super funds’ decarbonisation commitments could push them to put directors on boards, if their other attempts at engaging with companies to drive down their emissions failed.  

Really? Is this the job of superannuation funds now? Social engineering? 

Industry super funds may force targeted companies to employ union members or agree to union sweetheart deals. They may force target companies to follow the woke globalist Labor Party agenda, such as DEI, diversity, equity and inclusion. Although, industry super fund CBUS has gone one further and added a B for ‘belonging’, designed apparently to welcome employees who are Arthur one day and Martha the next. Despite two LBGTQIA+ turning into an alphabet soup of debasement, REST are proud to be an ally of Pride Month and all that goes with it. Super funds can afford this non-commercial activity because they have a river of gold and cash flowing into their coffers every year from members who falsely think their super fees are being spent in their own interests. Silly them. In fact, super funds sent $13 million to the ALP in the lead-up to the last election; CBUS alone was $1.5 million of that, more than a tenth. 

Direct payment is not the only way super funds are fed back to the unions. Then on to the ALP. Industry funds pay unions to run training programs with very generous payments. It’s not quite a protection racket, but it’s along the same lines. Board members on super funds also receive very generous salaries, which are then sent back to the union and form part of the $17 million paid by unions to the ALP. CBUS, for instance, pays its board members $457,000 per annum each year, which makes REST look positively reasonable at only $165,000. This explains why, during COVID, when the Morrison government made a very sensible suggestion to allow everyday Australians a chance to use just a little of their super to get through COVID, the ALP lost its mind. Their super fund donors were unimpressed with having to give up what turned out to be $80 billion of their 3.5 trillion back to the people who gave it to them. Apparently, pride parades and social engineering don’t fund themselves. 

The misuse of funds by superannuation companies raises a serious question: is superannuation reducing wages? meaning there is no direct financial benefit to the worker making the contribution. This is theft. The Grattan Institute has produced data to show that it is, in fact, the worker who pays for this so-called employer contribution in reduced wages and reduced employment opportunities. It’s time for a detailed inquiry into this boondoggle to ensure workers are not losing from this system. 

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the motion moved by Senator Hanson be agreed to.  

The Senate divided. [16:58] 

(The President—Senator Lines) 

The wind and solar billionaires are going to leave a trail of environmental destruction across the country. Coal mines, which are unfairly demonised, have to pay an environmental bond before they put a shovel in the ground. When the mine is finished, that money is used to restore the land to how it was before the mine was ever there. Unlike coal, wind and solar do not have to pay environmental bonds.

We’re going to be left with a toxic wasteland of old wind turbines and toxic solar panels that no one will have the money to clean up. Wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, they’re going to ruin it.

Transcript

CHAIR: Thank you. We’ll take it on notice. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to continue with the questions that I was asking before. Minister, the purchases of COVID injection doses were, by any measure, excessive—a cost of $18 billion—yet we have only used 37 per cent of Pfizer, 26 per cent of Moderna, 25 per cent of AstraZeneca and one per cent of Novavax. Why did we buy 267 million vaccines for a population of 27 million people?  

Ms Fisher: I think that Professor Kelly went through some of the rationale for the COVID purchasing arrangements earlier. But just to recap, I think the most important consideration at the time was to ensure that every Australian would have access to COVID-19 vaccines. Given that it was a new vaccine and a whole new disease, it was necessary at the time to have a portfolio approach to our purchasing, so we had a number of vaccines purchased, and we needed to make sure that they were all going to be safe and effective and that we’d have enough of each of the vaccines to cover the population. I would note that, in terms of the vaccine program, purchasing is carrying through into the future as well. Some of the vaccine numbers that you gave are those that are currently going through the system. Also, we have an acceptable level of waste for the program, which we look into to make sure that it’s an effective and efficient use of public money. 

Senator ROBERTS: According to my simple calculations, 267 million vaccines equate to 10 vaccinations for each individual; and that number also covers people who didn’t want to be vaccinated, so it’s even more than 10 person, per Australian, per baby.  

Ms Fisher: I won’t question your maths but, going back to my comment about having a portfolio approach— noting that different vaccines, according to the advice of the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, have been recommended over time for different groups, such as the AstraZeneca vaccine—it was necessary to have some flexibility in the purchasing arrangements.  

Senator ROBERTS: Were all of the 267 million doses delivered to Australia?  

Ms Fisher: Were they, at what time period?  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they all been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: No. Some of them continue to arrive through our advance purchasing agreements.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many have arrived and how many are yet to arrive?  

Ms Fisher: Due to commercial sensitivities and the secrecy provisions in the contracts, I’m not able to answer specific questions relating to specific vaccines around that. I am able to tell you how many we purchased of the different vaccines and some of the uptake that we’ve had overall, which is that 71 million vaccines have been administered over the last few years.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about a quarter of what we bought.  

Ms Fisher: Yes, so far, but there are more coming every day.  

Senator ROBERTS: So, because of commercial sensitivity, you’re refusing to tell us how many have been delivered?  

Ms Fisher: Yes, to date.  

Senator Gallagher: And because of the requirements of the contract, the agreements, with the companies.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, Ms Fisher is ‘required to produce to this committee any information or documents that are requested’, and I’ve requested the number of vaccines that have not been delivered.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t know what you’re reading from there but—  

Senator ROBERTS: The standing orders.  

Senator Gallagher: within the standing orders, there are also provisions for things like commercial in confidence. But we can tell you how much has been our expend. We can go through how many have been purchased from each company, and I would imagine we could answer by saying that the agreements are being conducted in accordance with the requirements of the contract, for example. That’s the transparency, but there are still legitimate reasons before committees that matters remain commercial in confidence or security in confidence for a range of different reasons.  

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, Minister, there’s no privacy, security, freedom-of-information or other legislation that overrides this committee’s constitutional powers to gather evidence, and Ms Fisher and you are protected from any potential prosecution as a result of your evidence or producing documents to this committee. So, if you want to seek indemnity from providing that then you have to submit such a request to the committee.  

Senator Gallagher: If you’re insisting that we provide that, I can refer the matter to the minister for health to make a public interest immunity claim, and I’m happy to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you; I’d like the data. 

While travelling through North Queensland, I held a number of events including in Mackay, Bowen and the Whitsundays. This is what I had to say to attendees on the current issues in Australia before we went into Q&A sessions.

Transcript

Malcolm Roberts:

Well, thank you for being here and thank you for being awake and thank you for making an effort for our country Australia and for our state Queensland, and for the region of Bowen and the Burdekin electorate, and also the Mackay electorate and the Whitsunday electorate. We have got fine candidates who are doing their role as citizens, so thank you so much.

I want to make a confession. Well, before I make the confession, I used to work at Collinsville because when I graduated from university with an Honours Degree in Mining Engineering, I decided I better go and learn something. And I’m serious. I went to the underground mines, mostly underground, one open-cut mine Queensland, New South Wales around the country to get practical experience. And one of them was Collinsville number two, which has since shut. It was an underground mine, so you know about that.

So I used to come into Bowen on some weekends because we used to work five-day weeks in those days. My confession is that I used to vote for the uni party. Now, the uni party is a name we’ve coined because the Liberal National Party and the Labour party are almost identical in policies. There is a reason why I generally put the liberal nationals ahead above the Labour Party in my preferences because the Labour Party, if you stand up, you’re gone. In the liberal party, you may be gone. A few LNP do stand up on a few issues, but they recently demoted who I think is their best senator, to an unwinnable position. That tells you everything you need to know about the LNP, apart from looking at David Cristafulli, who stands for nothing. So we have got to get away from the uni party. I used to vote for the Liberals, used to vote for the uni party. Not anymore. Put the Greens last Labour party, second last and Liberals generally third last. That way my vote if the minor parties don’t go in, gets to the LNP rather than the Labour Party.

I’ll be mentioning one of the gods of the LNP in my talk. He’ll probably come up several times. I thought he was wonderful, then I got the facts. And I’ll show you some of those facts. Our constitution is the only constitution in the world in which the people voted for it before it came into place. Did you know that? This is the only country where the people voted for the Constitution? Who are the only people who can change the constitution? The people. Who elects the government? In our constitution, we have a constitutional lawyer here who’s taught constitutional law at universities. In our constitution, the people are the supreme sovereign entity. Did you know that? The reason we’re in a mess under the leadership of the Uni party, the LNP and the Labour Party with policies almost identical is because we as a citizenry have fallen asleep and I include me in that, I said we.

When I started waking up, I started getting active and I’m going to show you what we did, but I want to compliment the candidates, Julie, Kylie with Andrew for standing up because it’s what we need to do. Government has three roles. Protect life. Both parties have taken lives in the last four years, both parties have taken lives with abortion bills. The second role is to protect property. The man I’m going to raise repeatedly because it just so happens that the facts show that I will repeat his name repeatedly is the number one thief for property rights in this country and it will stun you when I tell you who it was.

The third role of government is to protect freedom. The Uni party, liberal Labour, and liberal Labour have stolen freedoms not just in the last four years, but for decades in this country. Won’t you consider our Queensland? Consider Australia. Look at our resources. The UN itself has said second to none in the world, second to none. We have wonderful people. We’re starting to become less educated because of our indoctrination rather than education in schools now, but we’ve still got very talented people, people willing to have a go. We’ve got the world’s largest market to the north in Asia. We’ve got huge potential.

And yet look at us. We’ve got people in Mackay sleeping in tents, but now that you mentioned it, we’ve got them in Cairns, sleeping in tents under bridges, in cars, working families sleeping in cars, going home at night to their kids in a car, good working families sleeping in tents, caravans, getting moved on by councils. Cairns, Townsville, Mackay, Rocky, Maryborough, Bundaberg, Gladstone, city of Brisbane, city of Ipswich, Beaudesert. And a lady’s mouthing to me, Bowen. This is disgraceful. We should be the world’s richest state. We’ve got huge debt under both parties.

So I want to talk first about housing. The great Australian dream of owning your own home is increasingly out of reach for many Queenslanders as housing supplies dwindle, housing demand increases and construction costs soar and people are sleeping in tents. We visited some yesterday. We visited two lots in Mackay, one out near Marion-

Speaker 2:

Out in Julie’s electorate.

Malcolm Roberts:

… Julie’s electorate.

Speaker 2:

And then the one in the city.

Malcolm Roberts:

In the last five years, homelessness has increased 22%. That’s under liberal labour Uni party, tents, cars. People are trapped in the jaws of unaffordability. Think about why. Now, Julie talked about the details of our housing policy, I’m not going to go there. I’m going to talk about why. 1.9 million residents with visas in this country before COVID all wanting houses, 1.9 million foreigners. When Anthony Albanese came in, he said, “We will increase migration until we catch up with pre-COVID.” In February last year, 2023, the residents numbered 2.3 million. We were well above already.

But it gets worse than that. We have in the last financial year, 737,000 arrivals in this country, three-quarters of a million arrivals. The net migration, when you remove those who left, 518,000 additions, half a million. When you look at the ratios, that builds a need for 200,000 houses. We are in a housing crisis and Morrison increased their immigration and then Albanese drastically increased immigration.

Why did they do that? I’ll tell you why. Because under the latest stages of Morrison’s prime minister ship under the Liberal National Party and under the Anthony Albanese’s prime minister ship, we have been in a per capita recession per person, and our economic growth is negative, negative. We are in a per capita recession. How do you hide that? Because you don’t want to be the prime minister who’s blamed with a recession, but what you do is you bring a whole lot of people in, bump up the GDP, we’re not in recession barely.

But when you’ve got people sleeping in tents with their kids under bridges, that shows you just don’t care. They don’t give a damn. They just want to make sure they don’t get tagged with the recession. Since John Howard, he was the first to raise immigration dramatically, he almost doubled it and put us on the big, big immigration path, the big Australia path. It got raised from him to almost double under Turnbull and Morrison and then it’s quadrupled under Anthony Albanese. And Peter Dutton has said he will reduce immigration back to very high levels. Insane. I’m saying we need to not only stop migration, we need to, and migrants have been wonderful. I’m part migrant.

We need to actually send some of the resident visa holders home until we catch up with the housing and the infrastructure. So we need to reduce demand. I’m going to get onto some of the key policies that until every Australian in a tent has a roof over their heads, we shouldn’t let foreigners buy houses. New Zealand and Canada have recently said that no foreigners can buy houses in their country. We’re the holdouts. We want to stop foreigners owning houses, residential real estate in this country.

But I also want to talk about a couple of other things. We want to offer the option for a personal super to be invested in primary residence. It’s your money. And then on the sale of the house later down the road, decades down the road, the proceeds are restored to the super fund. What’s wrong with investing in your own house? It’s real estate. Second and thirdly, we want to create 5% mortgages. Ditch Labor’s Housing Future Fund. Sounds wonderful. They said it’s $10 billion. What they didn’t tell you and the media didn’t tell you was that it’s $10 billion put in a fund and then the return on investment of that fund is invested in houses. Could be $300,000, $300 million. That’s it. It’s not a $10 billion fund and they didn’t tell you that three lots of bureaucrats come with that future fund. It’s bullshit.

So we want to replace that with a new people’s mortgage scheme, which will pump out 5% mortgages, low interest rate mortgages to people who qualify. Then the next one. Some people have done what they think was the right thing and gone to university and developed a HECS debt. And then when they go to the bank to get a housing loan, they can’t get one because they’ve already got the HECS debt. So what we’re saying is allow people with a HECS debt to roll the HECS debt into their people’s mortgage scheme debt so they’d have one debt that will take longer to pay off, but at least they can get into a house and start paying the damn thing off. So that’s unique to us too.

Julie mentioned we want to review and revise taxes on homes. Currently, 45% of a new house price is tax. Did you know that? Those figures came from the Real Estate Institute in New South Wales and the federal government, government fees, taxes, charges, duties. So we believe One Nation believes in the great Australian dream of owning your own home and we are alone in saying and having policies that will make it easier for Australians to own homes.

Let’s move on to energy. When coal reigned in this country, we had the cheapest electricity in the world. Did you know that? Now as a result of John Howard’s policies and subsequent labour ramping up of those policies, we have the world’s most expensive electricity. We have coal coming out of power state, coming out of mines, going straight into a power station and the electricity costing 25 cents a kilowatt-hour. We take that same coal, put it on a train for a couple of hundred kilometres, transship it at a port onto a boat, send it what? A couple of thousand kilometres to China, Asia, another boat, another port, another handling fees, and then they put it on a train to their port, to their coal-fired power station and they produce electricity and sell it at eight cents a kilowatt-hour.

Why is that? Because they don’t have the subsidies that we have for solar and wind. Your price for electricity, our price for electricity is so damn high because of the solar and wind subsidies that we are giving to parasitic globalist corporations and giving to parasitic billionaires in this country. We’re stealing your money. That’s all it is, for a dream. We’ll talk more about that.

It is a fact that as nations around the world increase their proportion of solar and wind, their electricity price does what? Increases dramatically, not just increases, dramatically. Warren Buffett the most astute investor ever in the world. You know Warren Buffett, ma’am. He says wind turbines are a terrible investment. Subsidise wind turbines, wonderful investment. We have large solar and wind complexes, industrial complexes in the north and west of Queensland and in the western Victoria that have rapidly been built and no thoughts been put into it. They’re not even connected to the grid, but they’re getting money for income for producing electricity or having the ability to produce electricity. Who’s paying for that lack of electricity? We are. So always the people pay.

And then we’ve got subsidies going to these people. We’ve got subsidies for a Eraring power station, Australia’s largest coal-fired power station. We’ve got subsidies going to solar and wind to destroy Eraring. We had commitments to shut Eraring early. Now we’ve got subsidies for Eraring to stay open. It’s funny, but it’s bloody sad. This is an indictment on the LNP in New South Wales and federally and an indictment on the Labour Party in New South Wales and federally. And if you notice the men’s government, the Labour government in New South Wales, it took over a couple of years ago, on the night of the election, the incoming energy minister, she said, “About this Eraring, we might have to think about shutting it.” They know it’s stupid. And then two years down the track, “Oh, we’re going to keep it open.”

And then while we’re subsidising Eraring to shut through solar and wind and we’re subsidising Eraring to stay open now because it’s desperate and the Australian energy market operator is saying that they were forecasting massive blackouts in New South Wales at the end of this year. At the same time, they’re bringing in, and they’ve got in, energy price relief for your electricity bills. It’s insane. So they’ve done it all of their own. And every major climate and energy policy was introduced by which party? Which party? LNP, correct, not the Labour Party. LNP introduced them, Labour comes in and turbocharges them. Then Liberals get in, they introduce more policies to shut down our electricity sector and Labour Party comes in and turbocharges them. Safeguard mechanism, one of the first things Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese did. That was introduced by Hunt and Turnbull very quietly in 2015 in December. It is dishonest.

Coal, nuclear, and gas, and hydro made us independent of the weather. Until then, humans relied upon the weather. And if the weather blessed them, we flourished. If it didn’t, we died. It’s that simple. Coal in particular made us independent. Before coal came along and coal-fired power stations, what did we use for lighting at night? Whale oil, the best friend of the whales is coal. Before coal came along, what did we use for heating and cooking? Wood. I have yet to see a piece of wood that doesn’t come from a tree. So we chopped down trees. The area of forests in the developed continents is now 30% greater than it was a hundred years ago. Thanks to coal. The best friend of the forest and the trees is coal.

But coal, oil, natural gas, nuclear, and hydro have another great friend, that’s the human race. Our human, if you think about it, we were scratching around, basically most of our ancestors were scratching around in the dirt trying to find food for their kids 170 years ago. 200 years ago, a king or queen would’ve lived shorter, more dangerous, more unhealthy, less comfortable, more rigorous life than someone on welfare in Australia today. That’s a fact. Look at this, everything around us. Everything in this room, including the clothes you wear, is a result of steel, which is comprised of coal and best energy comes from electricity.

Low cost energy, and the prices of electricity and energy generally were on a relentless decline from the start of the Industrial Revolution until 1996, 1997 when the UN Kyoto protocol came into existence. And John Howard said, “We won’t sign it, but we will comply with it.” And as a result, he introduced a renewable energy target. His government stole farmers’ property rights, which is the worst thing a liberal can possibly do. There’s nothing more sacrosanct other than life. He put in place the national electricity market and those things are destroying our agricultural sector and destroying our manufacturing sector and destroying our electricity sector. So we had low cost energy, and when energy decreases in price, it increases productivity, which increases wealth and prosperity, which decreases our cost of living, which increases our standard of living. That transformed our human civilization. And in one fell swoop, John Howard and the liberal party reversed that and started artificially increasing energy prices. And now we’ve got amongst the world’s highest electricity prices. So electricity prices are vital for human progress, vital for productivity.

I was a boy in the Hunter Valley. I grew up in Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley and I used to cycle the high school from the bush, we lived out in the bush, past the Alkan Aluminium smelter. It came to Kurri Kurri in the Hunter Valley, look it up because of cheap coal-fired electricity. That’s what’s fundamental for aluminium. It’s gone because of these policies. And when you increase the energy price, it cascades right through the economy. Everything becomes a multiple and all your prices rise. It’s not just Morrison’s high inflation due to his massive spending during COVID mismanagement, inflation. It’s also due to high energy prices and that’s what continues it. We are the largest exporters of hydrocarbon energy, coal, oil, natural gas. They’re the hydrocarbons. We’re third largest in gas now. We used to be the largest, we’re the third largest because America under Biden has passed us in gas exports even though it produces carbon dioxide. So when you add our coal and our gas, we are the largest exporters.

Other countries, China, Asia, India use our coal in abundance. But we can’t use it here because of a lie from the United Nations that is pushed by the Uni party, the liberal labour Uni party. Oh, by the way, I didn’t mention that six years after he was booted from the office, and I was a massive fan of John Howard, a massive fan of John Howard until I started doing my research under climate fraud. Six years after he left office in 2013 in London, he gave an address. And in that address he said, “On the topic of climate science, I am agnostic.” He didn’t have the science. But weren’t we all told that the science is driving his policies? It’s a lie. And I can go in question and answer through the many ways that I have proven that’s a lie by holding people accountable in parliament and in the energy agencies and the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology. But I won’t go into that now.

What I can tell you as a summary is that there is no scientific or policy basis for the climate bullshit. There is no policy basis, no scientific basis, no policy basis for the energy policies that are destroying our electricity sector. None. I’ve asked many, many agencies, not one can give me it. And yet the LNP and the Labour Party are together pushing this down our throats. There are some billionaires behaving like parasites. Do you know what parasites do? They suck the blood out of you and they kill the host, whether it’s a tree or it’s a human. These billionaires behaving like parasites include Holmes a Court who funds the teals, who push subsidies for solar and wind. Is there a conflict of interest there?

I know of no one getting a check from a coal company for opposing this. I know of no one getting a check from a NOAA company opposing this. But here we are, the accusers of that, these lies are involved in a scam, a conflict of interest looking after a billionaire. Have you heard about that in the media? Not more billionaires acting like parasites. Twiggy Forrest. And what did he do in the last couple of weeks? He said his green schemes are falling over and he’s withdrawing them, putting a lid on them for the interim. Then we have Mike Cannon-Brookes, another billionaire. Ross Garnaut is hoping to be a billionaire. And then we’ve got parasitic major corporations, mainly Chinese who are getting the money for our solar and wind. And who pays for all of this? We do.

Chris Bowen, the Ministry of Madness, he says that the transition to solar and wind that’s currently underway, it’ll never be completed. It’s the biggest transition since the Industrial Revolution. And it’ll need this, 40 massive wind turbines every month for eight years at a cost of $12 billion. Now there’s one crane I’m told by Steve Nowakowski, who was agreeing and converted when he realised the environmental damage of solar and wind, he converted. He’s now opposing them and doing a marvellous job, Steve Nowakowski. He said to his knowledge, and I haven’t checked this, there’s one crane capable of assembling wind turbines. It takes two days or so to assemble the crane, then two or three days to assemble the wind turbine, then around two days to dismantle a crane and move it to the next site where you go through the same again. So it takes what? What’s that?

Let’s be generous. Six to seven days to instal a wind turbine. We need 40 massive turbines every month. It’s bullshit. It’s impossible. We need 22,000, these are Bowen’s figures, 22,000 solar panels every day for eight years. A nine kilowatt home solar system the government says we need, that’ll be about $8,000 each, nearly 4 million homes. It would cost $32 billion total. It’s impossible. 22,000 solar panels every day. Come on. So that’s a total of $44 billion for a potential maximum of 54 gigawatts of power. Then the power’s intermittent. On average you get 12.5 gigawatts out of that capacity of 54 gigawatts.

They have a low capacity utilisation. If you build a power station for, coal-fired power station, for a hundred megawatts, it’ll pump out a hundred megawatts. Click, click, click, click, click, click, click. It’ll go down every now and then for schedule maintenance. So it has about 95% or higher availability. And you can plan the outages. Solar and wind their capacity is 23% of nameplate capacity. Instal solar and wind, you’ll get 23 megawatts out of it. On average. On average. But it gets worse. On peak hour early in the morning and late at night, it’s 10% capacity. So that means you need 10 times the number of solar and wind that you’ve installed. You need a thousand megawatts to get a hundred megawatts. And then the life cycle of solar and wind components is about 15 years. So in the life of a coal-fired power station of 60 years, nuclear power station may be a hundred years, you’ll have to change the solar and wind four times. That’s why they’re called renewable because you’ve always got to replace them.

So can you see the huge cost? But then think about this, the huge footprint because you need vast quantities of land and you need 28,000 new kilometres of new transmission line, 28,000. And those costs according to the CSIRO, nonexistent because their costs are forecast at 2030 and all the transmission lines would be built then so we don’t need to include the costs in solar and wind. They’re only being built for solar and wind. We are driving off a cliff with packed in a double-decker bus with Anthony Albanese, Scott Morrison, Malcolm Turnbull, Chris Bowen at the steering wheel.

Speaker 3:

Is that such a bad thing?

Malcolm Roberts:

We’re on the bus! Then you’ve got to add firming costs because wind and solar are asynchronous. They’re inherently unstable. Coal, hydro, gas, oil, nuclear, all synchronous, stable. Then you’ve got to have batteries for when the sun doesn’t shine or you’ve got to build a coal-fired power station for when the sun doesn’t shine. This was all forecast 20 years ago, and labour and liberal are paying no attention. And then on top of that, you’ll be dependent on the weather. And that means very expensive. And who pays for all of this? Who? We do. And then you find coal, not only subsidies for wind and solar, but you find coal is penalised with massive artificial regulatory burdens and solar and wind have to be taken first and coal shut down. That destroys a coal-fired power station. Before everything was fine, it was all humming along.

And then get this. Labour Party’s policy is uncosted. Uncosted. Richard Miles, the Deputy prime minister has refused repeatedly to rule out that the total cost of transition will be more than a trillion dollars. Yes ma’am. What? Dutton says it’ll cost around $1.3 trillion or more. He says he’s being conservative. An independent study says it’s 1.5 to $1.6 trillion for nothing, for a worse system and unreliable high-cost system.

The CSIRO, when John Howard was prime minister said this. This is John Howard’s words, The CSIRO said, quote, “that the only reliable source of base load power was fossil fuels and nuclear.” Why the hell did he bring in the national electricity market? And favours require force the use of solar and wind. So let’s find out why.

Who benefits? First of all, let’s talk before we go into who’s making money out of this. This is going to be very detrimental. The whole of Brisbane’s water supply if some of these proposals goes ahead with solar can be contaminated with toxins, not only Brisbane, Toowoomba, Ipswich, Ben Lee, Logan, Gold Coast. Not here. They’re not going to pump the water up to here. But your own local developments may do that. Wind causes people physical sickness, scientifically proven. Infrasound. It sends businesses broke and families bankrupt. And where do these businesses start manufacturing? China, which produces four and a half billion tonnes of coal. We produce 560 million tonnes of coal, one-eighth. See that in the media? India has ramped up its coal production to be about 1.3 billion tonnes, which is more than double what we produce. This is insane. They’re saying they want what gave us our standard of living. And I certainly agree with them.

They’re killing our competitive advantage solar and wind. Solar and wind are killing our lifestyle, killing our security, killing our future. And I want to compliment Andrew for talking about the 120 byproducts of coal that are in every day use in our society. People are now waking to the solar and wind killing our environment, killing koalas. There are instructions on how to kill koalas to instal a wind turbine, killing our birds, killing our trees, killing our bird breeding lakes in north Queensland, killing our forests, killing our creeks, killing our prime farmland, killing our food production.

And then you’ve got to ask the question, what is clean energy? Right now, you and I are all exhaling carbon dioxide. We take it in at 0.04%. It’s called a trace gas because it’s bugger all of it. There’s just a trace of it. We’re inhaling that and we’re increasing it by more than a hundred times. And we’re exhaling it at four to 5%, 100 to 125 times what we took it in as. You’re all polluters. It’s bullshit. It’s essential for life on this planet. This is being done by the liberal labour Uni party, the ones that I used to support until I woke up. And this is what woke me up. This is what woke me up, realising this. Why are we doing it? Because the United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement, which Tony Abbott signed and the following year, Malcolm Turnbull ratified. Liberals.

The United Nations wants to keep Australia in the Paris Agreement because developed nations are called on by the United Nations to finance the developing nations. China is a developing nation. We’re going to finance China and compensate these developing nations for past emissions and damage due to the climate. Has anyone seen any damage due to climate? Have you? There isn’t any.

So the United Nations is all about revenue raising because it currently relies upon grants, donations from member countries. They want their own revenue and they want half a trillion dollars a year, 500 billion. This is a uni party sellout of Australia, Australian taxpayers and Australian industry. The journal, supposedly scientific journal, it’s pretty crappy nowadays. It’s sold out to vested interests. But the journal nature said that rich countries like Australia would owe middle income countries an estimated 100 to $200 trillion by 2050. Australia’s share would be 5%, which is five to $10 trillion. How about that? Did you know that? The United Nations wants a 5% sales tax on technology, fashion, and defence firms plus a tax on hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas? Did you know that? Did you know that Tanya Plibersek has raised the policy in parliament of a fashion tax, tax on clothing because they don’t want you to buy so much clothing to feed this mob? Did you know that? Just a few months ago.

Neither the Labour Party nor the LNP, the uni party, nor the Greens, nor the Teals have any kind of plan for doing this.

The solutions with one nation are to consider humans, the environment, and national security and to tell the truth and base our decisions on fact. Our number one policy on energy is to use the cheapest energy that is safe, reliable, responsible. That’s hydro, coal, nuclear, gas, oil. Restore competitive federalism, so the states provide a competitive basis. That is a fundamental tenet of our constitution. It’s been trashed by John Howard bringing in the national electricity market, which is a national electricity racket because it’s not a market. It is controlled by bureaucrats who make the rules to favour solar and wind. So we want to embrace coal. We never have let it go. We want to continue to embrace coal. We want to amend the national electricity market so it’s fair and realistic for all sources. Stop artificially inflating coal-fired prices. We want to end the national electricity market. It’s bullshit.

We want to develop new mines and coal-fired power stations. I’ll talk more about that in Q&A if anyone wants. We want to continue to embrace nuclear. We say to Peter Dutton, welcome to the debate on nuclear. We’ve been advocating that for years. Let’s debate it. We have 25% of the world’s uranium reserves. We export them from South Australia, maybe the territory too. We want to repeal the legislative nuclear ban. Support nuclear. We want to base decisions on facts, data, and truth, not lies and emotion. Thirdly, we want to embrace, continue to embrace true hydro, not pumped hydro. That’s garbage generally with very few exceptions, it’s garbage. But real hydro, Tully, Hells Gate, we’ve been pushing them for years. We want to phase out taxpayer funded subsidies for solar and wind. Large scale, immediately stop. Small scale houses, keep going with the subsidies until your contract runs out and then stop. We are tired of subsidising other people’s electricity for a bogus scam.

We want to force rehabilitation on land that solar and wind are heavily impacting. If you’re a coal mine and you uncover so much land to dig the coal out from underneath it in an open cut mine, you have to pay a bond for every hectare that’s disturbed. And at the end of the life of the mine, when you rehabilitate it, you get the bond back, which seems fair to me. Solar and wind, no bond. Just walk off after collecting billions in subsidies, walk off the land and leave it to the farmers to clean up at their cost. So we’re saying no new subsidies. Well hell, why should we have new subsidies when the CSIRO and Labour and Liberal are claiming that solar and wind are the cheapest? It’s bullshit.

We want to amend the national electricity market rules so that energy price reflects the true generating cost in the market value. But I want to get rid of the national electricity market. We want to prohibit solar and wind on prime agricultural land, pristine, natural forest and where there’s a fire risk. We want to prohibit offshore wind turbines. Prohibit them. They’re complex and dangerous. We want to put in place a solar and wind bond. We want to withdraw from the Paris Agreement. There is nothing simpler. We want to end net-zero. It’s a United Nations scam. We want, listen to this one please, we want to use our valuable resources for Australia first. That’s what we want. Now I’m finished. I’m three minutes over time, but we’ll be taking questions.

Julie asked me to talk about the power of the cross bench. Who knows what the cross bench is? Okay, most people. Thank you for being open and honest and saying no, you don’t know. That’s great. That’s the best way to learn. What happens with our federal parliament, it has two houses of Parliament. It has the lower house, and whichever party has the majority forms government. That is currently the Labour Party with less than a third of the vote. So our government doesn’t reflect the country, but that’s the way it is. Okay. So the government has the majority of members in the low house. They do most of the introduction of bills, most of the policies, most of the decisions for governing the country.

And then they produce bills that come up to the Senate, which is proportional representation, which is a fairer system of representation because it means that if you get, say a third of the vote, well hang on, that’s not a good example because the Labour Party’s in government with a third of the vote. But strictly speaking or theoretically speaking, if you have a third of the vote, you’ll get a third of the members in the lower house. Okay? Sorry, you might not get any like Nigel Farage got four and yet had a bigger vote than the Liberals in Britain who got a fraction of his vote. So the direct representation through electorates, you might get 30% in every electorate and not get one electorate in the lower house. But in the Senate you’ll get 30% of the senators because it’s proportional representation for the state. So the Senate is a fairer system and what they do is they’re supposed to protect states’ rights.

So Pauline and I are pretty rare because we fight for Queensland. So what happens then is you’ve got a break on the government and you’ve got a better representation to represent the population as a whole. In Queensland, the Labour Party abolished the upper house, the equivalent of the Senate, as Julie said, 102 years ago. So whichever party has the majority in the lower house just pushes everything through. And the Labour Party has done you no favours. The liberal party under Chris Ofili is promising to do very little. I liked Campbell Newman. Last time when he was in power, he got things done and he was punished for it, punished most severely by his own senior members of parliament in the liberal party. That’s fact. They’ve told me. Liberal members of his parliament told me that.

So we need a balance of power. So there’s no upper house to put a brake on the parliament. So that means rather than let whichever party is in the majority in the lower house, be bullying everything through, we need a brake. So if you get liberal party, say with more representatives than the Labour Party, but not enough to have half, then they won’t form government other than with the cross bench. It’s called a minority government. They will need the votes of the cross bench, the independents, the one nation, the cadders between. So they need those votes. So with Pauline and me, the Liberals under Turnbull, because we had a balance of power part of the time, they would come to us and we would say, “Go to hell with that until you modify these things to make it better for Australia.” And if they didn’t do it, they didn’t get our vote. And if they did it, they got our vote. They quickly worked out which ways up.

So we don’t have the power to govern, but we have the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s fundamental. That’s the balance of power. That’s what Julie was talking about the cross bench. So we’re not asking for the power to run the state. We haven’t got any chance of getting that many people into parliament in the near future. But we want, and we’re seeking for your benefit, the power to put the brakes on the bastards. That’s what we mean by cross-benchers. If we have three or four cross-benchers, we will be able to stop the bastards whether it’s the Liberals who have more than Labour or Labour have more than Liberals.

This is my response to the Government’s Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024, which aims to ban vaping in Australia.

As a result of the measures already taken by the Government to ban vaping, organised crime is now moving into illegal tobacco and vape markets with horrific consequences.

This is not about selling our children a bergamot herbal vape; rather, it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our youth addicted and reclaim the market share that vaping has cost them.

I’ve always maintained that the safety of vapes depends on the quality of the device and the liquid it contains. A more effective regulatory approach would have been to support a future Made in Australia by allowing Australian companies to produce legal, quality-tested and regulated vapes. This should include measures to keep these products out of the hands of children and to impose the same usage restrictions as those applied to smoking.

Instead, the Government is doing the bidding of the pharmaceutical industry, which views vaping—and medical cannabis which vapes often hold—as a threat to their profits and power.

This Bill will backfire badly.

Transcript

I’m speaking to the Therapeutic Goods and Other Legislation Amendment (Vaping Reforms) Bill 2024. I note the government circulated 11 pages of amendments just an hour or so ago. The large number of amendments indicate the process of consultation was flawed, and concerns from senators have caused fundamental changes to this bill. Is it in, out, in or out? I hope the government learns a lesson from this and in future honours the spirit of genuine consultation. I hope it honours the committee process to produce a bill that doesn’t need last-minute, wholesale changes. 

I note the bill amends the poison schedule, to downgrade vapes from schedule 4 to schedule 3, and adds conditions to their use in that listing. When I tried to do exactly the same thing—to downgrade medical cannabis and add conditions to that listing—I was told, ‘That’s a very strange thing to do,’ and my bill was not supported, in part because of that. Now they’re doing the very same thing that they said was very strange. 

In Queensland, vaping products with or without nicotine are illegal unless on prescription. Vapes are subject to the same laws as cigarettes or tobacco products as to where they can be used and the circumstances in which they can be purchased. Queensland law right now prevents children under 16 accessing or using a vape. Personal health and child welfare are rightly the responsibility of the states. Yet, once again, this government seeks to increase its powers in areas where it has no Constitutional authority. 

This bill amends the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 and the Customs Act 1901 to limit the importation, domestic manufacture, supply, commercial and private possession, and advertising of non-therapeutic and disposable vaping goods. Over-the-counter sales at chemists will be permitted, and access to children under 18 will be via the Special Access Scheme. There are substantial differences in how possession for personal use and commercial use are handled, yet the bill does not specify this threshold, which will come later in regulation that we haven’t seen. Too much of this bill will come later in regulations. The government is asking us to trust their judgement on a bill that is a litany of bad judgement. The bill defines a vape as ‘anything that’s held out to be a vape’. It explicitly excludes the need for a lab analysis to prove that the item is in fact a vape. Much of the bill goes into the licensing arrangements for importation, manufacture, distribution and possession. 

The bill was developed after supposed consultation, yet the government’s reaching out to selected friends in the health industry who share the same commercial interests as informed this bill is not consultation. It’s an echo chamber of self-interest, as the substantial last-minute amendments now prove. Everyday Australians were not permitted to make a confidential submission. Their submissions had to be public and accompanied by a declaration of interests—something very few witnesses felt comfortable doing. In particular, this prevented personal stories of how vaping helped defeat a smoking or other addiction and weighted submissions towards self-interested corporate health providers and charities. 

The evidentiary burden of proof in the offences under the bill are reversed. This removes the common law protection that fault must be found before an offence has been committed. While the government may find contesting charges in a court of law tiresome, 800 years of common law rights should not be so lightly dismissed and disposed of. There’s no justification for reversing the burden of proof. For this reason I have submitted an amendment to this bill in the committee stage to restore the presumption of innocence enjoyed by all Australians since our country’s settlement. At section 41P(1), ‘vaping substance’ is defined as ‘any liquid or other substance for use in, or with, a vaping device’. There’s no nuance in the penalties. Possessing a vaping substance carries the same penalty as possessing a vape itself. 

People who make cakes, fudges, chocolates, lollies and similar products use the same flavourings as can be used in vape manufacture. Those flavourings shouldn’t be used in vapes. They may be considered safe for stomachs, but not for lungs. Yet they are used in illegal vaping solutions, and I’ve received complaints from bakers that, for this reason, Border Force are seizing shipments of flavourings. Under this legislation, a baker or confectionary manufacturer importing a food flavouring that can be used in vaping must first have it approved for use, despite its being in use for generations, and then obtain a licence to import or possess commercial quantities—of cake flavouring! The importer and probably their largest customers will need to keep records of their use of these potentially illicit food flavourings to ensure that organised crime is not supplied out the back door, with penalties of up to $3.8 million and/or imprisonment for seven years. This is serious business. 

I appreciate that this is not the intention of the bill. Yet it is the wording of the bill. I point out that the bill and the explanatory memorandum provide no guidance as to which goods should be permitted and which should not. The minister has complete power to make this decision. So far job losses from vaping prohibition are around 2,000, with 500 vaping stores already closed. The trade in vaping has now moved into the hands of organised crime, with a gang war breaking out in our capital cities to control the illicit vaping trade, as well as the illicit tobacco trade now that tobacco has been taxed to the point of idiocy. The bombings, ramraids, murders and violence so far in this underworld war are on the government, for breaking the government’s social licence to act fairly, honestly and reasonably towards the public. The best interest of the public has been replaced with the best interest of crony capitalist stakeholders. 

The last-minute deal with the Greens to add over-the-counter sales at chemists may serve to head off that outcome. Time will tell. The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme 2022 post-market review of medicines for smoking cessation found that 550,000 prescriptions were written for smoking cessation products in 2022. And get a load of this: these included varenicline, from Pfizer, costing $194 a prescription, which in the various formulations was responsible for 2,042 Australian adverse event notifications, including 55 deaths. And there is bupropion, from Aspen pharmaceuticals, which has had 2,100 adverse event notifications, including 22 deaths. The incompetence—does it stop? The post-market review says, ‘The mechanism by which bupropion enhances the ability of patients to abstain from smoking is unknown.’ So, we don’t know why it works. It’s killed 22 people—yet, prescribe it anyway! Just don’t let people buy their own vapes. We can’t have smokers quitting on their own, can we? 

The explanatory memorandum for this bill cites data from the Australian secondary school students’ use of tobacco and e-cigarettes report, which states that the proliferation of vaping across the community represents a severe public health concern. Vaping has been associated with severe public health effects relating to adolescent brain development, worsened pregnancy outcomes, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. Vaping also carries other health effects such as burns, seizures and poisoning. 

Let me deal with the last one first. Yes, illicit vapes do cause internal burns and cause external burns if they explode. They cause poisoning and seizures as a reaction to that poisoning. A poorly made vape will burn and put toxic chemicals into the user’s lungs. Unregulated vaping in the USA caused 28 deaths coming from the use of ethylene glycol, a popular substance in commercial baking. It’s considered safe to be eaten but not safe to be vaporised into the lungs. This illegal use of a legal substance is what caused the popcorn lung syndrome. Illegal vapes can contain thousands of substances we call ‘compounds’ when in legal products and ‘chemicals’ when not in legal products. There are, however, 7,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke—more than are found in a quality vape, not an illicit vape. Telling one side of the story never communicates an honest picture of the truth. It condemns you. It used to be possible to import quality vapes from New Zealand. The Labor government stopped this. Now we have unsafe, illegal vapes. Who knows what’s in them? The TGA’s tweets against vaping were community noted with a comprehensive bibliography of good science that counters their scare stories. I will reproduce those community notes with citations on my website for anyone who wants to educate themselves on legal, safe vaping. 

Is vaping a gateway behaviour to smoking or drug-taking? Actually, no; it’s not. On page 8 of the secondary school report, smoking rates amongst schoolchildren have fallen over the last five years. ‘Ever smoked’ is down from 17.5 per cent to 13.5 per cent. ‘Smoked in the past week’ is down from 4.9 per cent to 2.1 per cent—more than halved. This was in a period when vapes were readily available. Vaping is clearly working to reduce smoking rates. This is what has the quit smoking industry worried. 

The UK government’s periodic data review titled Nicotine vaping in England: 2022 evidence update found that 98.3 per cent of children who had not tried smoking did not try vaping. This means any increase in vaping rates is either in replacement of smoking or in conjunction with smoking. This data is in contrast to the secondary schools report which found that past month vaping alone was at 15 per cent. Let’s have a look at that. The study covered vaping as a generic class, including e-cigarettes and herbal vapes, which are a large part of the vaping market. Despite the effort put into this study, no attempt was made to analyse the vapes consumers were actually using, and no firm conclusion can be drawn as to the presence of nicotine or any other regulated substance. 

The other study the government cited, Australian secondary school students’ use of alcohol and other substances, is alarming. It showed that 22 per cent of secondary school students had used alcohol in the past month, 10 per cent had used alcohol in the past week, and four per cent were engaging in risky drinking. Why aren’t we worried about that? What hypocrisy to introduce the world’s harshest legislation on vaping and ignore the elephant in the room: teenage drinking. Other drug use is down. Figures for ‘used in the last month’ show black market cannabis use down from 8.1 per cent to 6.6 per cent, hallucinogen use down from 1.1 per cent to 0.8 per cent, MDMA use down from 2.1 per cent to 1.1 per cent, pharmaceutical opioid use down from 1.9 per cent to 1.4 per cent, and cocaine use down from 0.8 per cent to 0.6 per cent. These small reductions are more significant than they appear. With 1.5 million Australians in the secondary school age group, every 0.1 per cent of reduction in hard drug consumption means 1,500 young Australians are not getting addicted to hard drugs. Across all types of hard drugs, the figure is over 50,000 lives saved from the misery of hard drug addiction. 

The scare campaign that vaping is a gateway to smoking and to hard drugs is fraudulent and designed to cover up the reverse, because the reverse is true. The committee did look at the use of vaping as a smoking cessation tool and concluded the evidence was inconclusive. So there is no reason to save vaping on that account. Poor judgement indeed. 

In their deliberations, the committee gave a thought of time to the quit smoking industry, which is funded at $500 million across forward estimates—half a billion dollars! This does not include the financial benefit of fundraising. That half a billion dollars is just the government’s contribution, yet quit smoking rates have been stagnating across the Western world. Firstly, that’s because the few people who still smoke have the money to afford smoking, want to smoke and will continue to smoke. Secondly, there are people for whom the current industry of gums, patches and financial blackmail is just not working. Some people have found that, where these other measures did not work, vaping did work. These are the people who will, no doubt, be forced back to smoking as a result of this bill. Imagine all those extra smokers to keep government revenue rolling in—all those extra smokers to keep the ‘quit smoking’ industry and taxpayer money for years to come. The financial impact statement for this bill doesn’t mention the increase in revenue from smokers being forced back to smoking. I imagine it will be substantial. 

Another failure in this bill is forfeiture. The easiest way to control vaping in schools is to allow teachers to seize vapes when they see them. That provision is not in this bill. Seizure is limited to commercial quantities seized with a court order or any good ‘seized by the control of customers at the border’. The one thing this bill could do to help control adolescent vaping is to allow teachers to seize vapes, and it doesn’t do that. I foreshadow my second reading amendment calling on the federal and state governments to sort out jurisdictional issues and give teachers the power to confiscate and destroy vapes brought into schools without a prescription. 

As a result of measures to ban vaping, organised crime is moving into the illegal tobacco and vape market with horrific consequences. This is not so they can sell our children a nice bergamot herbal vape; it’s so they can sell vapes laced with hard drugs to get our children hooked and to take back the market share vaping has cost them. I have said all along that vapes are as safe as the vape and the liquid inside. A better idea is to provide for a future made in Australia and allow Australian companies to produce legal, quality tested, regulated vapes and then ensure these are, firstly, kept out of the hands of children and, secondly, subject to the same restrictions on use as smoking. 

I look forward to the government monitoring the outcome of this hasty, incomplete bill closely and acting quickly if the outcome is not as expected. I think the outcome will bring horrific consequences, so please monitor this for the sake of our children. 

In a recent senate estimate session, I highlighted the alarming ethnic disparities in COVID-19 mortality rates. Australians from the Middle East died at three times the average death rate, those from Southern Europe twice as high, while sub-Saharan Africans had lower mortality rates. 

What’s driving these disparities? The health experts suggest that low vaccine coverage and socioeconomic factors played roles in these differences. As vaccination efforts improved, mortality rates began to align more closely with the general population. 

These are just theories, not explanations, and it comes across as a lazy response. There’s no justification for not making an effort to understand the reasons behind such a serious medical issue.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Professor Kelly, you previously brought someone forward to talk about the differences in incidence and severity with a low-socioeconomic profile.  

Prof. Kelly: Mr Gould, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Australian residents from the Middle East died at three times the population mean, those from Southern Europe were twice as likely to die and those from North Africa were almost three times as likely to die; however, sub-Saharan Africans were less likely to die. Why are we seeing ethnic differences in COVID mortality in Australia? I understand that ‘ethnic’ is to do with culture.  

Dr Gould: Yes. Just talking around the numbers involved, as you say, the ABS has reported, during various stages of the pandemic, mortality rates for people born in different countries and, as you’ve said, there are higher mortality rates for people born in places such as the Middle East. There are a number of potential reasons for that. One of the areas that I discussed in my previous answer, which I think is relevant, is that, for a lot of those communities, initially, vaccine coverage rates were low. So significant work was done during the course of the pandemic to work with those communities to increase the coverage rate, and we really saw quite a dramatic shift during the course of the pandemic in the variation in mortality rates between these communities in the general Australian population; to a large degree, they came into line with the general population experience, so that was a positive outcome. Certainly, there’s an indication that the vaccine rates would have had a role to play. We did talk as well about socioeconomic status. We do know that, for some language groups or groups born in different countries, those rates may correlate with different socioeconomic status as well, so there may be some relationships there.  

Senator ROBERTS: So there’s an overlap, potentially, in some areas? 

Dr Gould: Potentially, yes. It’s not broadly always the case. We find that a lot of recent, skilled migrants live in high socioeconomic areas, so it’s difficult to make a broad generalisation there. 

[17/07/24] I joined Alexandra Marshall on ADH TV to chat about the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump and how PM Albanese has exploited this situation to promote his Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023, which is completely inappropriate.

A true leader would use this opportunity to bring people together, denounce the violence, and call for calm and unity. I’m relieved though that Donald Trump emerged with only a minor injury.

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 aims to end live sheep exports from Australia by May 2028. This bill, despite offering $107 million in compensation for rural and regional communities, fails to adequately address the economic impact on the sheep export industry and local communities.

The bill is seen as a pretext for further restrictions, potentially extending to live cattle exports, under the guise of animal welfare. This will harm Aboriginal communities reliant on cattle farming and exacerbate economic hardships in rural areas.

The bill’s flawed consultation process and ideologically driven policies overlook the real impacts on people and communities. It will cause significant losses for farmers, disrupt food supply chains, and benefit city-based animal welfare activists while ignoring the human cost.

Transcript

Keep the sheep! Keep humans! We need to stop this live export ban. There are no grounds for it. We’ve seen a truncated, sham inquiry. The Labor Party has not gone out and listened. They’re just pushing the Greens ideology to get the Greens voters’ preferences in inner-city electorates. What about the effect on the human environment: the devastation to local communities and to people overseas who need food and good animal protein? 

The Export Control Amendment (Ending Live Sheep Exports by Sea) Bill 2024 amends the Export Control Act 2020 to prohibit the export of live sheep by sea from Australia on 1 May 2028. The bill also includes money to paper over the cracks—the devastation that this measure will cause to rural and regional communities—for a limited period. That money is going to be made available only under severe limits. One would have thought that providing that money anyway, to assist in an orderly transition in a suitable timeframe, would have made more sense. Then, again, sense has no place in the feelings driven policy development from the Albanese Labor government—political, not economic—regardless of the impact on humans. 

As it stands, the $107 million fund is little compensation for an industry that generates $120 million a year directly and hundreds of millions more in flow-on effects to rural communities. Of the money, $60 million will be used to lay the groundwork for the next round of the government’s plan, which is to eliminate live cattle exports. Specifically, the mechanism is the specious animal welfare argument, including welfare of animals in transport. Sheep and cattle welfare during transport will be used as an excuse to limit the movement of animals. 

Who benefits substantially from that trade? It’s not the Aboriginal communities in remote areas of Australia who currently support themselves raising cattle and then need to transport their cattle a long distance to get them to market. This transport welfare measure will remove the opportunity for Aboriginal communities to support themselves, in turn making those communities reliant—dependent—on government handouts. Aboriginal communities are heavily represented in red meat production. In areas of Western Australia, they will be devastated by the loss of this trade. The industry is attracting homeless from the cities, coming bush in search of work and accommodation. 

What a high price everyday Australians in rural areas are paying for the dirty deal from the Labor government for preferences from animal welfare groups and the Greens. Labor can’t, and doesn’t, deny this dirty deal. The announcement of Labor’s policy on live animal exports came not from Labor but from one of the animal welfare groups. This bill lets city activists pat themselves on the back while ignoring the animal and human suffering caused by this ill-informed and poorly consulted bill resulting from a sham, partial inquiry that didn’t consult everyone. 

While the government talks about the bill being a product of consultation, the process was one of working backward from the desired outcome: how can we be seen to get this outcome? The correct process, according to the Office of Impact Analysis, is to conduct ‘meaningful consultation that considers the views of affected stakeholders’. That’s not what happened. As I said, it was a sham inquiry in the lower house. The National Farmers Federation submitted to the committee that they had to fight each step of the way for producers to have a fair hearing with the independent panel. The National Farmers Federation saw the industry’s advice to the panel go unheeded in the final report. What was the point? 

Then we saw the minister go even further, rejecting key elements of the panel’s advice and adopting even more radical ideas than the panel itself had recommended. Welcome to government under the Labor Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese MP! Ideology and dodgy preference deals with ill-informed fanatics is how the Labor Party rolls. To hell with the human devastation! Look good; don’t do good. The entire consultation and parliamentary process is a mockery of due process. It’s an indictment of those in this chamber who go along with this sham for reasons that escape me. The Greens of course want to cause more hardship among the red meat industry with their amendment from Senator Faruqi—if successful, bringing this bill forward to 2026. I’ll bet that’s the deal done between the Greens and the Labor Party: to bring it forward to 2026 and set immediate limits to export. 

Sheep have a five-month gestation and need to grow for seven months before export. This means that sheep that are under gestation now will not be able to be exported under the Greens amendment unless markets can be found at the last minute. The parent animals were bred specifically for the export trade, and these will be bound for the abattoir. Meat contracts are let out years ahead because of the breeding cycle. So, selling these animals is not likely. In fact, the cull has already started, with prices as low as 50c a kilogram, through the saleyards in Western Australia, and many lots are unsold, causing farmers to leave unsold animals at the saleyards for euthanasia. Perhaps city senators like Senator Faruqi and Senator Tyrrell, who is in support, can come over to Western Australia and help with the cull, look these farmers in the eye, look these sheep in the eye. 

The idea that this bill and the Greens amendment is predicated on humane treatment of animals is Orwellian doublespeak. It will have the reverse effect. Rural communities are being hollowed out as a result of the policies of the Labor-Greens government. The endgame is to move protein consumption to lab-grown meat owned by Prime Minister Albanese’s friends Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink, whom the Prime Minister has met with during this parliamentary term. Farmers have no place in the Labor-Greens vision of a dystopian world of fake meats and fake food. This bill denies the truth that live sheep exports suffer a loss of life at exactly the same levels as animals in the field, if not better. The object of this bill is not the welfare of animals; it’s an ideological objection to a diet that includes red meat—ideology over humanity. And what of the land currently under grazing? Well, I’m sure the climate carpetbaggers are already out in the bush measuring up for solar panels. Beautiful countryside will be covered in silicon cancer, and somehow this is environmentally friendly? The Labor-Greens government is not fit to govern. 

I want to pass on some personal thoughts from Senator Pauline Hanson, who was in Western Australia recently to listen, and the farmers spontaneously invited her to speak off the back of a truck. As Pauline does and as I do, she did so. The farmers mentioned the independent study that was done—no deaths on ships. Of course, other senators have mentioned the MV Awassi Express, on which was perpetrated the cash-for-cruelty scam: hundreds of thousands of dollars apparently paid to a foreign stockman from a developing nation to treat animals cruelly, to kill an industry—and that’s what Labor did, fell for it, killing an industry, the damage to farmers, communities and nation already done: 100,000 sheep especially bred for the live export overseas market, not suitable for the local market, as I’ve said. The market for live sheep is already down because overseas buyers are looking elsewhere. They know what’s coming from this government. They’ve seen the socialists operating, and they’re seeking other suppliers. It hurts farmers across the whole of Australia, because, for example, Tasmanian sheep farmers are sending sheep to WA to make up shipments. 

Remember the Gillard Labor government’s cattle export ban? It belted the whole of Australia’s beef grazing industry—the whole country. It had effects everywhere, because of the flow-on. Farmers told Senator Hanson in Western Australia recently, ‘We’ll have to shoot the animals we especially bred.’ She told me about the look in their eyes—shattered for the waste of the animals they cared for. Communities over there are worried about farmers’ mental health. If the government has any humanity, it won’t force the farmers to shoot their own animals; the government can kill the sheep. 

Here’s a question for government. The European Union is the world’s biggest exporter of sheep, not Australia. What free trade agreements has Australia signed with the European Union? Has this Albanese Labor government done an agreement with the European Union? We’ve all seen so-called free trade. It’s not fair trade at all. It hurts our country. We’ve seen that from both sides of the uniparty, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals. As I’ve said, the real reason for shutting down this export industry is to get Greens’ votes and preferences in inner-city eastern electorates. 

I want to talk briefly about why I’m very pro human, and I’ve spoken about it many times. I need to counter 80 years of anti-human propaganda, especially that of the last 60 years since the Club of Rome got into bed together with the United Nations and then the World Economic Forum, all to control people, to control property and to transfer wealth. There are three or four main assumptions that this anti-human campaign propagates. Firstly, they say humans don’t care. We’ll talk about that in a minute. They say we’re greedy, rapacious, uncaring and irresponsible—we just don’t care. 

Secondly, they say humans are destroying our planet when, in fact, the reverse is true. They say civilisation is the environment’s enemy. They say civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. I’ll address that in a minute. They say civilisation and the environment are incompatible, so we need to cease development—because that’s what they want: they want to stop human development. Senior leaders of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, including the late Maurice Strong, have said that. They want to deindustrialise Western civilisation. They say our duty is to protect our planet. They say nothing about humans. They imply that humans need to be sacrificed for that. 

Here’s the reality to counter 80 years of bull. These are observations. Everyone in this chamber right now and everyone watching on TV is here because someone cared. When a foal is born to a mare, it pops out of the mare, struggles for about 20 minutes and then starts cantering and put its head down and starts grazing with the herd. When every one of us, as humans, was born, we were completely helpless. The fact that anyone is in this room or watching means they are alive and that they were cared for. We are completely helpless for a number of years. Whether our parents were good or bad or whatever, the fact that you exist means that humans care. Humans care, and they’re based on care. The most caring humans got to propagate. 

Here’s the second thing. Visit any country in the world and you’ll see that developed continents have a lower impact on the environment than the undeveloped continents. For example, a person in a remote, undeveloped area of Africa will defecate in the creek because he or she is too busy scrounging for their child’s next meal. Yet what we do is mine black rock called coal and red rock called iron ire, and we make steel, build dams, build water pipelines and get sanitation and water to our communities. Developed nations have less impact on the natural environment. That means human civilisation and the natural environment are mutually dependent. We all know that our civilisation won’t have a future if we don’t protect the environment. It’s also clear that the environment has no future if we don’t develop and civilise. That is clear, yet we’re told the opposite. 

Our duty is to enable humans to flourish. Right throughout history, every generation has taken care of the younger generation and tried to make a better world for its younger generation. When we develop our country and civilise, we actually protect the environment. Our goal is not to protect the environment. Our goal is to protect humans and to civilise—for humans to flourish and civilise. That’s why I’m very proud about speaking about our species. 

I also want to say that we need to have an aim to restore our country and our planet for humans to abound, thrive and flourish. The goal is for humans to thrive. Farming is essential for civilisation. Farming needs to be protected. Thomas Jefferson said, ‘For cities to exist, we need farms; for farms to exist, we don’t need cities.’ As I mentioned briefly, the objective here is cultured lab meat. That’s one of the globalist aims of the United Nations and the World Economic Forum. Humans need real meat, animal fat. Who knew that the Greens were helping to sell cancerous cultured meat grown in slop in a bioreactor? People just want to be left alone to get on with their lives and to get the government the hell out of our lives. Humans deserve food here and overseas— (Time expired) 

The government’s lies about how many foreigners are buying houses during a housing crisis are coming back to haunt them.

Firstly, the government claims ‘foreign buyers are barely making a dent in the market’. The truth? 11% of new houses in Australia were bought by foreigners (Q4 2023). Secondly, ‘foreign buyers only go for luxury homes’. Reality: the average price of a home bought by foreigners is almost the exact same as the average house price across capital cities. That means foreign buyers are directly outbidding average Australians for an average house. Thirdly, despite saying the don’t make an impact on the housing crisis, the government is now implementing small fines for vacant homes.

Why does the government go through all of this deflection and lying when they could just take One Nation’s policy: BAN Foreign Ownership completely.

That’s just the problems with foreign ownership of housing! Never mind the next topic I asked about: letting a foreign company takeover Australia’s military warship builder…

Does this government understand anything about putting Australians first?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table the transcript of a broadcast by Ben Fordham. Reporting from radio station 2GB indicates that foreign buyers bought 11 per cent of all new housing stock in this country. How are you letting this many foreign buyers snap up houses out of the hands of Australian homebuyers?

Ms Kelley: As we’ve talked about previously, our latest statistics show that foreign investors purchased around 5,360 houses in the 2022-23 financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s been claimed by some that foreign buyers don’t make a material impact on the average Aussie because they’re only buying trophy homes—$30 million mansions down at Point Piper and so on. Looking at the $5.3 billion for 4,700 properties purchased by foreigners, according to these figures, that’s an average price of $1.1 million. The combined capital cities average median house price is $1 million. Those foreign buyers are actually directly competing in the middle of the market, aren’t they?

Ms Kelley: I should note again that the level of foreign investment in residential real estate is under one per cent of the total purchases that occur in Australia. In terms of residential properties with values under $1 million, that accounted for about 78 per cent of the purchases.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, your government is increasing the fines and fees for foreign buyers of Australian houses. You’re acknowledging that it needs to be controlled. Why don’t you just stop fiddling around and ban foreign ownership of Australian houses altogether, like we’ve advocated, like the Canadians are now doing and like the Kiwis are now doing?

Senator Gallagher: We welcome foreign investment in our country. It plays an important role across our economy. But those changes we have announced to foreign investment, both for the application fees and double vacancy fees, are about ensuring foreign investment aligns with our agenda to lift housing supply. It’s aligning it with the other work we’ve been talking about this morning in Homes for Australia.

Senator ROBERTS: Working families who are returning home at night to sleep in their car won’t be encouraged by that. But let’s move on. How does the Foreign Investment Review Board treat defence-related companies in its approvals? If a company is producing a defence-related product, how is it treated?

Ms Kelley: The foreign investment review framework takes a case-by-case risk based approach. On 1 May the Treasurer announced a range of reforms to the framework. Under that framework we were very clear about the areas we would scrutinise more strongly. The government has made some decisions around those areas, and we are now actively implementing them.

Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound like being a part of the defence industry enlivens a specific criterion in your approval process.

Mr Tinning: Yes. If it’s a national security business, which includes defence industries, then it’s subject to a zero-dollar threshold under our framework. So all foreign investment approvals—

Senator ROBERTS: So shipbuilding would be part of that, if they’re building defence vessels?

Mr Tinning: Correct. That’s right.

Senator ROBERTS: Do the current rules ever allow you to approve the sale of a sovereign defence industry asset to a foreign buyer?

Ms Kelley: That would depend.

Mr Tinning: As Ms Kelley said, it’s on a case-by-case basis, so we would need to see a specific application.

Senator ROBERTS: Why would we ever allow that?

Ms Kelley: As the minister has said, foreign investment is essential to our domestic economy and has been for decades. What the framework does is—we assess every foreign investment application in terms of our national interest and in terms of national security.

Senator ROBERTS: I understand that the potential sale of Austal to a South Korean bidder, Hanwha, had pretty much fallen off the radar. Then Minister Marles reignited it by saying, ‘I don’t see why there’d be any concerns.’ Does the defence minister’s view factor into your assessment at all—that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem?

Ms Kelley: We take into account a range of factors when foreign investments are assessed, and the national security aspects are very important. We liaise across government for views on the issues associated with a foreign investment application and then the advice is then put forward to the Treasurer for a final decision.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why would the defence minister say that the sale of Austal, the company that builds Australia’s warships, wouldn’t be a problem? He’s the defence minister and he’s looking at selling a maker of some of our warships.

Senator Gallagher: I haven’t seen those comments, but the defence minister would be very well briefed on all matters relating to that.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to the Treasury after the opposition asks questions.

Australia has been left almost defenceless after decades of failures from both sides of politics.

They’ve gutted our defence forces and failed our troops. The current Chief of the Defence even criticised a “warrior” culture in our special forces. This is absurd.

We have to give our Defence Force personnel a proper purpose and a clear mission. We need to spend less money on gender advisers and more on ammo.

Transcript

Some commentators question whether we should have warriors in the Australian Defence Force. My answer to that question is emphatic: yes, we should. Australians ask the government to protect them from foreign enemies. There’s a line on a map; it’s called our national border. Inside that line is the country of Australia and its people, and our resources, our families, our property and our way of life. 

Outside our borders there are some foreign countries who wish to bend Australia to their will. It’s only a matter of time before someone else in the world with a big enough military believes they can change what happens inside our borders. History shows that. As the people of Australia, we ask our Defence Force to ensure no enemy that wishes to do us harm may cross our border. We take some of the fittest, smartest and most motivated young Australians and ask them to put their lives on the line, for that line, to protect what’s inside it. We ask that our defence members be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. It’s a debt we can never truly repay. 

I’ve had the privilege of listening to many soldiers, sailors and pilots. In almost all of those conversations one word comes up. That word is ‘service’. These Australians answered the call to serve our country and to serve our Australian flag. Defence personnel ask for something simple in return. They ask for something that I agree they deserve. They ask for a purpose to their service. They ask for a clear mission. Above all, they ask for accountable leaders. The Defence Force has been in a drought of accountable leadership at the very top. Politicians have always invoked the Anzac spirit in big speeches. But it’s not enough to stand up on Anzac Day and claim to back the troops. We must deliver the things they deserve every day: a clear purpose, a clear mission and accountability for our leaders. Successive politicians, ministers and especially generals have failed to deliver this for our defence personnel.  

Australia had forces deployed to Afghanistan for 20 years. Australia’s uniform military was pitted against the Taliban, an insurgent guerrilla organisation. With superior technology, tactics, resources, training and troops, Western forces famously won nearly every tactical engagement. The Taliban reportedly had a saying: ‘You have the watches’—referring to the Western technology—’but we have the time.’ As some commentators quipped, we spent 20 years and billions of dollars and sacrificed Australian lives to replace the Taliban with the Taliban. The tens of thousands of ADF personnel who were deployed to the Middle East deserve our praise. They accepted the call and committed their lives to it. It’s the leaders, the politicians and the generals that must be held accountable for the decision to send our best to faraway lands. 

On his last day in parliament, on The 7.30 Report former foreign minister Alexander Downer said that John Howard walked into cabinet when he came back from 9/11 in the US and simply declared, ‘We are off to Iraq.’ There was no discussion with the public and not even a word of debate in parliament, just the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Iraq was an illegal war based on a lie. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as our political leaders claimed. Yet not one politician or general has been jailed for throwing our best into it. Not one was even called out or even held accountable. Our enlisted and junior officers did everything they could to serve us while deployed to the wider Middle East. Scores paid the ultimate sacrifice. What about the politicians and senior generals who failed and hamstrung our soldiers? Those apparent leaders never delivered a coherent reason or an end state for what we were trying to achieve. 

Without a compelling reason for why our soldiers were deployed to the Middle East, many of our veterans and serving members were left disillusioned. Make no mistake: there were no angels in the Taliban ranks. Those insurgents were some of the worst of the worst. Despite this, our warriors rightly asked why. Why were we in desert country spilling Australian blood only for the Taliban to retake those bases from the Afghan army, as many on the ground warned they would? The answer is that the leaders failed to ever give our soldiers, aviators and sailors the purpose they deserve. 

Our lesson must be to never repeat these mistakes. The mission of our defence forces should be clear. If you sign up for the armed forces, your job will be to protect the sovereignty of Australia from anyone who wishes to do us harm. It will not be to fight forever wars in faraway lands having been sent there based on lies. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I know that our warriors in the military deserve a place in our hearts, and our service men and women deserve a damn good reason to be there and they deserve and need strong leadership. (Time expired) 

Pressure is increasing on the Federal Communications Minister to intervene and delay the 3G Mobile Network shutdown as it’s revealed 1 million devices will be affected. The next CrowdStrike style disaster is around the corner with the looming shutdown of the 3G network.

Telstra, Optus and TPG confirmed that a total of 1 million devices will be affected next month when the network is taken offline. This disaster is still looming despite the telco companies claiming they’ve completed a huge education and public awareness campaign. The Communications Minister must intervene and defer the planned shutdown of the 3G network.

Affected devices also include more than 50,000 4G mobiles and an unknown number of pacemakers still reliant on the 3G network to call 000. The shutdown is still a matter of life and death.

While telcos claim to have done all they can to make mobile owners aware, the Senate Inquiry heard witness after witness testify that very few people realise how many other critical devices rely on 3G and will be useless in just over a month. These affected devices include water and power meters, medical refrigeration units, agriculture equipment, pacemakers, medical alarms, airport lifts and many others.

Witnesses across the two days of public hearings at the One Nation initiated Senate Inquiry included the Royal Flying Doctor Service sounding the alarm on behalf of regional communities, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry as the country’s largest business network, government complaints authorities, technical experts and many others.

Are the telcos only pursuing the 3G shutdown for their own profits and to sell new mobile phones? The Minister will be responsible for CrowdStrike 2.0 in just over a month unless she immediately makes it clear she will intervene and put the public interest before telco profits.

Media Release