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)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/axRI_dUO2Zs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-08-01 15:30:222024-08-01 17:18:52Australia Left Defenceless After Decades of Failures
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.
On 29 June, protestors vandalised War Memorials in Canberra. These disgusting acts must be condemned.
Freedom of speech and protest are fundamental parts of our democracy. Spray painting memorials of dead soldiers is neither of these.
I joined with Senators Lambie and Hanson in strongly condemning the defacement of war memorials by pro-palestinian protestors, which insults both current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and disrespects the memorials’ significance as national symbols of pride and remembrance.
This divisive campaign by the Greens undermines Australia’s respect for our defence forces and reflects an anti-Australian agenda. Vandalism of these memorials is an affront to our country’s values and those who serve to protect them.
We stand in solidarity with service men and women, their families, and all Australians who honour their sacrifice.
Transcript
One Nation supports this motion, and I’ll read it again:
That the Senate condemns the act of defacing war memorials by pro-Palestinian protestors which is deeply insulting for current and former members of the Australian Defence Force and undermines the significance of these memorials as symbols of national pride and remembrance.
It undermines the very core and heart of our beautiful country, and the Australian people. It undermines the respect we have, as a nation and as individuals, for the service of so many caring Australians in our defence forces, past and present, and it reveals the pro-Palestinian protesters’ true, anti-Australian agenda. I join with Senator Lambie and Senator Hanson in condemning the Greens for this divisive campaign that they are pushing based on ideology and harvesting votes. It is essentially treason—defacing and desecrating our country and what we stand for. Australians, whatever their views of the wars we’ve engaged in, take pride in and honour our service men and women.
I recall a friend of mine; when we were in our 20s, he made the off-the-cuff comment that he despised the War Memorial because it was a memorial to the glory of war. I said: ‘No, no. It’s not. It’s a memorial to the service that men and women have given in supporting and defending this country and what we stand for.’ He has gone on to be a proud grandfather, with two boys now serving in the Army and a daughter serving in the police force of Queensland. He has children and grandchildren who have served and are serving our country.
Free speech, as Senator Cash pointed out, is not vandalism and desecration, which is the violation of property rights and must be punished. To all service men and women and their families and relatives: thank you. We will vote in favour of this motion to condemn the acts of defacing war memorials in your name.
The Government made an election promise to address PFAS contamination around Defence bases. Instead of taking direct action, they opted to call for yet another inquiry, consuming their entire term without providing any assistance to those affected.
Mr. Jim Varghese AM conducted an independent review of land use near key Defence bases impacted by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination. Throughout the process, the team consulted with me on several occasions and I’m hopeful that their recommendations will reflect the outline I was provided.
I am concerned that the issue has been referred to Cabinet, where Cabinet confidentiality rules prevent any further discussion. There was no reason for this to be treated as a Cabinet document, and I suspect it was done to bury the findings.
I remain committed to getting the report released and seeking justice for residents affected by PFAS contamination.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My initial questions are about PFAS. Do we have those people here?
Ms Perkins: Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. The PFAS Investigation and Management Program’s 2024 Snapshot document shows that Defence invested $706 million to remediate PFAS contamination on Defence sites. Defence has also been responsible for two class action settlements at $212.5 million and $132.7 million. Are those included in the $706 million, or are they additional costs?
Ms Perkins: That’s a terrific question, Senator. Defence—in fact, the Commonwealth—has settled five class actions, including the ones you referred to there. It’s my understanding, but I’ll confirm this over dinner, that the first figure you referred to, which is our expenditure on—
Senator ROBERTS: The $706 million.
Ms Perkins: the remediation program is separate to the legal settlements that the Commonwealth has made. But I’ll confirm that.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What about Defence’s total legal cost to fight the class actions? Are those included in the $706 million? Probably not.
Ms Perkins: I would have to get my colleagues from Defence Legal Division to confirm that for you. I manage the investigation and remediation program, not the legal settlements.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have expenditure of over a billion dollars so far? That’s $706 million plus the class action settlements—
Ms Perkins: But, as I said, I’ll take that on notice and confirm the elements of the spend over dinner.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I acknowledge the extensive work and resources that Defence is putting into treating the 27 PFAS contaminated sites within the Defence bases, but the remediation will not solve existing contamination in farmland. These are the residents who have been affected the most: what was previously prime productive land—and I’m thinking, for example, about people who I’ve met at Oakey in Queensland—is now unusable for agriculture. Their properties have been depreciated to the point of being impossible to sell. They can’t get out of there and so that’s where their super is tied up and everything—they’ve lost it. This is why the Independent review of land uses around key Defence bases impacted by PFAS contamination was commissioned. I thank the department for including my office in the consultation process—from memory, with Mr Varghese. I understand that the report is complete; when will that report be made available?
Ms Perkins: The report was completed and delivered to the government in early April. We’re working now across the parts of government that contribute to the work on PFAS, and the government will consider that review and its recommendations in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that include whether or not it will release the document?
Ms Perkins: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: The report suggests grading land—not grading as in bulldozer grading—and categorising land based on contamination and rezoning so that residents can sell agricultural land as, say, industrial land, which is how many residents along Cabbage Tree Road in Williamtown have been able to get out and start over again. Newcastle Airport is now extending over contaminated land—another sensible use. This isn’t a big-ticket item, and it doesn’t need a large pot of money. There’s no reason to send it to cabinet unless the intention is to let it die under cabinet confidentiality. Is there any reason to send it to cabinet?
Ms Perkins: As I mentioned, the report has been delivered and makes a series of recommendations. I think some of the points you’ve just referred to were the issues that Mr Varghese canvassed in consultation in affected communities and with other stakeholders like you. One of the challenges we’ve always had with the management of PFAS remediation is that accountabilities exist at all three tiers of government and across the community, and we’re very mindful, as we move forward, in both the Defence remediation program and the broader Commonwealth approach, that we consider how we activate across state and local governments and industry integrated responses. That will be the work we take to the Commonwealth government to consider.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s what you’re considering now before you take it to government?
Ms Perkins: As is normal in an independent review, Mr Varghese has done a really valuable body of work— great consultation—and made recommendations. We’re working with colleagues in other parts of government, as you can appreciate from your question—the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, the department of agriculture, the department of health and so on—so that we can continue to advise government on an integrated Commonwealth response in affected communities.
Senator McAllister: I think, Senator Roberts, in fairness to the officials, because the report is before the government there are some limits on what they can tell you about the advice that’s been provided. I think Ms Perkins has indicated that there is a process underway but she won’t be able to give you any further information about the particulars of the advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. I’ve worked that out from what Ms Perkins has said quite clearly. I want to commend the way Mr Varghese approached us. We have checked with residents, and he approached them with a very open mind and took good notes, apparently. These are not characteristics of the past ways that Defence has tried to address this, so we can see a change going on. It seems genuine, so we’re looking forward to the report. Minister, was there any additional funding in the budget for measures recommended in this report as opposed to the ongoing remediation report?
Senator McAllister: The answer I’ll provide is probably similar to the one I’ve just given, which is that the report is before the government, and that response is being developed.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Minister, has any consideration been given to suing the manufacturers of PFAS for the damages they’ve done to the community and the environment and added costs to the Australian defence forces? We’re talking billions of dollars here, and these people—DuPont, 3M and others—seem to be just getting off the hook.
Senator McAllister: I’m not trying to be difficult, but I am very reluctant to speculate about how the government might respond to the report that’s before us. So I really can’t provide answers to questions that go to the specifics.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I have two final questions on a different matter. There has been reporting that the partner of Lieutenant Nugent, who died in the Whitsunday helicopter crash, was told in the weeks after the crash, by a senior officer from Defence, that she would be able to find someone new. Have you made any efforts in the Army to locate which officer made these absolutely horrific comments to the partner of a soldier who had just died, telling her she would find a new partner? And have you done anything to reprimand or punish them for such heartless comments?
Lt Gen. Stuart: The short answer to your question is yes. We have followed up on that matter, and we remain closely involved with all of the families who lost their loved ones on 28 July last year.
Senator ROBERTS: So that has been rectified with the widow?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Yes, we remain in close contact. It is a very, very difficult time for everybody involved, and we want to make sure that they’re properly supported throughout this process.
Senator ROBERTS: And the officer has been either reprimanded or punished; what he said has been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: As you know, I can’t go into individual matters, but—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t want the names.
Lt Gen. Stuart: we’re taking it seriously, and we’re making sure that we are addressing all of those kinds of issues. I can certainly assure the committee that all of our efforts since the evening of 28 July last year have been focused on making sure that the families, loved ones and teammates of those that were impacted by the loss of those four soldiers have been and continue to be supported for the long term.
Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you say the officer ‘will be’ addressed or ‘has’ been addressed?
Lt Gen. Stuart: Has.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question. General Campbell, you posted on social media congratulating the 2024 Napier Waller Art prize winner, Kat Rae, for her piece Deathmin. It is a 157-centimetrehigh stack of post-death paperwork that Kat Rae revealed after her husband committed suicide after dealing with the PTSD he had from his time in the Defence Force. General Campbell, you have been the commander of the entire Defence Force for six years. You’ve been in the highest positions of the organisation for at least 15 years. You’ve congratulated a widow who is talking about the complexity of the defence and veterans’ bureaucracy. You’ve been in charge of that bureaucracy. What have you done, specifically, to fix her problems?
Gen. Campbell: There has, I think, been a great deal of work done, both within Defence and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, and I acknowledge the work of the interim national commissioner for defence and veteran suicide and the work of the royal commission, which is ongoing but which has provided both some harrowing testimonies and also extremely useful insights into how to continue that work to improve our organisation. I am, as are the senior leaders of the ADF and more broadly Defence, committed to ensuring that continues to be the case.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please give me some specifics of what you’ve implemented to fix these problems?
Gen. Campbell: We are seeking to see a much more trauma informed approach to the way in which we deal with people. We are now much more conscious of and are seeking to embed an awareness of psychosocial risk in the way we work with our people and our people experience service in the military. We’ve greatly strengthened the experience of transition for everybody in the force, and we’ve very substantially enhanced the integration between Defence and DVA. We’ve introduced personnel policies that seek to wrap those policies around the lived experience of an individual from before joining all the way through to beyond transition. They are some examples of our efforts. They are very wide-ranging, and I think that they are fundamental to developing our people, supporting our people and seeing the capability that they create emerge.
Senator ROBERTS: What about transitioning people who are leaving the defence forces out of the workforce? I have enormous respect, as a result of conversations I had with veterans 40 years ago, for the way the Australian recruits, the intake, are actually introduced to the Army and they’re—I mean this in a very positive way—stripped of their past associations and they join into the culture of the defence forces. It’s extremely important, because that is the key to the success of the Australian defence forces. But, as someone said to me, we send them, we bend them but we don’t mend them. We just turn them loose when they’re finished, and apparently that’s causing a lot of strife.
Gen. Campbell: That was my point with regard to the work of the Joint Transition Authority and the fundamental reconceptualisation of how we see transition from military service to beyond military service, and see it as a period rather than a moment. Could I note that, at a graduation for soldiers into the Australian Army a few weeks ago, I was really pleased to see how enthusiastically they spoke of their training and were looking forward to their service, not just saying that to me but saying that to the junior officers and the NCOs who were with me and variously moving around the audience. It was a very positive expression of an introduction to service and it’s exactly the same outcome that we want for transition from service. We are seeing work done that sees that period being about a two-year transition, with the idea that, while you serve today and you serve for a period of time, the transition is seeded at your induction into service in your recruit training. I think it’s a very healthy way to look at service and to then encourage people to start having conversations about transition before they move into that period of transition, with Defence reaching out in support of those who would wish it following two years from transition, typically seeing a glide down of Defence’s engagement and a glide up of DVA’s engagement where the individual would seek it.
Coronavirus was the product of 54 years of research aimed at developing a biological weapon. Whether it escaped from the Wuhan Lab accidentally, or was deliberately released, doesn’t matter.
The fact remains COVID-19 is a man-made disaster and those responsible must be held accountable.
It was a pleasure to have a long chat with two fantastic veterans, Dylan Conway from the charity Brothers and Books and Michael Lorrigan of Two 14 Coffee Company, to talk all things Defence and Veterans
You won’t want to miss the incredible story of what these gentlemen are doing for the Australian community.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JRzTv3Htlik/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-12 14:17:522024-07-12 14:17:57Supporting Our Heroes: A Long Chat with Dylan Conway and Michael Lorrigan
One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.
Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process.
While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population. It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.
During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.
There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.
Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.
The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race
I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.
This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.
More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.
I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.
Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.
Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/00nyp1Gv3Rs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 16:38:322024-07-11 17:06:07A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical
In their recent Motion, the Greens criticised property investors. Perhaps they should heed the saying: “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones,” or in this case, “Those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions.”
Greens’ Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly own four properties each, with Senator Faruqi even clearing native trees in koala habitats to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. It seems ironic that these Greens, who are themselves property investors, proclaim themselves champions of both property investor critics and koala conservation. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.
In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply. Excessive immigration, however, under successive governments has devastated the Australian dream of home ownership. 547,000 immigrants arrived in 2023 alone, creating a shortfall of 120,000 homes just to accommodate them, not including natural population growth.
One Nation will cut immigration, boost home construction and prioritise Australians first—no more immigrants until every Australian can afford a roof over their head. To assist first home buyers, One Nation proposes 5% fixed-rate mortgages that would save over $800 per month.
It’s time to put Australians first and ensure everyday Australians have a fair shot at home ownership.
Transcript
When will this government actually care about Australians? For most people, the Australian dream of buying a home is dead. This government would rather have people as housing slaves: either debt slaves to the banking cartel, with unaffordable mortgages, or rent slaves, with overseas investment funds like BlackRock and Vanguard as landlords.
In their motion, the Greens criticise property investors. Those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, or, rather, those with housing portfolios shouldn’t throw Senate motions. Greens Senators Faruqi and McKim reportedly each own four properties. Remember Senator Faruqi’s native tree clearing in koala habitat to build luxury rentals in Port Macquarie. Yet the Greens property investors say they’re the enemies of property investors and the saviours of koalas. The old saying seems true: every accusation is actually a confession.
I’ve got nothing against property investors. In well-balanced housing markets, investors play an important part in housing supply, yet successive governments pushing record immigration destroyed the dream of owning a home in Australia. In 2023 alone, 547,000 immigrants arrived. For arrivals alone, we were short 120,000 homes. That’s not counting the housing shortfall for natural population growth. The extraordinary demand for housing for new arrivals must be turned off. One Nation is the only party that can be trusted to make the tough decisions on cutting immigration to reduce housing demand, getting more houses built and putting Australians first—no more immigrants until Australians can afford a roof over their head. Send some visa holders back to their countries until house construction catches up. Our building codes are distorted with overly complicated nonsense to comply with the United Nations and World Economic Forum demands. That stops our tradies building more houses. We’ll get rid of it. We’ll bring the banking cartel into line.
For first home buyers, One Nation’s five per cent fixed mortgages will be more than $800 a month cheaper. To get people into their own homes, put Australians first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/rTzJ5Eyv_RI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-07-11 14:30:002024-07-11 17:09:46What is Civil Disobedience and Is There a Time for It?
At the recent Senate Estimates, I asked Senator Watt why Labor is not deporting unsuitable and dangerous non-citizens from Australia. He explained that those who had been in detention could not be deported, citing two distinct groups affected. The first group consisted of approximately 150 detainees released into the community following a recent High Court decision, 29 of which have re-offended since release and include individuals convicted of serious crimes like murder, rape, and child sexual offences.
The second group comprises individuals whose visa cancellations were overturned by the AAT due to issues surrounding the Giles Directive 99 scandal. Despite subsequent visa cancellations for some in this group, there have been no deportations from either cohort since the mishandling by Labor.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. My questions are concise and straightforward, and I hope the answers will be similar. In the context of the mass release from immigration detention of approximately 150 noncitizens awaiting deportation, how many of these detainees were in fact released as a result of the decision in NZYQ?
Mr M Thomas: All of the releases from detention that we’re talking about with NZYQ were as a result of the new High Court test set in that case around the real prospect of removal from Australia in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 37 of these men released into the community have a history of sexually offending, including against children?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April 2024, 39 of those individuals did have a previous conviction for sexually based offending.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that seven of these men were convicted of either murder or attempted murder?
Mr M Thomas: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that 72 of these men had convictions for assault or violent offending, armed robbery or kidnapping?
Mr M Thomas: As of 30 April that number is 73.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of these released detainees have now illegally reoffended?
Mr M Thomas: I believe the deputy commissioner answered that question earlier today.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the number?
Ms Holben: 29.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What offences have been included in the range of charges, including the senior citizen brutally bashed and allegations of a sexual predator being active here?
Mr Outram: We did provide that evidence before the lunch break.
Senator Watt: We went through that in some detail before the lunch break.
Senator ROBERTS: You are aware of Mr Emmanuel Saki, a Sudanese man who was recently released from immigration detention. He has just been charged with the murder of another man here on 12 May this year. That was two weeks ago. Are you aware of that?
Ms Foster: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s now being done to deport these men?
Senator Watt: You’re mixing together a couple of different categories of people here.
Senator ROBERTS: We don’t want them here.
Senator Watt: I’d point out to start with that, for all 153, I think it is, people who were released from detention as a result of the High Court decision, the government actually had those people in detention for a reason. We don’t want them roaming the streets either, but the High Court has made a decision and we are bound by the law.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you deport these men?
Senator Watt: For starters, as we have gone through before, there are a range of protections in place for the Australian community surrounding these people, such as electronic bracelets, curfews and a range of other requirements that no government has ever imposed on a cohort released from detention. Obviously, in relation to the NZYQ cohort, the government is in the process of applying for preventative detention orders, which would effectively see those people returned to detention. Before the lunch break, there were some questions about where that was up to. That’s the NZYQ cohort.
Senator ROBERTS: But there has been nothing done to deport them?
Senator Watt: No. I would say that one of the reasons is that the reason for the High Court decision is that the High Court found that there was no reasonable prospect of those people being deported, because, for example, they were stateless. They don’t have citizenship in any country. It is not legally possible to deport them. Again, I’m paraphrasing. Officials can jump in if I explain some of this incorrectly. That’s the reason why those people haven’t been deported. That’s the reason why they are now not in detention but subject to all those other protections.
Senator ROBERTS: All of the 150-odd are stateless?
Senator Watt: I don’t think all of them are, but there were other reasons that it’s not possible to deport them. The officials might be able to explain it to you.
Mr M Thomas: It might be because we have protection obligations for them. It could be because they’re stateless. It might be because there are issues with identifying their identity or their country of origin. All of that culminates in there being no real prospect of their removal from Australia in the foreseeable future.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, you asked about the Saki case. That is a separate situation. As far as I’m aware, Mr Saki is not one of the NZYQ cohort. He was someone who had come to Australia and was given a visa at some point along the line. The government cancelled his visa because of character issues or criminal offences—whatever the reasons were. He appealed that decision to the AAT. The AAT overturned the decision to cancel his visa. He was therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is that because of any influence of Minister Giles’s directive 99?
Senator Watt: We’ve spent the best part of two days discussing this. What I have been saying is that the direction that Minister Giles gave did ask government decision-makers and the AAT to take into account the length of time someone had been here in Australia—
Senator ROBERTS: And their ties.
Senator Watt: but not at the expense of the seriousness of their offending. But the AAT has done what it has done, and for that case and other cases they have overturned the government’s decision to cancel those visas, despite the fact the government, in the AAT, argued for the cancellation of those visas. Now Mr Saki’s visa has been cancelled by the minister, and he is seeking urgent advice from the department about the range of other cases that have come to light in the last couple of days.
Chair: I don’t want to be too hardline about this, because I know that there are different sections of the department that deal with both of these issues, but, Senator Roberts, just for your information, we have moved on to outcome 3. I know that there might be some crossover and that the department will seek to answer your questions when they can. We did have extensive questioning about outcome 2 from yesterday onwards. We’re now in outcome 3. If that needs to be clarified at the table for senators, then, if you can, assist Ms Foster when questions arise. I know dealing with the different cohorts is difficult, but we’ll do our best to try to keep on track in that way. Senator Roberts, have you got a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Was the Migration Amendment (Removal and Other Measures) Bill 2024 simply to ensure incarceration as an alternative to being detained for these men?
Senator Watt: Again, I might begin the answer and let officials explain further. The removals legislation, which the government has introduced and which has not yet been passed by the Senate and which the opposition has not agreed to pass yet, is for a different purpose. It was to deal with a different gap in our legal system. So maybe officials could pick up at that point with some more detail.
Ms Foster: There were two primary purposes to the removals bill. The first was to give us the power to compel people who had exhausted all legal avenues of remaining in Australia to cooperate with their removal so that people couldn’t frustrate our efforts to remove them—by, for example, refusing to fill out applications or come to interviews—and to make it an offence should they not do that. The second element of the bill was to allow us to declare countries who frustrated our attempts to return their nationals to them countries of removal concern and to enable us to take actions about how we manage applications to come to Australia from those countries.
Senator ROBERTS: Surely, Minister, there was a way that the government could’ve addressed this issue before the decision in NZYQ was handed down. Why didn’t you?
Senator Watt: The High Court’s decision in NZYQ essentially went in a different direction to what the law in Australia had always been.
Senator ROBERTS: So you didn’t pre-empt that at all.
Senator Watt: Look, we’ve gone over this at length in previous estimates hearings.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on to border security then. Why is our border security policy being made on the run? For example, why has the number of surveillance flights by Border Force of our northern borders by aircraft been reduced over the last year?
Senator Watt: Can I just say one thing. Of course, I don’t accept the proposition that our border security policy is being made on the run. We have increased funding for Border Force and border security to a level that no government has ever provided, and Admiral Sonter, in his role heading up Operation Sovereign Borders, has pointed out that—I can’t remember the exact words—essentially, there has been no change to the policy settings for Operation Sovereign Borders. But the officials can talk to you about surveillance flights.
Mr Outram: Specific to surveillance flights, I have Deputy Commissioner Dale with me. There has been a reduction in hours flown. That has been for two reasons. The first is persistent mechanical issues with the fleet of Dash 8s that the Border Force has. The second, with the contractor that we employ, is their ability to bring on pilots. There’s a global shortage of pilots, and they’re affected by that. I might hand over to Deputy Commissioner Dale to give you more details.
Ms Dale: The commissioner has flagged that there has been a reduction in flying hours this year and the commissioner has already outlined the causes. I think the rear admiral will go to the point that, notwithstanding the reduction in hours that we have had in the Australian Border Force, aerial surveillance has been maintained to the standard he requires—fortunately, through the augmentation of flights through the Australian Defence Force.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that signalling a decrease in hours flown in the future, then, if it meets the standard? Or is it going to be that, in the future, standards are changed?
Ms Dale: No. We’re working very closely with the provider to better understand the barriers. The commissioner has spoken to the issue around crew. There is a global shortage of crew for the fixed-wing aircraft that we’re operating. It’s also true that from time to time we have mechanical issues that are reasonably frequent with any sort of piece of machinery, so they can sometimes be a factor.
Senator ROBERTS: Is the reduction in hours flown a reason for the recent increase in the number of successful arrivals into Australian waters of foreign people smugglers and their human cargo?
Rear Adm. Sonter: There’s no direct correlation there. On a regular basis, I look at what is the threat and risk, and I adjust the posture accordingly. As Kaylene Dale indicated, one of the beauties about this role and the coordination role is that I have both ABF and Australian Defence Force assets to pull on for this mission. While she’s articulated the decrease from the ABF funded actual air surveillance, we’ve increased the ADF air surveillance to ensure that we have an enhanced posture in the north-west.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is it the soft policy of Labor Party governments in the past, enticing people smugglers to be prepared to risk the boat and cargo for such rich profits as a full boat of paying passengers for the Aussie Express?
Senator Watt: No. Never has been and never will be.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware, Minister, that Australians now feel unsafe personally in their own country due to this failed migration policy? We’ve got boats arriving, we’ve got people who are murdering people.
Senator Watt: I’m sure there are some people in Australia who feel unsafe. What I can say is that this government is spending more money on border security than we’ve ever done before. Unlike certain others, including people in the room, we are not running down and disparaging our border security policies—which is an incentive to people smugglers—and we are taking action to deal with court decisions that are not of the government’s making and that the government opposed.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t quoting of spending more money just a lazy way of saying you’re trying to do something? I look at your energy policy and never before have we spent so much money and we see the highest price of electricity.
Chair: Senator Roberts, that is not relevant to this instance.
Senator ROBERTS: My point is that money does not equate to success.
Senator Watt: You might say that spending $569.4 million more in this year’s budget on things like more boats, planes and unmanned vehicles for Operation Sovereign Borders is lazy. I wouldn’t put it that way.
