I travelled to Alice Springs to talk about actually supporting Australians in remote communities, not dividing us on race like the PM tried to do with his voice referendum.
One Nation will abolish the racially divisive indigenous departments that costs tens of billions a year and hasn’t closed the gap one bit.
Here’s what we’ll do instead.
The Northern Rail link is a 3,000 km proposal across the entire top of Australia.
The important part for remote communities is what will run right next door to that rail line: high speed internet, electricity and a water pipeline.
Those three essential utilities will allow us to turbocharge central Australia, for everyone who lives remotely.
Instead of handouts – One Nation will build real infrastructure that will allow remote Australia to make themselves richer. The best form of welfare is a job – we’ll build the infrastructure to create those jobs in rural Australia, based on need not race.
One Nation has a plan to put serious money back in your pocket with big ideas and genuine reform that our children’s children will benefit from.
Australia needs meaningful vision, not election campaign bribes.
Media Release
While the Budget’s $5 a week tax cuts will be ‘dead on arrival’ due to inflation, the Senate will tonight vote on meaningful reform to eliminate bracket creep and provide real relief.
Inflation and bracket creep will outstrip the tax changes leaving Australians worse off and paying more tax for decades unless a One Nation sponsored amendment to index thresholds is supported in the Senate. Senator Roberts said:
‘Australians and especially young people have been screwed on tax and the latest changes are already dead on arrival.
‘A cup of coffee will be $7 by the time the $5 tax cuts arrive. Bracket creep means Australians will be paying tens of billions more in tax.
‘Unless bracket creep is eliminated the typical full-time worker will be pushed into paying the second highest tax rate at 37 cents a dollar within two terms.
‘Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes.
‘Due to inflation wages increase and Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things yet pay a higher tax rate.
‘Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice and the budget shouldn’t benefit from inflation.’
One Nation will move a Senate amendment to the Treasury Laws Amendment (More Cost of Living Relief) Bill 2025 scheduled for a vote on Wednesday night.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Budget.jpg?fit=702%2C390&ssl=1390702Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-26 19:02:082025-03-26 19:02:16$5 Tax Cuts Dead on Arrival Thanks to Inflation
This budget is a mockery of governance that seeks to make Australians reliant on government handouts. It ensures that power is no longer vested in ‘We The People,’ instead it’s in ‘Them the Bureaucracy.’
The world has been here many times before and clearly, Treasurer Chalmers has failed to study history. The more the government borrows—$44 billion in this budget—the less private enterprise has available to invest and grow the economy for all who are here. The more the government spends, the less is available for private enterprise to create real jobs, making everyone more reliant on the government.
One Nation is offering the Australian people a comprehensive economic plan to restore wealth and opportunity for every Australian. One Nation will immediately return $40 billion into the pockets of everyday Australians, funded through savings of $90 billion. This plan includes paying off an additional $30 billion a year from our national debt and investing $20 billion a year for 10 years in infrastructure to grow our economy. In my budget reply, I explain how this will be achieved.
Transcript
This budget that we’ve just had delivered is a mockery of governance that seeks to make Australians reliant on government handouts, ensuring power is no longer vested in us, the people, but instead is vested in them, the bureaucracy. The world has been here many times before, and clearly Treasurer Chalmers has failed to study history. The more government borrows—$44 billion in this budget—the less private enterprise has available to invest and grow the economy for all who are here. And there are too many here: five million new arrivals in the last 10 years—five million. There have been 2½ million under this Labor government in just the last three years. This is the major reason for the cost-of-living and housing catastrophe. The more the government spends, the less is available for private enterprise to create real, productive jobs and the more reliant everyone becomes on the government.
One Nation is offering the Australian people a comprehensive economic plan to restore wealth and opportunity for every Australian. One Nation will immediately return $40 billion into the pockets of everyday Australians, funded through savings of $90 billion, which will also enable us to pay off an additional $30 billion from our national debt and invest $20 billion a year for 10 years in the infrastructure to grow our economy. Here’s how we’ll be putting more money in people’s pockets—more money in your pocket. No. 1 is reducing electricity prices by 20 per cent to save $6 billion. Currently the system of priority dispatch turns coal-fired power stations off during the day to make room for solar and wind. Operating a coal plant this way causes damage which shows up in much higher maintenance costs and breakdowns, increasing the price of coal fired electricity. One Nation will turn priority dispatch around and run coal plants to at least 80 per cent capacity 24/7. We expect this power will be sold into the grid at around $55 per kilowatt hour, compared to the average price last quarter across all types of power of $120 per kilowatt hour. That’s less than half of what it has been. This should reduce power prices by 20 per cent immediately, and, over time, as we build new coal plants, it should cut power prices by 50 per cent. The government pays for the electricity it uses, so this will reduce the government’s electricity costs by $3 billion and save consumers and businesses $6 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket.
No. 2 is income splitting to save $8 billion. One Nation will introduce income splitting, allowing a couple with at least one dependent child to split their income between both partners. If there’s only one breadwinner earning the average wage, the family will save $9,500 a year in tax. That’s $9,500 that stays in your pocket. This measure will cost $8 billion a year, offset in part from tax on the resulting higher economic activity. And we expect more parents to be able to afford to stay home and mind their children, reducing government subsidised childcare.
No. 3 is $13 billion a year in excise cuts. One Nation will cut the fuel excise by 26 cents a litre for three years and then review it to see if it continues. The ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I’m confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket. We will remove the GST on insurance policies, saving consumers $3 billion a year. And we will remove the excise on alcohol sold in hospitality venues. This will save consumers more than $1 billion a year. That’s more money in your pocket. This policy is not about drinking; it’s about supporting hospitality venues and offering Australians a safe place to drink in a social environment—a community.
No. 4 is increased funding for the ACCC. In February One Nation called for an increase in funding for the ACCC to enable a thorough investigation of supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies for profiteering and dishonest business practices. I note that Treasurer Chalmers tonight in the budget has required the ACCC to spend $38 million on policing supermarkets, which will be hard after he cut the ACCC’s budget by $48 million. One Nation will provide whatever it takes to investigate and prosecute illegal behaviour from supermarkets, airlines and insurance companies. Prices must come down, and profit margins should not be excessive in these essential industries.
No. 5 is increasing Medicare funding by $3 billion a year. One Nation will prosecute fraud in the Medicare and PBS system, which the government knows is happening yet does not have the courage to solve. We will impose longer wait times before new arrivals can access Medicare and review drugs being offered under the PBS that received emergency-use authorisation during COVID.
This $40 billion of more money in your pocket will be paid for with the following spending cuts to cut government waste. We will abolish net zero and climate change measures. One Nation will withdraw from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto protocol and the Paris Agreement. We will end net zero. We will abolish the department of climate change and their agencies, schemes and boondoggles. Existing solar and wind contracts will be honoured. No new subsidies will occur. Today’s budget reveals that the whole climate scam costs the government $35 billion a year. The cost to the private sector is anywhere from $1 trillion to $2 trillion depending on who’s doing the numbers. This is a massive cost on Australian households that One Nation will abolish.
One Nation will return the NDIS to its original purpose, helping the severely disabled, and introduce means testing, saving $20 billion a year and improving care.
We will withdraw from the World Health Organization and ban the World Economic Forum. For too long Australia has been held hostage to unelected, unaccountable, corrupt foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organization and predatory billionaires operating their puppet organisation, the World Economic Forum. It’s a cabal which, during COVID, transferred $5 trillion from everyday citizens into their own pockets. One Nation will withdraw from the UN World Health Organization and will only provide cooperation where we believe it will assist in world health. We will withdraw from the World Economic Forum and the World Bank, saving around $1 billion a year in contributions, administration and in the costs of implementing policies such as One Health, which can only be described as anti-human.
We will end mass immigration. There are 75,000 people in Australia illegally, right now, mostly with expired visas. One Nation will deport them all. There are 1.1 million people here with student related visas, which are students and their families, who can now accompany students. Australia only has 480,000 student places, so clearly there are people who are rorting the system, at our cost. One Nation will send home any student and their family who is not following the terms of their visa, which are to study and to complete their course.
One Nation’s policy will initially result in a negative net immigration of 90,000 a year, meaning more people will leave than enter, because with around 220,000 departures a year we will only allow 130,000 people a year to enter. Ninety thousand more people will leave than enter. This will put downward pressure on the cost of housing and free up homes for Australians who are currently living in tents or who are underhoused. Unlike under Liberal and Labor policies, all people who enter will be skilled.
Education is a state responsibility. Yet we have federal bureaucrats telling state bureaucrats telling regional bureaucrats telling headmasters telling teachers what to teach—too many mouths to feed along the way and harming educational outcomes. The Program for International Student Assessment, PISA, is an OECD program which assesses reading, mathematics and science literacy of 15-year-old students. Australia is not in the top 10 nations, and our latest ranking shows a score below the OECD average. We will abolish the federal Department of Education, including the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority and NAPLAN, saving $2 billion a year, and return education to the states in accordance with the federal constitution.
Last year the Allianz insurance company found Australian businesses were spending $27 billion on DEI and related mental health measures in 2024-25. While One Nation supports legitimate mental health concerns, there’s clearly a significant cost involved in DEI. If half of this $27 billion is for DEI, and the government is a quarter of that, then DEI is costing taxpayers $3 billion a year and adding $10 billion a year to the cost of goods and services in Australia. One Nation will abolish woke and bank these savings for taxpayers and the Australian public.
Next, One Nation will end foreign multinational gas companies rorting the natural gas royalties. We will change from where royalties are levied from profits and switch to point of production—that makes perfect sense—and create a domestic gas reserve, raising up to a $13 billion a year from offshore sales.
We will reduce foreign aid, saving $3 billion a year, with the remaining aid being targeted to those in need instead of being a slush fund for political influence.
We will abolish the white and black Aboriginal industry. As already announced, we will replace the national Indigenous grants agency, the Aboriginal units across every department and agency and associated programs and boondoggles. We will replace that parasitic mess with direct grants and essential remote infrastructure based on need not race, saving $12½ billion and getting better care to the Aboriginals in the community.
Taken together, these savings will total $90 billion a year, with $40 billion going back to taxpayers and $20 billion going to infrastructure, which I discussed this afternoon. One Nation’s plan is a real economic plan, designed to lower the cost of living while expanding the economy and restoring wealth and opportunity for all Australians.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/pccw2JtvKzs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-26 13:25:152025-03-26 13:25:21One Nation’s Plan for Economic Growth and Self-Reliance
This is how you close the gap. It’s what One Nation has always said – treat people based on need not race.
When that happens fundamental needs come out. For people to have purpose they need to be able to contribute and hold a job. For a job you need industry and industry needs basic things: power, water and internet.
The 3,000km Northern Rail link sometimes referred to as the Iron Boomerang would bring all of these fundamental things and allow remote communities to thrive like never before.
This is what is possible when we address needs instead of separating people based on race.
Australians have valid concerns about Indian degrees being considered equal to Australian degrees, especially given the serious issues with cheating and degree fraud in Indian universities, where degrees can be purchased for as little as $3,700.
Minister Wong’s response was unsettling in the lack of concern for Australians. The Minister did acknowledge that industries with professional associations, such as health, could require further study, testing, or mentorship.
However, Minister Wong did not mention that this agreement will lead to competition between Australians who have studied for 3-5 years and paid substantial fees, and Indian “graduates” who may not have. These Australians now have a substantial HECS debt, which requires a salary capable of paying off the debt while providing for their future.
This situation is a recipe for the erosion of wages and job prospects for Australian graduates, and ultimately, a reduction in the number of Australians prepared to risk the expense of university.
One Nation will tear up this agreement.
Transcript | Question Time
My question is to the Minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. Minister, does the mechanism for the mutual recognition of qualifications between India and Australia give equal merit to an Indian degree in Australia as an Australian degree in Australia?
Senator WONG: Thank you to Senator Roberts for the question. I will see what additional information I can get for you in relation to mutual recognition. I’m hoping that the appropriate portfolio finds some information for me. There are a number of economic agreements and other partnerships where we do have mutual recognition schemes with other jurisdictions, and obviously the safety of consumers remains paramount. I can’t recall at this moment whether that is delivered through the mutual recognition schemes themselves or through separate registration schemes for particular professions, for example, such as the health professions, but I’ll certainly find more advice for you and provide you with that. I’m assuming it’s the health sector that you are most interested in, but maybe you can clarify.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Transcript | First Supplementary Question
It’s all degrees. Indian universities have a substantial problem with cheating and with degrees being sold for as little as $3,700. Indian criminals are establishing ghost colleges in Australia. The Australian Skills Quality Authority acknowledged this in 2019. Minister, will there be any attempt to recognise qualifications on the basis of the originating institution or some other system for verifying the legitimacy of the qualification, especially in critical areas such as health services and engineering?
Senator WONG: That covers a number of portfolios, certainly in relation to vocational colleges and so forth. You would have heard the minister and, I think, the representing minister here speak about the importance of better regulating the sector, and some of our forums in relation to international students and international education go to the issue of making sure that here in Australia students can attain high-quality qualifications. But, in relation to—I think you said—engineering and health, again I will see what we can find for you. My recollection is that these arrangements between countries which might give pathways to recognition are one thing, but the requirements of particular professions to ensure that people have the requisite qualifications to be able to provide the relevant services to consumers remain. (Time expired)
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Transcript | Second Supplementary Question
I simply need to get the government’s logic straight, Minister. Are you saying we don’t have the places to train our own graduates because we have 500,000 foreign students occupying those places who will then take their degrees back home, so we have to bring in Indian graduates to get the skills we need? Minister, wouldn’t it just be easier to reduce foreign students and educate more of our own children?
Senator WONG: The government’s view is that you need a vibrant, world-class, high-quality higher education sector. You do that in many ways, including by making sure it is appropriately funded. We do that also by making sure that there is some consideration to the mix of domestic and overseas students. You would have seen that the government has announced caps in relation to international students, and that is in part recognition of the quality of education provided to them as well as to the broader student community. So I think it is important to have both, but I would make the point that this is an important export industry. We are able to earn income for Australians, which we can then ensure is invested wisely. There is a reason Australia is an open and trading nation, and that is that it has grown our economy, but we are seeking to reduce the number of international students over time. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vKWq79EH9ew/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-25 19:11:242025-03-25 19:11:28Australian Graduates at Risk: Concerns Over Indian Degree Equivalency
★ Immigration is our special sauce ★ There’s a skills shortage ★ Multiculturalism is our strength
These are all lies told to the Australia people.
In reality, this insane migration program is the reason why Australians can’t afford a house, see a doctor on time or get their kid into a school.
No more! One Nation will make migration net-negative. Some of the temporary migrants need to return home so that our infrastructure and services can catch up with our population.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LBf1XWBn0r4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-25 14:47:142025-03-25 14:47:20Net-Negative Migration Will Ease Cost of Living Stress
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation.
The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies.
Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment.
The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead.
Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.
It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations. This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering.
Transcript
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.
The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.
Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity.
Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.
There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.
Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government.
The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs.
Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either.
In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering.
I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living.
Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order:
The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution …
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero.
I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia.
Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8tb1aDXiOLk/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-20 18:00:112025-03-20 18:00:18One Nation’s View of “The Future Made in Australia” Bill 2024
This is a great session to demonstrate how far Estimates has fallen. I asked a perfectly simple question: if a person followed the TGA’s COVID-19 “vaccine” schedule, how many shots would they have had by now? Watch as they bob and weave to avoid answering this simple question.
Part of the reason for this is to use up time. The TGA session attracts a lot of interest, and my time is limited, so the longer they can draw out the answer, the fewer questions they have to answer.
I then asked about a new study showing that the COVID-19 jabs produced spike proteins for almost two years after injection, despite being told that the vaccines stayed in the injection site and passed out of the body in a matter of hours.
Professor Lawler tried to discredit the research, which was conducted by Yale, and refused to acknowledge that the spike proteins from the “vaccine” were being produced for years after vaccination, despite the paper stating exactly that. A substantial amount of my time was spent on them saying very little that they could be held accountable for later.
I also asked about other studies linking vaccines with autism and received a similar response: the link between vaccines and autism has been discredited—nothing to see here, move on. The link between autism and vaccination has been well established, even with the small number of papers that have survived the bullying from big Pharma to protect their sacred cash cow.
I will not stop pursuing the truth about vaccine harm.
Note: This video combines two separate sessions into one video file.
Transcript 1
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are all to do with the TGA. Technology is marvellous, isn’t it? Potentially hundreds of doctors and constituents are watching. The TGA approach to COVID has been based—correct me if I’m wrong—on two original shots, then boosters to maintain currency, because MRNA technology offered waning protection over time. If a person had taken the recommended COVID shots at the time they were recommended, from March 2021 until now, how many COVID injections would the person have had?
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure, necessarily, whether that’s a TGA question. The role of the TGA is very much to—
Mr Comley: I think we have an appropriate officer joining the table, Dr Anna Peatt, who I think can help you on this because I think she’ll need to go to the nature of ATAGI’s advice for vaccines for individuals. I think it would also go to the question about different categories of individuals receiving different recommendations over that period of time, reflecting the risk profile for those individuals. Dr Peatt, would you like to, perhaps, have a crack at this?
Dr Peatt: Yes, I will. It’s actually quite a difficult question to answer because the eligibility for COVID-19 vaccines has changed over the course of the pandemic. So, really, you can’t actually answer the question unless you know the specifics of the individual that you’re referring to. Someone who was aged 75 years or over at the start of the pandemic may have had upwards of eight vaccines over that course, but it really depends on the individual circumstances. In Australia we don’t have vaccination mandates at the moment, so it also comes down to people’s individual choices. But, ultimately, it comes down to vaccinators’ advice.
Senator ROBERTS: So eight in total, most likely. Can you confirm the TGA is still recommending boosters every six months for immunocompromised people and every 12 months for adults under 64.
Prof. Lawler: I can’t confirm that, because the TGA’s role is not to recommend immunisation. The TGA’s role is to assess the safety, quality and efficacy of therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: But you do monitor the injections, the results and the DAENs, don’t you? Do you have a role—
Prof. Lawler: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Good.
Prof. Lawler: No. That’s correct, but that’s not the same as what you asked previously. The difference is that the role of the Therapeutic Goods Administration is to assess pre-market therapeutic goods for safety, quality and efficacy, and, where appropriate, to undertake post-market monitoring. That’s why we undertake pharmacovigilance activity and assess adverse events. That is not the same as monitoring and recommending specific immunisation schedules. That’s the role of ATAGI.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that. But surely you would monitor the number of doses that people have because, as I understand it, don’t you monitor DAENs? Isn’t the monitoring super critical, especially when you have provisional authorisation for these injections?
Prof. Lawler: As I think we provided previously, the vaccines that we’re discussing are not provisionally registered. They have transitioned to full registration. But, as I said, the role of the TGA is to monitor adverse events as and when they occur, and as they are reported.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, I understand that Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled ‘Immunological and Antigenic Signatures Associated with Chronic Diseases after COVID-19 Vaccination’. That study found that spiked protein remained in patients who had received at least one COVID vaccine for, in one case, 709 days and counting. When did the TGA realise that spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify, because I have previously indicated there are quite a lot of studies out there, is that the Bhattacharjee article from Yale last week? I think it is.
Senator ROBERTS: Last week, Yale School of Medicine released a preprint of a study titled—
Prof. Lawler: Thanks. So that is, as you say, an article in preprint. I would like to reflect on that article. The first line of the abstract reads: COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of COVID-19 deaths. And the intro says: The rapid development and deployment of COVID-19 vaccines have been pivotal in mitigating the impact of the pandemic. These vaccines have significantly reduced severe illness and mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Additionally, vaccinated individuals experience a lower incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19 … or long COVID, thus highlighting an additional potential benefit of receiving the COVID-19 vaccines. It might seem like I’m not answering your question in reading those first few lines out, but I think it’s really important that a feature of the public debate on this matter has been the convenient picking out of individual findings from papers. I think it’s really important to note that. In terms of the paper itself, it was a small study, with 42 cases that reported post-vaccination syndrome after COVID vaccination and it had 22 controls with no symptoms. There are some challenges with the article. There was a very small sample size, which included insufficient subgroup numbers to adequately assess the effect of previous infection. There was a lack of analysis of potential confounders, such as other medical conditions and medication use, and a lack of standardised case definition for PBS—noting that the symptoms of PBS are general and are associated with a range of other conditions. I think that there is some really interesting information in that article. I particularly like the introduction where it clearly indicates the benefits of vaccination. But I would also say that it is challenging, potentially, to draw too much of an inference from its findings.
Senator ROBERTS: Professor Lawler, I don’t know which question you answered but let me ask my question again. When did the TGA realise spiked protein from the mRNA technology could stay in the body for years?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when we have evidence that that is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are not aware of it at the moment?
Prof. Lawler: We will inform you when there is evidence that it is the case that spiked protein persists in the body for years. I think one of the things that is most notable—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. You’ve answered the question. For clarity, if a person has spiked protein in their system years after injection, something must be making that spiked protein and renewing it in their system. Is that correct?
Prof. Lawler: I might ask Professor Langham to respond to that.
Prof. Langham: I think what Professor Lawler is trying to say is that we are not aware of any robust evidence that supports the presence of spiked protein being in the system of recipients of the COVID-19 vaccine for years. When we do undertake reviews of relevant studies—and I might add, this as an ongoing process that the TGA undertakes for every single product that is registered on the ARTG—our robust and thorough review of evidence is such that should there be a finding that we would consider scientific, then that absolutely would be accepted. That is the case for the question that you are asking. We are not aware of any scientific and robust findings that demonstrate prolonged circulation of spiked protein in the human body.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. If a person already has spike protein in their system, and they need more mRNA technology—more spike proteins—and if, for that person, those are long lived as well, could there be people walking around with dangerous levels of spike protein as a result of following ATAGI’s guidelines? Surely you’ve considered this.
Prof. Lawler: Thank you for the question. As we discussed previously, one of the roles of the TGA is to undertake ongoing post-market pharmacovigilance. As a result, we continually receive and accept reports of adverse events. We use those to work toward the identification of safety signals. We take more of a phenomenological approach to identifying risky safety profiles, as has been highlighted previously. We’re firmly of the view that the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines is overwhelmingly positive.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. The Yale study examined 64 vaccinated subjects. One in 64, in this case, retained spike for almost two years and counting. Extending that sample to Australian consumers, doesn’t that indicate, certainly, that tens of thousands of Australians are dealing with spike protein build-up in their body? Does even the possibility of that concern you?
Prof. Langham: I think what we’ve been trying to say is that not all of the research that is published is of a high level of scientific quality.
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me, Ms Langham—
Prof. Langham: I’m sorry, Senator. We’ve been here before. It’s Professor Langham, thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Professor Langham—I mean that sincerely. I wasn’t trying to cast any aspersions. Professor Lawler just read glowingly, in response to one of my questions, about aspects of this study.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure that ‘glowingly’ would describe by situation. I think there was a balanced argument. However, one of the things we do undertake when we scientifically review a paper is to look at the rigour of it. It is acknowledged within the paper that there are certain limitations to the study. Some of the findings include the fact that there were potential differences in the immune profiles of individuals with PBS and that PBS participants had lower levels of spike protein antibodies. There was serological evidence suggestive of recent Epstein-Barr virus reactivation. But I think it’s quite important—and it’s actually quite challenging to convey this in this forum—to note that the presence of a study saying something should not be taken as meaning that without a robust analysis of the rigour of that study. It’s important to note that this was a small case study. There were 42 cases and 22 controls. That means the ability to extrapolate from that in the way you suggested is actually really limited and potentially misleading. I don’t mean it’s deliberately misleading; it can lead to misleading outcomes.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand from the previous Senate estimates and from this one. Are you saying that spike proteins are harmless?
Prof. Lawler: No, I don’t believe we said that last time or this time.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s why I asked the question—for clarification. The Yale study found immune cell— in this case T cell—exhaustion. Do you accept the science that mRNA technology has caused T cell exhaustion in some consumers, leading to a condition that causes chronic tiredness, brain fog, dormant conditions like Epstein-Bar and cancer becoming active again, and in general an increased susceptibility to new infection?
Prof. Lawler: Part of the challenge in responding to that is that we’re responding to a definition outlined within the study as a post-COVID-19-vaccination syndrome that is characterised by a wide range of symptoms which have been, as far as I can determine, selected by the authors. They include such things as you’ve mentions, like exercise intolerance, excessive fatigue, numbness, brain fog, neuropathy and others. But the authors themselves note that PBS is not officially recognised by health authorities, and there’s no consensus definition of the syndrome. One of the things I was trying to say—and, again, I wouldn’t characterise it as a glowing endorsement of the article—is that it is encouraging that even small studies are looking at these things. One of the things that has been levelled at the TGA previously is that we are blind to science or not interested in hearing new ideas. It’s actually very encouraging to see this kind of research, but it needs to be taken within the context of rigorous research methodology.
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Long COVID’, a phrase that Dr Skerritt used at estimates in May 2022, was the theory tested by Yale in a literature review entitled ‘The long COVID puzzle: autoimmunity, inflammation, and other possible causes’. That was published in May 2024. This studied viral persistence, inflammation, autoimmune damage and latent viral reaction following exposure to COVID, naturally or by injection. Minister, is your government ignoring a ticking time bomb with these mRNA vaccines, one that you are making worse by still recommending that people take these products? You’re still recommending it.
Senator McCarthy: We certainly, through the health minister, look out for all Australians in relation to their care, health and wellbeing, but I will refer to officials in terms of the technical aspects of your question.
Prof. Lawler: I’m not sure if I’m answering your question here, so I’m happy to hear it again if I’m not. One of the things that we do find that has been supported by multiple studies—in fact, studies that are cited within the Yale article—is that COVID vaccination actually leads to a decreased incidence of both the post-acute sequelae of COVID and also the prevalence of long COVID. So we know that those are not only protective for hospitalisation and death, as are their indications within the Register of Therapeutic Goods, but also protective for some of the long-term sequelae of COVID infection.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move on to vaccine harm generally. An article in Science, Public Health Policy & the Law—there’s an interesting combination; science, public health and law—titled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’ found: … the current vaccination schedule may be contributing to multiple forms of NDD; that vaccination coupled with preterm birth was strongly associated with increased odds of NDDs compared to preterm birth in the absence of vaccination; and increasing numbers of visits that included vaccinations were associated with increased risks of ASD. For those at home, an NDD is a neurodevelopmental disorder such as autism or OCD, and ASD is autism spectrum disorder. This study of 41,000 nine-year-olds in Florida came out this month and finds, with statistical certainty, that childhood vaccines are associated with neurodevelopmental disorders and autism. Have you seen this paper? And, if not, why not?
Prof. Lawler: I’m familiar with the journal that you outline; I’m familiar with the nature of the articles that are provided for publication and the level of peer review that occurs. I’m not familiar with that journal article specifically, and it would probably be inappropriate of me to comment on it without it in front of me.
Senator ROBERTS: The autism vaccine link is the most contentious issue in medicine right now, based on the number of people affected. Is this wilful ignorance on your part? Prof. Lawler: That is an interesting question. It’s not a contentious link. There was an article some years ago that drew links between the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the incidence of autism. That has been serially and profoundly debunked; it’s been retracted from the media. There’s no evidence currently that there is a link between vaccination and autism. Unfortunately, the continued promulgation of such a link is suspected to be one of the drivers of vaccine hesitancy and falling vaccine rates.
Senator ROBERTS: I would argue, based upon the timing, that the COVID shots, the mandating of COVID shots and the adverse effects of the COVID shots would have done a lot of damage to the credibility of vaccines in general. If I give you the link, Professor Lawler, will you undertake to review the study and come ready to discuss the connection between vaccines and neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism, at the next estimates?
Prof. Lawler: I’m very happy to receive any link and read any article, and to come back and have a comment. I do have with me Dr Sophie Russell, who’s the acting director of the Pharmacovigilance Branch.
Dr Russell: Thanks for the question. I’ll just make one small comment about the Yale study. The Yale study that you refer to was not able to properly account for previous COVID-19 infection due to insufficient case numbers. We would, of course, be happy to provide on notice a broader critical analysis, but I’ll reinforce what Professor Lawler has said—that, to date, the TGA has not found a causal association between any vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorder—and I would like to reassure you that we are continually monitoring for those particular adverse events in COVID-19 vaccinations.
Senator ROBERTS: In that paper, entitled ‘Vaccination and neurodevelopmental disorders: a study of nine-year-old children enrolled in Medicaid’, I’ve seen a graph. The multiplier for ASD is 3.14—the vaccinated have 3.14 times more ASD than the unvaccinated; for hyperkinetic syndrome it’s three times; for epilepsy or seizures it’s 4.2 times; for learning disorders it’s 9.8 times—almost 10 times; for encephalopathy it’s 7.7 times; and, for at least one of the listed neurodevelopmental disorders, it’s four times. Let’s move on—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just before you do, in a couple of minutes I’ll be seeking to rotate the call, as I understand Senator Rennick has some more questions. You still have the call, but I’m just giving you some early warning that I’ll be seeking to rotate in a few minutes.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff, which is a lot. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Prof. Lawler: I’ll ask Dr Kerr to join us at the table. I would probably contest the comment that that’s a lot of staff. We have staff that are appropriate to the role of ensuring qualities and standards within our therapeutic goods.
Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t casting aspersions that way, Professor Lawler; I was saying that that’s a lot of staff to do some of the work that I’ve just raised.
Prof. Lawler: We have a lot of work to do. I think the numbers are quite appropriate.
Dr Kerr: May I have the question again, please?
Senator ROBERTS: I understand from previous testimony that the TGA has a lab with more than 100 staff. Can you tell me what steps you have taken to monitor spike protein activity amongst Australian consumers of the mRNA technology used in COVID?
Dr Kerr: The subject of our testing is actually the vaccine itself. We have spent a lot of time ensuring that the vaccine complies with the quality requirements. We do look at the expression of the protein from the vaccine in vitro, but we do not take samples from Australians to test for the COVID spike protein. That is not our role.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t monitor it in that way?
Dr Kerr: We’re not a pathology laboratory. We don’t take samples from Australians—from humans.
Senator ROBERTS: So the answer to my next question: have you been actively testing people to check spike protein levels and to test for antigens indicating myocarditis, Guillain-Barre, Epstein-Barr—which is also called herpes 4—and the other 1,240 other known side effects of mRNA technology, as provided by Pfizer? Have you been testing for anything to do with that? These are known adverse events from Pfizer. Have you been testing?
Dr Kerr: I might defer to my colleague Dr Russell.
Dr Russell: As Professor Lawler highlighted earlier, we take a broader approach to postmarket safety issues. Published literature and clinical testing are all part of our assessment. When we are looking into safety signals in the postmarket space, we’re looking at that in the Australian context. We are looking at the number of cases that are reported to the TGA and the number of cases that are reported to the World Health Organisation database; we’re liaising with our comparable international regulators and looking at published literature. There’s a variety of areas that we look to, to consider the strength of the evidence between a clinical condition and vaccination, and that informs our regulatory actions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, but how do you know about the incidents if you’re not actually testing?
Prof. Lawler: Sorry—the incidence of clinical episodes?
Senator ROBERTS: Adverse events, yes—actively checking people for spike protein levels.
Dr Russell: Just to clarify, I’m not aware of any evidence that correlates spike protein levels with a clinical syndrome or diagnosis. What we are looking for in the postmarket space is clinical symptoms or conditions that are caused by the vaccine.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Thank you.
Prof. Lawler: If I could just add to that, we’ve endeavoured to be clear previously—and I won’t on this occasion read out the SQoNs that we’ve answered—that our pharmacovigilance program, in keeping with the standard and accepted practice of regulators around the world, is based on clinical adverse events. As Dr Russell has highlighted, there is not a correlation that is currently identified between spike protein levels and clinical events. Our adverse event monitoring process, our pharmacovigilance process, in keeping with the actions and practice of regulators globally, is to capture, analyse, understand and, where necessary, respond in a regulatory fashion to safety signals identified through clinical events. So those clinical events are identified. As I’ve mentioned, we have many events—I don’t have the number in front of me, but certainly over 100,000—of variable severity that we have analysed and responded to, and we have made significant regulatory changes in response to that. The clinical approach that we take to adverse event monitoring is entirely in keeping with the pharmacovigilance practices of global regulators.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor Lawler. So you don’t do testing, so you presumably rely upon adverse event notifications. Ahpra have ensured those reports were not made. You can’t possibly be relying only on the few doctors with the courage to stand up against Ahpra—or was ‘rare’ the outcome you worked back from? Did you just assume it was rare and work backwards to justify it?
Prof. Lawler: It’s unfortunate that Ahpra isn’t here to respond to that. I think it’s pretty clear that—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known.
Prof. Lawler: Sorry, Senator. What’s well known?
Senator ROBERTS: It’s well known that Ahpra has been suppressing doctors’ voices.
Prof. Lawler: I would make the distinction if I may—and, again, Ahpra is not here to respond and defend itself against that comment—that what you are characterising as misinformation around vaccine and the disease is very different to the reporting of adverse events. I would also contend that the volume of adverse events that were reported would indicate the threshold for reporting adverse events is quite low, and that’s exactly where we want it to be. We want to be detecting adverse events.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am due to rotate the call, but if there’s time we we’ll come back to you. We have about 25 minutes, so can I just get an indication of who has further questions?
Senator Rennick, Senator Kovacic and Senator Roberts, you have further questions?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, please.
Transcript 2
Senator ROBERTS: I want to go back to continue the discussion we had about testing, or the lack of testing. In estimates in May 2022, I asked whether the mRNA from the vaccines, the injections, transcribed into the patients’ own DNA, permanently modifying their DNA. In light of the work that has been done since, including the latest Yale study that I quoted, could a plausible theory be that the mRNA technology does indeed transcribe and the mRNA technology does permanently alter the human genome in some people?
Prof. Lawler: We did have an exchange with Senator Rennick earlier around the incorporation of DNA and RNA into the human genome. There was a comment made around it being down to a series of highly improbable steps. The challenge that I think we face—and I’ll ask Dr Kerr to add to that—is that there is a point at which a plausible theory requires supporting evidence. In the absence of that supporting evidence, it needs to be rejected. We’ve had 50 years of biotechnology in this field, there have been many billions of doses of these vaccines and other vaccines of similar technology administered, and there’s been no evidence of such incorporation. As to the plausible theory, there are some mechanisms that you could arguably say lead to that in very unusual circumstances, but there is no evidence and no real-world data to support that. Dr Kerr.
Dr Kerr: Thank you. I’ll add to Professor Lawler’s statement that there’s a very rigorous regulatory framework that operates globally to ensure that any residual DNA in biotechnology products or the mRNA vaccines is adequately controlled and the risks are adequately managed.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you review the legal position of the TGA, specifically the issue of them committing malfeasance in office due to their wilful ignorance of harms from the pharmaceutical industry products they promote?
Senator McCarthy: I reject, outright, your question in this regard, and I’m sure the government does have great faith in the TGA.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to move on to a major anti-hydroxychloroquine study published in Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy under Dr Danyelle Townsend. It has been retracted after its dataset was exposed as unreliable, bordering on outright fraudulent. The paper, titled Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, found that treating hospital patients with HCQ, hydroxychloroquine, resulted in an increased mortality rate and led to health authorities banning hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID. This was the reverse outcome to what many practitioners were experiencing prescribing hydroxychloroquine for COVID. Minister, did your government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020—I know the Liberal Party was in office at the time. Did the government issue restrictions against using hydroxychloroquine for COVID on 24 March 2020 to make room in the market for the vaccines, despite a body of evidence saying hydroxychloroquine was effective?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll defer to the officials.
Prof. Lawler: I was not in this role at that time; I had a different role in a different place. My understanding, though, is that the decision on hydroxychloroquine was based on a position supported by global regulators that there was a lack of efficacy in this and, similarly, concerns that individuals seeking to use the treatment might potentially perturb them and deter them from validated effective treatments. I’m certainly not aware that there is any underlying motivation to benefit any other treatment on a commercial basis.
Senator ROBERTS: So it was an internationally agreed position?
Prof. Lawler: In terms of our established relationship with regulators, it is my understanding that it was a fairly agreed position that hydroxychloroquine was not an effective treatment for COVID.
Senator ROBERTS: So now it’s a ‘fairly agreed’ position. It didn’t rely on the science; it was just fairly agreed?
Prof. Lawler: Senator—
Senator ROBERTS: Were there any studies done—any basis for this in fact, in data?
Prof. Langham: It absolutely was an evaluation of the science and the concerns for public safety that led to changes in the restriction in the prescribing of hydroxychloroquine. There was no supportive evidence for its efficacy and, as there was a concern that people were—and absolutely were—moving towards taking hydroxychloroquine in the false belief that it was going to help them with COVID, there were fewer people that were being vaccinated and there was also a greater risk of a poor outcome. That restriction was removed on 1 February this year.
Prof. Lawler: I also highlight that we’ve answered this question about hydroxychloroquine before, in SQ22- 000147 and also SQ21-000687.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s move on. In Senate estimates in May 2021, Professor Skerritt, your predecessor, the former head of the TGA, said of the COVID vaccine injection technology: … the idea is to introduce sufficient spike protein to activate the immune system so that it mimics a COVID infection so that your B cells and T cells can start to mount an immune response to protect the person from catching COVID. He also said: … it’s the messenger RNA that’s translated into protein which is a spike protein. Messenger RNAs are inherently unstable. In fact, that’s why the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines require this little lipid coat, this little lipid nanoparticle. … … … And the lipids are hydrolyzed, destroyed by the body fairly rapidly … Is this still an accurate statement of the technology behind COVID MRNA vaccines?
Prof. Langham: The specifics of your concern around that statement?
Senator ROBERTS: Is it accurate? Is Professor Skerritt’s statement accurate still?
Prof. Lawler: The process of immunogenicity as described by Professor Skerritt absolutely is. There’s the central dogma that MRNA is translated to protein. It’s the mechanism by which proteins are created. The MRNA is coded for spike protein. It’s created within the cell and expressed on the cell’s surface. That then engenders an immune response through antigenic presentation. That is the standard process for vaccine utilisation. As Professor Skerritt highlighted, the MRNA is inherently unstable and readily broken down. That’s why it’s encapsulated with a lipid nanoparticle which contains four different types of lipid. That enables its introduction to the cell, where it can exert its cellular effect.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true, as he said, that the lipids are hydrolysed and destroyed by the body fairly rapidly?
The government claims it’s winning the battle, yet out in the real world everything is still getting more expensive and nothing is anywhere close to the price it was 5 years ago.
You’re not crazy – the government’s just trying to gaslight you and tell you things are better than they are heading into an election. Only One Nation would make the real changes to put more money back in your pocket.
Transcript
One Nation supports this matter of urgency. During 2024 alone the living cost index for wage and salary earners rose four per cent, down from a high of six per cent earlier in the year. The reduction has been caused, in large part, through electricity subsidies. The government is paying your bill for you! The underlying inflation rate is still there, ready to reappear after the next election, when the government stops paying those subsidies.
Rising electricity prices for business are not being subsidised, increasing prices in supermarkets, retail, wholesale and manufacturing. The public see the price rises and don’t realise they are, in large part, the result of net zero measures, which One Nation will bring to an end, reducing power bills by 20 per cent immediately, and by much more over forward estimates.
Alcohol and tobacco costs rose due to the five per cent excise indexation and a cash grab the government calls AWOTE, where the more workers earn, the more the government increases the excise. One Nation will freeze all excise increases for three years. Watch for further announcements on this subject.
Insurance and financial services costs rose 13 per cent due to higher premiums for house, home contents and motor vehicle insurance. Insurance companies are becoming increasingly concentrated. Queensland’s Suncorp owns AAMI, GIO, Bingle and Shannons among others. Over the last five years Suncorp’s cash earnings rose from $59 to $108, and their share price rose from $9 to $17. One Nation will fund the ACCC, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, to ensure insurance companies are not ripping off consumers, including using fraudulent flood and bushfire maps to hike premiums. One Nation will remove the GST on insurance premiums.
Finally, the fall in inflation coming from a small reduction in the petrol price is significant. It proves One Nation’s policy to cut fuel excise by 26c per litre, and our other measures, will reduce inflation to make room for an interest rate cut. One Nation means more money in your pocket.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/YmUjdboczAk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-20 14:34:152025-03-20 14:34:18Government Gaslighting on Inflation: One Nation Promises Real Relief
The claim that solar and wind energy are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supoprted by the evidence. In reality, adding more solar and wind to the grid increases electricity costs. The reason is straightforward: while the wind and sun are free, the infrastructure—wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, 15,000 kilometers of extra transmission lines, and access roads—is very expensive to produce, transport, install, and maintain.
Unlike modern coal or nuclear power plants that last 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and backup batteries only last 15 years. The $1.9 trillion investment will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind infrastructure will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. This madness must end!
One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change along with all related agencies and programs, including net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, contributing to One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion plus in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will put billions of dollars back into the pockets of Australians and businesses, making everything more affordable. That’s how we solve the cost-of-living crisis.
It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will make it happen.
Transcript
For the last 30 years Australia has been hostage to the supposedly green movement’s great climate fraud, designed to create an all-purpose excuse to do whatever the government wants—an excuse that’s reusable, recyclable and fungible, not only for the government’s benefit but for the benefit of their donors, stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated carpetbaggers, such as Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink. We know who these people are from watching the meetings Prime Minister Albanese has and refuses to explain. Nothing says, ‘I’m doing dodgy deals behind the Australian people’s back,’ like refusing to publish detailed records of what was said and agreed in these meetings. This evening I’ll examine the green climate fraud and make a major One Nation policy announcement.
Let’s start with the war on farming. The climate scam seeks to replace fresh, healthy, field-grown Australian produce from family farms with fake foods in near-urban intensive production facilities—synthetic meat-like products cultured in bioreactors in a process that mimics the way cancer cells grow, with just enough artificial nutrients added to pass as food. Fake meat from plants remains on life support, with 18 ingredients, now including cocoa, and they still can’t make people eat it. Billionaires can’t make money out of conventional farming; they can make money, they think, out of industrial food. Who owns vegetarian meat supplier Beyond Meat? Surprise, surprise: predatory global wealth funds BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street lead their share registry.
Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California Davis have found the environmental footprint of these Frankenfoods is worse than that of naturally grown pasture raised beef. Bill Gates has declared cattle an existential threat because of their methane farts. Rubbish. Cattle have been on this earth for two million years. Leading methane producer India domesticated cattle 9,000 years ago, and nothing has changed. Another leading methane producer, the United States, had bison for 150,000 years. Three hundred years ago, there were 50 million bison, or buffalo. Now they’re gone, the USA’s 28 million cows are suddenly causing ‘fartageddon’.
There’s no science to justify this nonsense. As the University of California Davis explains:
After about 12 years, the methane—
from cattle—
is converted into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation. That carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. It is recycled carbon.
Cows don’t harm the environment. The methane cycle they perpetuate has been with us for two million years, at times in greater quantities than now.
Plants are more powerful than scientists admit. A recent finding from the US government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found:
Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought.
Climate scammers refuse to talk about the role of forests and crops, especially hemp, in sequestering carbon. Australia is already carbon neutral. Our forests and crops sequester much more carbon than Australia produces. So let’s stop chopping down trees for industrial wind and solar assess roads and transmission lines, and we can stay that way.
The next lie is that global boiling will kill us. Fact check: it’s false. Between 1998 and 2023, global temperature variation osculated between minus 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees as carbon dioxide, CO2, levels in the air rose from 0.036 per cent to 0.042 per cent. Then the Tonga eruption occurred, and temperatures rose by 0.7 degrees centigrade more. I’ll share a link on this topic when I post this speech on my website. It includes some excellent gifs of the fraudulent data tampering and fake temperature stations that have concocted warming where none exists. Japanese data, which is not tampered with, shows no warming in the last 50 years.
Next, carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperature. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes. There has been a lot of obfuscation on this aspect of climate fraud. I urge anyone who actually believes nature’s trace gas can change the world’s temperatures to look more closely and more carefully. The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 correlates very well with the temperature, not with the human production of carbon dioxide. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature variation drives CO2 levels. It’s the reverse of what the UN is claiming. Global temperature itself is a product of atmospheric pressure, albedo, cloud cover and many other factors.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN IPCCC—computer models downplay the factors, especially cyclical variation in solar radiation, which the UN assumes to be minor as compared to changes in CO2. Unvalidated UN IPCCC climate models replace the most powerful modes of heat transfer—conduction, convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation—with just radiation. In other words, UN IPCCC climate models are rigged to blame CO2 because the real factors are minimised in the construction of these models. No wonder these fake models have already been proven comprehensively wrong.
The next lie is that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Great Barrier Reef coral cover was the highest on record in 2024. The reef is healthy, yet the scare stories continue. Every time the green scammers claim the Great Barrier Reef is losing coral to scare you, the phones start ringing in north Queensland with tourists cancelling their bookings. Tour operators and the communities they support suffer, staff lose their shifts and their livelihoods, and businesses close, all for a political lie, a fraud. The reef covers 344,000 square kilometres. That’s five times the area of Tasmania. There will always be an area on the reef where an unusually low tide on a hot day causes localised bleaching with still winds. That damage repairs naturally and quickly, as it has for 14,000 years. There will always be a flood dumping fresh water onto the reef and killing the saltwater coral polyps. It’s happening right now in Far North Queensland. So stay tuned for scare stories just about coral bleaching blamed on climate change when the cause will actually be these floods in time for the election.
The next lie is that the sea levels are rising. Since the end of the mini ice age 200 hundred years ago, ocean levels have risen a tiny amount. In 1914, the mean sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour was 1.11 metres. In 2014, 100 years later, it was 1.12 metres—one centimetre, 10 millimetres. That is natural variation.
The next lie is that the polar ice is melting. In Antarctica there will always be an area of unusual warming associated with underground volcanos and hot springs, of which the Earth has thousands. Pressure builds up and they let off heat. They melt the ice above, and then they go dormant again. In 2009, John Kerry predicted, ‘In five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free arctic summer.’ It didn’t happen, along with the other failed scares. The arctic ice cap floats and moves with natural varying wind and ocean current directions. In fact, after 40 years of unprecedented man-made global boiling, there’s more Antarctic sea ice now than there was 40 years ago.
It’s time to acquit carbon dioxide. The great climate scam is about submitting to the world’s predatory billionaires delivering up our agriculture, transport, energy, manufacturing and industrial base, food, and property rights in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it’s just greed—less for you and more for them—and it’s control.
One Nation saw through this scam in 1996, and we’ve opposed the agenda ever since. We have opposed the $200 billion wasted so far on net zero measures. Bloomberg now puts the cost of completing Australia’s transition to net zero, including the electrification of cars, homes and appliances, at $1.9 trillion. That’s a terrifying figure. The few hundred billion dollars spent so far have added so much to our electricity costs that bills are doubling or tripling. The pain is only just starting.
The lie that solar and wind are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supported with evidence. To the contrary—the more solar and wind are added to the grid, the dearer our electricity becomes. The reason is simple. While the wind and sun are free, wind turbines, solar panels, back-up batteries, 15,000 kilometres of extra transmission lines and access roads are very expensive to make, transport, install and maintain. While a modern coal or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and back-up batteries only last 15. The $1.9 trillion will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more.
Enough of this madness, this fraud. If elected, One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change, all their related agencies and programs, including all net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, forming part of One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will return billions of dollars a year into the pockets of homeowners and businesses, making everything you buy cheaper and more affordable. That’s how to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will end the net zero scam.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6Fm6hxCuLOY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-03-13 17:50:452025-03-13 17:50:49Net Zero is Robbing Your Wallet
