Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Australia’s Infrastructure Death by Labor’s Secretive Cuts

,

The Albanese government is deliberately opposing my motion to disclose the infrastructure review it’s using to justify slashing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of critical infrastructure projects around Australia. These projects include dams for towns and agriculture, transportation and visionary nation-building projects.  These cuts will impact critical areas where investment is necessary, all while sending substantial funds to the United Nations and Tedros the Terrorist at the WHO. 

Australia requires productive infrastructure to cultivate its competitive and productive edge, reducing its dependence on other nations that purchase our raw materials, like iron ore, for steel and other construction materials. Why should we export raw materials only to buy back finished goods instead of manufacturing the entire product domestically? Australia possesses all the necessary resources to achieve self-reliance, lacking only a government with common sense to facilitate it. 

How many more instances must we uncover before this Labor government reveals the secrets it’s concealing from Australian taxpayers? Australians deserve the transparency and accountability they were promised, and the infrastructure that this country badly needs.

Transcript

The Albanese government is making secret cuts to infrastructure projects. Twice now the Senate has passed my motion, forcing the government to hand over the full infrastructure review that they used to justify cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in projects. Twice, the government has opposed transparency and accountability about its secret infrastructure cuts. How many more times will the Labor government keep secrets from Australian taxpayers? 

This is the Labor review that concluded the Emu Swamp dam at Stanthorpe should be cancelled. Only three years ago, this southern Queensland town was in severe drought and ran dry. They had to cart in millions of litres of water by truck just to survive. Up to 50 trucks carted water hundreds of kilometres every day for 15 months. On what basis did the Labor government conclude Stanthorpe doesn’t deserve a dam? We might never know. The government has so far refused to hand over the review that justifies the decision. If Stanthorpe doesn’t have water, Stanthorpe will die. The Labor government needs to answer why they believe Stanthorpe should be left to die in the next drought. It has literally been hung out to dry. One Nation will keep fighting for those answers and we will fight for more dams across Queensland. What we need in Australia is productive infrastructure to build our competitive advantage—our productive competitiveness. We need dams that agriculture can use to boom. We need cheap power, from which the entire economy will benefit. We need functional roads that don’t have potholes big enough to destroy a car’s suspension. 

Australia needs visionary, nation-building projects—infrastructure projects like the Iron Boomerang. Right now, every year, we send 900 million tonnes of iron ore and 360 million tonnes of coal overseas. We ship it overseas. Those are two essential ingredients to making steel, which we largely import. We put that dirt on a boat, places like China buy it, they turn it into steel, they make things like unproductive wind turbines out of the steel, they put them on a boat and they ship the wind turbines back to Australia in the form of steel, where our dopey government buys it off them. 

We should let private enterprise build the Iron Boomerang track linking our iron ore and coalmines, so we can make the steel right here in this country. The government doesn’t even have to build Iron Boomerang. They just have to promise they won’t get in the way, and then private money will pay for it. That money is already knocking on the door. These are the kinds of nation-building infrastructure projects that would be on the horizon if One Nation had our way. We certainly wouldn’t be cutting productive infrastructure, like dams, in secret as the Labor government is doing. Before all of that we need accountable and transparent government. Labor continues to prove it will never be transparent. Their secret infrastructure cuts are just the latest example of a government that’s afraid of explaining itself to the voters.  

/4 Comments/by

The Great Barrier Reef Is Not Dying

,

I spoke on Green Senator Whish-Wilson’s motion that the Great Barrier Reef is dying — again. This fear-mongering is used to justify the exorbitant amount of money being transferred from hardworking Australians to parasitic billionaires promising to “fix” the climate. Coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef is a natural cycle. Media and politicians are exaggerating the extent of damage to the reef and in so doing, they are causing economic harm to businesses that rely on tourism for their survival.

Human civilisation and the environment are not mutually exclusive and industrial progress, supported by hydrocarbon fuels, has actually benefited the environment by reducing reliance on resources like whale oil and timber. If the Greens want a real environmental cause, they should campaign against the wind turbines that are being built across northern Queensland, which involves blowing the tops off mountains and permanently destroying the natural environment.

This is more than just aesthetics. Green energy is creating sediment that is full of arsenic, which has been locked away in the rocks for millennia. This runoff flows through underground aquifers and ends up in the ocean, poisoning the reef. The Greens are silent on this vandalism to our natural environment and make up rubbish stories about the reef so that they can “pretend” they are an environmental party.

One Nation protects the natural environment – Greens destroy it!

Transcript

Once again those who worship the sky god of global boiling are using their religion to scare the public into holding the line on the great climate boiling scam. Is it still global boiling or have we now moved to global scalding? This fearmongering, this scaring, as I’ve been explaining for many years, involves taking money from hardworking Australians and giving it to parasitic billionaires to fix the climate. 

Senator Whish-Wilson’s latest motion reheats an old, debunked scare: the Great Barrier Reef is dying. In 2016 the Washington Post ran an article titled ‘”And then we wept”: Scientists say 93 percent of the Great Barrier Reef now bleached’. In 2022 the Washington Post ran an article titled, in part, ‘Great Barrier Reef has the most coral in decades’. In 2024 they ran an article titled ‘Fatal heatwave strikes unspoiled swath of Great Barrier Reef’. It went on to say: 

Water temperature data suggests the toll of this event could approach that of 2016, when some 30% of the reef’s corals died after suffering through what were then unprecedented levels of heat stress. 

Can’t they see it’s cyclical? 

Hang on. Wasn’t that 93 per cent? No. That’s just the mainstream media scare figure used at the time to appease their owners: the same predatory billionaires that profit from the global boiling scam. It was never an accurate figure, never credible, yet the Greens repeatedly peddled it. 

In summary, the reef had a serious bleaching event in 2016, and within a few years the coral extent was back to normal. By the way: the first scientifically recorded bleaching was in 1926. Scientific records show that bleaching has been a natural part of the Great Barrier Reef cycles and other reef cycles for millennia. That is fact. This is not some esoteric discussion. These Chicken Little claims from the Greens have consequences. Scare stories about the reef dying cause tourists, including international tourists, to cancel their holidays on the Great Barrier Reef, destroying livelihoods in Great Barrier Reef communities on the Queensland east coast. People instead go to a country where the politicians are not scaring off the tourists. Jobs are lost every time the Greens use the Great Barrier Reef as a political football. There’s not even any science behind their claims. 

At times the reef can be a naturally fragile ecosystem. We know that. Certain naturally occurring events can impact it. The greatest danger for the barrier reef is flooding. Tropical cyclones dump fresh water into a river catchment system that carries rainwater hundreds of kilometres onto the Great Barrier Reef. Freshwater plumes kill saltwater coral polyps, and the event is declared a bleaching event—all natural, all cyclical, quite common. 

What did we have three months ago in Queensland? A severe flood event—entirely natural. What do we have now? Coral bleaching—entirely natural. Don’t take my word for it. Please read James Cook University’s article titled ‘Back-to-back cyclones and flood plume impacts on the Great Barrier Reef’, which confirmed freshwater coral bleaching was recorded along the reef. 

Now the climate boiling scammers are trying to blame this on natural climate variability, so let me give you the inconvenient truth about that. I want you to reference the study titled ‘Great Barrier Reef study shows how reef copes with rapid sea level-rise’ from the University of Sydney website. I’ll publish the link. To quote from the study: 

Using unprecedented analysis of 12 new drilled reef cores with data going back more than 8,000 years, the study shows that there have been three distinct phases of reef growth since the end of the Pleistocene era about 11,000 years ago. 

It goes on to say: 

‘We wanted to understand past reef resilience to multiple environmental stresses during the formation of the modern reef,’ said the lead author Kelsey Sanborn, a PhD student at the School of Geosciences at the University of Sydney. 

It continues: 

The study was an international collaboration published in Sedimentary Geology, which revealed a period around 8,000 and 7,000 years ago when the reef growth slowed as it was exposed to multiple stressors, including likely increases in sediment and nutrient flux on the reef. 

I wonder what could cause the sediment and nutrient flux that damaged the reef 8,000 years ago. Well, it can’t be coal fired power stations, it can’t be internal combustion engines or people living in freestanding homes on quarter-acre blocks, and it certainly couldn’t have been air travel. What could it be? Of course, I have it, eating meat! That’s it! If the local Aboriginal population had just stopped eating red meat and instead grew soybeans, those tropical storms would not have dumped nutrient-rich floodwaters onto the reef. 

Study co-author Associate Professor Jody Webster said: 

We need to understand the past in order to predict the future. This paper and Kelsey’s broader research examine how sea level, surface temperature, sediment in the water, nutrient influx and energy inputs into the reef system affect its vulnerability to environmental change. 

It goes on: 

The reef system survives because of a delicate balance these environmental factors. 

All natural.  

Whenever the balance of the reef is disturbed, a bleaching event occurs. It’s entirely natural. It’s in a symbiotic relationship with other organisms. There’s no doubt that when an unusually hot day corresponds to an unusually low tide, the reef will bleach, and it will bleach from a cyclone event and many other disturbances. That reminds me, I went scuba diving with some media off Keppel Island. We said, ‘See the corals recovering from a cyclone.’ The journalist said, ‘But you haven’t seen the real bleaching a thousand kilometres north.’ There was a thousand kilometres of reef between where we were, with the healthy reef, and their claimed bleaching event. They just ignore the healthy reef. 

For the Greens to use mother nature to promote their climate change scam is wrong—it’s utterly wrong. For reef researchers to pretend reef damage is due to climate boiling and then ask for more money to research climate change is wrong. It’s dishonest and it’s scientific fraud. The truth is that the ocean is warmed primarily from the sun, with a secondary contribution from geothermal activity—fact. The atmosphere—the thing being blamed for heating up and bleaching the reef—only warms the top millimetre or so of the ocean surface. That’s not enough to cause any harm and, by the way, we can see that in the seasonal impact. 

The climate boiling scammers can blame their sky god of warming all they like. They can demand large homes, big cars, aeroplanes, cattle, sheep, clothing, cheap power and so much more be sacrificed on the altar of their climate boiling beliefs. Saying a lie does not make the claimed science real. Repeating a lie doesn’t make the claimed science real. Our weather patterns are normal—entirely natural—and so are the patterns on the reef.  

If the Greens want to be useful, they should campaign against wind turbines—the installation of which requires whole tops of mountains being blown off mountains across northern Queensland right now, disturbing sediment and arsenic that flow through underground aquifers and winds up on the Great Barrier Reef, making these natural flood events even worse. One Nation care about the natural environment because we value the natural environment. That’s just one of the many reasons why we oppose wind turbines in pristine bushland and, for that matter, near human beings. We oppose industrial solar on farmland and on bushland. We oppose national parks being carved up for power lines, especially the Snowy 2.0 abomination. And we oppose land clearing of old-growth forests for any purpose, including grazing. One Nation is now the party of true environmentalism. And the Greens? Well, they’re the party of promoting the political agendas and the pockets of parasitic billionaires over the best interests of the natural environment. The Greens peddle the United Nations World Economic Forum’s antihuman agenda, which is in turn based on a lie—a false assumption. That lie, that false assumption, is that human civilisation and the environment are mutually exclusive. That is the opposite of reality. 

The reality is that, for human civilisation to have a future, we must have a healthy natural environment. History over the last 170 years shows that the health of the environment depends on human civilisation because industrial civilisation minimises human impact on the natural environment. What has human civilisation produced that is so beneficial for the environment? High-energy, low-cost, ultrareliable hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, humans needed whale oil for lighting, killing whales. Before these hydrocarbon fuels, heating and cooking needed timber from chopped down trees. The area of land in the developed continents covered by forest over the last 100 years has increased by 30 per cent because we’re no longer chopping down trees to cook and to heat. The best friend of whales and the best friend of forests is hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. 

As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I cherish human progress. I cherish human flourishing. I cherish hydrocarbon fuels: coal, oil and natural gas. I admire human progress and human initiative. I appreciate human progress. 

/4 Comments/by

Australians Need Houses First!

,

In the middle of a housing crisis, why are we handing out hundreds of thousands of visas?

During Question Time, I asked Minister Watt about the number of homes that are required to house the 549,000 people who arrived on permanent visas in 2023, as well as the number of schools and hospitals that will be needed over the next five years to accommodate these new arrivals.

Minister Watt sidestepped my questions and instead underscored the government’s efforts to tackle migration-related challenges, notably reforms to the international student visa system. He once more criticized opposition parties for obstructing housing-related legislation and emphasised the government’s investments in health and education.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, what is the number of homes required to house the 549,000 people who arrived on permanent visas in 2023? How many houses? 

Senator WATT: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your question. I know you asked a very similar question last week, and, as I pointed out to you last week, it is understood and expected that migration levels in Australia have peaked, that they peaked in 2022-23, and they are forecast to drop in half by next year. That is as a direct result of the changes made by the Albanese government to particularly to tackle the rorts that were occurring in the international student visa system that we inherited from the former government. The changes we made late last year are already having a significant and immediate impact, with student visa grants down by more than 35 per cent on last year’s level. 

We are obviously strong supporters of the international education system. It’s a very important export industry for Australia. It provides a wide range of benefits to Australia and the countries from which students come. But the reality is that the system unfortunately was being rorted by a number of companies and that needed to be tackled. It wasn’t tackled by the former government, but we are tackling it and that is having an effect. 

Senator ROBERTS, one of the things I also pointed out to you last week was that it’s a little bit ironic getting a question from a One Nation senator, a coalition senator or, at times, a Greens party senator about what this government is doing about housing numbers, because what we have seen over and over again is a coalition between the Liberals, the Nationals, One Nation and the Greens party teaming up to block action on housing by the Albanese Labor government. We saw it with the Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator ROBERTS, if you were actually sincere in your concern, you would have voted for the Housing Australia Future Fund to build more homes. If you were sincere in your concerns, you would be voting for the help-to-buy legislation that we’re currently trying to get through this parliament but which is being blocked again by the Greens party, One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what is the number of schools and hospitals required over the next five years to meet the needs of these 549,000 new permanent arrivals last year? How many schools and hospitals—a number, please? 

Senator WATT: It obviously stands to reason that Australia does need more hospitals and more schools in order to deal with a growing population, whether that be a population growing through natural increase or a population growing through migration. Again, Senator Roberts, we are trying to tackle 10 years of under-investment by a coalition government in our health system and in our education system. That’s why Minister Jason Clare has only just recently reached agreements with a number of states and territories to increase education funding to them and why, through National Cabinet in the last few months, the Prime Minister has reached agreements with the premiers about increased funding for health care across Australia. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! 

Senator Henderson interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator Henderson! 

Senator WATT: We know that 10 years of coalition government, propped up by One Nation, saw underinvestment in health care, underinvestment in hospitals, underinvestment in our schools— 

Senator Henderson interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Henderson, I called for order and I called you personally. I would ask you to come to order and stop being disrespectful. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, one of these days you and your colleague, Senator Hanson, might like to back in a government that’s actually delivering on health and education. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, planning for immigration requires planning for the houses, schools, hospitals, transport, food and drinking water that new arrivals need. We won’t let you dump 2.3 million long-stay arrivals on the states and then wash your hands of them. This is the second time this sitting I’ve asked for the numbers and the second time you have failed to provide them. If you have them, please provide them. If you don’t have them then clearly this government is not up to the job of running Australia. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, for starters, I would take issue with your description of migrants as people who are dumped on the community. I think that is an offensive way to describe the contribution of millions of Australians who come from a migrant background. 

Senator ROBERTS interjecting— 

Senator WATT: It’s not funny, Senator Roberts. It’s not funny to talk about dumping people or people being dumped. 

The PRESIDENT: I’ll come to you, Senator Roberts. Minister, when answering the question, please direct your answers to the Chair. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: On a point of order: I’m not laughing at immigrants. I am laughing at the minister.  

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order. Minister Watt.  

Senator WATT: I think that is especially the case now that Australia—I think the figures are approximately one in two Australians is either born overseas or their parents are born overseas. We know migrants make a great contribution to our country. The reality is, though, that as a result of the increase in migration after the pandemic and as a result of the rorts in the international student system that were left behind by the coalition, action did need to be taken and that is what we’re doing. But what we’re also doing is investing in the houses that Senator Roberts and his colleagues in the Liberal-National Party and, most of all, the Greens party want to keep blocking. If you want more housing, there is a really simple thing you can do: vote with Labor for more housing, instead of always opposing it. 

/5 Comments/by

Disinformation From Labor on Nuclear Energy Costs

,

The Labor Albanese Government is destroying proven, low-cost coal power plants under the guise of “retiring them” and replacing this stable, secure, safe and affordable power with land-grabbing solar and wind installations which are proven now to be unreliable, environmentally-damaging and expensive.

If Labor’s ideology means that it won’t consider new generation coal, which China and other countries are busy putting in place, then why doesn’t it consider the nuclear option? Is it so blinkered that it refuses to see the data from around the world which demonstrates nuclear as a proven reliable, stable, secure, safe, environmentally-responsible and affordable source of power?

Why is Labor being dishonest about this? Are the solar schemes and subsidies so important to their mates that they would sell out the regular working Australian families for their mates at the WEF? What happened to the party of the workers?

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. The government has ruled out adding nuclear electricity to our energy mix based on the government’s calculations showing a higher cost of nuclear energy as against wind and solar. Minister, can you please inform the Senate of the levelised cost of generation of wind, solar and nuclear that informed the government’s position? 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will just remind you that questions need to go to ministers, not assistant ministers, so I’m directing the question to Minister Gallagher. 

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): Thank you for the question. The advice the government has—and I think this is understood by everyone who’s been following the energy discussion—is that nuclear energy is very slow to build. It’s the most expensive form of new electricity generation. It cannot beat renewables, which are the cheapest, fastest and cleanest form of new electricity generation. The analysis that was done showed that there was a significant cost burden. Our position is about cost. We are looking for the cheapest form of energy generation, which is renewables, which includes wind and solar. Australia obviously has a very significant comparative advantage when it comes to that form of energy, with more sunlight hitting our landmass than any other country. We also don’t have a workforce to support that nuclear energy generation. So the time involved means it would be decades before anything became operational and it would do nothing to reduce the energy costs for Australian households and businesses in the meantime. 

So our position—and I think there is a lot of support for that position—is that this transition to renewable energy is the quickest and cheapest path as we shift away from fossil fuel generation. That is the path that the government was clear about before the election. That is the path that we are implementing under Minister Bowen’s and Minister McAllister’s leadership, leading for the government, and we will continue on that path. We will leave the nuclear energy debate for those opposite to convince people of. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is the figure for nuclear based on real-world data from the 440 nuclear power stations around the world or even from the last 10 stations completed in the last few years? If not, on what is it based? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I understand it—and I will see if there’s anything I can provide—the government analysis that looked at the cost of nuclear energy was looking at how to replace the retiring coal-fired power station fleet. That figure resulted in about a $25,000 cost impost on each Australia taxpayer, based off 15.1 million taxpayers. So, according to many of the experts in the energy field, it’s more expensive, going to take decades to build and, in the meantime, will do nothing to reduce the power costs of households, which are clearly going to benefit from the shift to renewable energy generation and technology. That is the path the government will continue on because we are focused on cost of living and a sensible and orderly transition away from fossil fuels to new forms of energy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The government is using a figure for the cost of modular nuclear power that’s not based on any real-world data. Rather, it is mere speculation about a type of generation that doesn’t exist. 

Government senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order on my right! 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order, Senator McKim! Senator Roberts has the right to ask his question in silence, and I will ask senators to respect that right. 

Senator ROBERTS: The government’s data is based on speculation about a type of generation that does not exist and completely misrepresents the cost of nuclear power. The government is spreading misinformation again. Minister, why didn’t the government use the real-world data from 57 conventional nuclear power stations currently under construction around the world, and why is the government not being honest about nuclear? (Time expired) 

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept the question that Senator Roberts has put to me. We are providing information to the community, and that information is that renewables remain the lowest-cost new-build generation technology. That is clearly a fact. 

We have also done some analysis, and I think you will find it hard to find any expert that says nuclear isn’t expensive or isn’t going to take too long to build, including how you generate a workforce around this and the time it will take to do that based on the work that we need to happen now. We can’t delay this for decades. The transition was already delayed for a decade under those opposite, with 22 failed energy policies. In 18 months we have been getting on with it. We are in that transition. We will focus on renewables as the lowest-cost form of energy generation that will help households with those cost-of-living pressures. (Time expired) 

/15 Comments/by

Speaking in Support of Community TV

,

Community TV provides a vital service to small business, to communities, and to developing future workers in the broader TV & Radio sector. It provides a training ground for emerging talent and provides programmes with heart. If it didn’t exist, we wouldn’t have this ‘free’ hands-on training ground for students.

Across refreshingly propaganda-free community television and radio, 17,000 volunteers and almost 1,000 employees generate $250 million in value each year. The federal government contributes $43 million each year towards the cost, or rather, the taxpayers do. I wish more recipients of government (taxpayer) funding demonstrated such a positive return on investment.

The bipartisan approach of the Lib-Lab Uniparty is jeopardising the future of Community TV. Why? Because mainstream TV desires the viewership, and telecommunication companies covet the bandwidth.

Welcome to Australia, where the power lies in the hands of foreign shareholders of television and telecommunication companies. If the government genuinely intended to counter the powerful financial sway of telecommunication and broadcast companies, it would have supported my amendment, which sought a guarantee that Community TV would always have free-to-air bandwidth.

The impending digital restack will involve moving broadcast television channels closer together to free up a sizable, contiguous band section of bandwidth, which will then be sold to telecommunication companies. Taxpayers stand to make over a billion dollars from the sale, while telecommunication companies will profit significantly more.

Community TV is likely to disappear permanently due to the interests of telecommunication companies and mainstream mouthpiece media.

Transcript

One Nation supports the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Community Television) Bill 2024. Across community television and radio, 17,000 volunteers and almost 1,000 employees generate $250 million in value each year, every year. The federal government contributes $43 million towards the cost—or, I should say, the taxpayers do. I wish there were more recipients of government funding—taxpayer funding—with that good a return on investment. 

In 2017, the national network of community TV stations was attracting more than one million unique viewers a week. Top programs were attracting 400,000 viewers, including off-peak repeats in the week of release. In 2024, those ratings would rank in the top 20 of free-to-air and cable shows. That’s why Malcolm Turnbull destroyed community TV, moving channels off free to air to an online model where a commercial business plan was impossible, thus returning a million viewers a week to commercial television, which was suffering from falling ratings and advertising revenue. Channel 31 and C44 in Adelaide resisted and were saved as a result of work by One Nation and the Greens. Ratings on free-to-air television have fallen since 2017 in terms of the percentage of available screens because mainstream television is mostly absolute rubbish, completely lacking in the creativity and anarchy that attracted such a large and loyal following to stations like C31. Community TV is at times weird and wonderful. Programs with heart and soul have been replaced with commercial programs devoid of those very qualities. 

The small cost of community TV must be considered in the wider context. Community TV provides a training ground for talent, scriptwriters, make-up artists, producers, directors, sound and lighting. The former TVS in Sydney was based out of the University of Western Sydney school of media in Kingswood, offering students both theoretical and practical tuition. C31 is based out of RMIT in Melbourne. The now closed C31 in Brisbane included programming using students from the Queensland University of Technology. Mainstream television look for graduates of community television when hiring staff. If community TV did not exist then the taxpayers would be on the hook for vocational education training places to teach those skills.  

As a result of the closure of all states except Melbourne and Adelaide, small businesses across the country have been deprived of the opportunity to access advertising on broadcast television. Many brands have grown their business and community TV and now find advertising on commercial TV is unaffordable. Often small business can’t even get a TV advertising salesman to return their calls.  

This legislation, which extends C31 and C44 licences into the future is welcome. Yet it’s half a solution. Community TV deserves to get their broadcast rights back in the upcoming digital television restack promise for 2024 and now apparently some years away, so it’ll survive for a while. The restack will involve moving our broadcast and television channels closer together to free up a large contiguous section of bandwidth that would then be sold off to telcos. The taxpayers will make north of $1 billion out of the sale; telcos will make much much more.  

There we have it. Community TV is likely to disappear permanently because the interests of mainstream mouthpiece media and telcos have aligned against it. Mainstream TV want the viewers; telcos want the bandwidth. Welcome to Australia where the power is in the hands of foreign shareholders of television and telecommunication companies, and everyday Australians just don’t matter. Our kids are getting free hands-on tuition in television production does not seem to matter. Having a channel that doesn’t offer propaganda and prurient rubbish doesn’t seem to matter.  

It’s disappointing that Minister Rowland declined to support my second reading amendment, which I had intended to foreshadow to guarantee bandwidth for community TV in the upcoming digital restack. I understand the argument the government is using. There’s an inquiry into the future of free-to-air broadcasting—also called over-the-top broadcasting. Committing to community TV now though does get ahead of the inquiry findings. But, so what? If there was any real intention on the part of the government to go against the powerful financial influence of telcos and broadcast stations, the government would have supported my amendment.  

The government, sadly, is not prepared to guarantee one tiny little bit of bandwidth for community TV. One Nation is prepared to make that guarantee because we are not beholden to the foreign predatory billionaires and their wealth funds. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I urge community TV and radio to continue broadcasting. As the people’s media, you perform a vital service. Thank you.  

/3 Comments/by

Labor’s Failures in Immigration and Security

,

The recent admission by Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, that the Labor government has lost control of Australia’s borders is deeply troubling. A government’s primary responsibility is to ensure the security of its citizens and this revelation is a national disgrace.

It seems that the government has ceded control of our borders to the courts. The hasty release of dangerous criminals into the community following a High Court decision last year was a direct consequence of this failure to prepare.

Labor’s mismanagement is further underscored by the recent statistics from the ABS, revealing a record influx of 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals in January 2024 alone. This represents a 40% increase over the previous January record, placing immense strain on infrastructure and services.

This government’s actions that include reissuing visas to released detainees – murderers, rapists and child sex offenders – demonstrate a profound inability to govern effectively and responsibly. Labor has proven itself untrustworthy and incapable of fulfilling its duties to the Australian people.

Transcript

On immigration, this government is lost. Its failure to prepare for the anticipated High Court NZYQ decision last year enabled the rushed and ill-considered release of dangerous criminals from detention straight into the community. With no backup plan, Labor lurches from one disaster to another. Labor issued invalid visas to the released criminals. Labor charged at least 10 of those criminals for breaching visa conditions. Labor were forced to withdraw the charges because the visas were invalid. Labor then reissued new visas to all released detainees, including murderers, rapists and child sex offenders. It now appears that potentially another 150 criminal detainees will soon be released into the community without appropriate safeguards. Some detainees maintain that, if they do not cooperate with deportation processes, they cannot be deported and should be released into the community. 

The revelation from the Minister for Home Affairs, Clare O’Neil, over the weekend that the Labor government has lost control of our borders is a national disgrace. A government’s principal role is to provide security for its citizens, and the minister’s admission is terrifying and absolutely damning. It appears that the government has relinquished to the courts the power over our borders. 

Most recently, two boatloads of illegal immigrants made it to our shores, getting past border security, making a mockery of national security. There was the rushed issue of visas to Palestinian refugees from Gaza, some visas taking only an hour or so to issue. What about the cancellation of the visas in transit, then the reissue of most of the visas? This is a hopelessly inept government trying to look good, not do good. ABS statistics for January reveal a staggering 125,410 permanent and long-term arrivals. Accounting for departures, the net growth in permanent and long-term arrivals in January was 55,330, 40 per cent higher than the previous January record intake way back in 2009, putting enormous strain on infrastructure and services. This Labor government does not know how to govern. This Labor government cannot be trusted. 

/6 Comments/by

Conflicts of Interest in War Crime Handling

,

Defence senior leadership has failed to hold any senior officers accountable, instead choosing to throw soldiers under the bus.

Once again, we have secrecy and a lack of accountability from Defence and from this Labor government. Freedom of Information responses have revealed as much and we will continue to dig further.

Listen to my remarks here, which reveal the conflicts of interest within the paper trail. We reminded the Minister that a Senate Order is not something to be complied with or not complied with at your leisure.

We will continue to pursue this report.

Transcript

I speak in response to order for the production of documents No. 474. This document deals with a panel supervising Defence’s conduct in responding to the Brereton report. In a chain of freedom of information requests, every quarterly report of the panel was released, yet the final report was refused in its entirety. Before the final report was rejected, the last quarterly report was released in Defence Freedom of Information 500/23/24. In section 10 of that quarterly report, on page 6 of the release, the oversight panel foreshadows that their final report would be prepared and provided to Defence in September 2023. The panel met with Defence on ‘factual accuracy, clarity, sensitivity and classification’ of the report. Defence confirmed there was no information within the report requiring a security classification. The panel then stated: 

It will therefore be open to you— 

Defence Minister Marles— 

… to table that report in the Parliament … 

While the panel does not specifically mention prejudice in that report, it would appear strange if they had cleared the final report with Defence only for some highly prejudicial information that justifies defying an order of the Senate to make it past the goalkeeper. 

The final report was then provided to Deputy Prime Minister or Defence Minister Marles on or around 8 November 2023. On 19 February 2024, the Defence department refused freedom of information request 577/23/24 for this final report that the Senate has now ordered the government to table. Under the Freedom of Information Act, an exemption to disclose on the basis of prejudice must be made under section 37. There was no mention of section 37 or prejudice in the freedom of information refusal. The only ground mentioned was section 47C(1), deliberative process. The minister, in response to the Senate order, said there’s prejudicial information in this document, yet the freedom of information decision does not mention any prejudicial information. 

Before we even get to arguing about the merits of the freedom of information refusal, I will point out that there was an unacceptable conflict of interest for the person making that decision. The refusal was signed by Catherine Wallis. Wallis is the director-general of the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force. The Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel is meant to be reviewing whether the Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force is properly doing their job. The taskforce is internal to Defence, while the panel is meant to be an independent external supervisor. We have the panel creating the final report on whether the taskforce has failed to do its job and then the director-general of the taskforce making the decision to keep this report card a secret. Even worse, in refusing the request, the director-general did not include that position as part of her signature. Wallis had included her full title—Director-General, Afghanistan Inquiry Response Task Force—just days earlier in a separate FOI decision. In refusing the FOI on this panel report, that title in her signature line had magically disappeared. 

The avenue to make a complaint about this conflict of interest is messy. The NAAC, the National Anti-Corruption Commission, is headed by Paul Brereton. Major-General Paul Brereton, as he was at the time, wrote the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force Afghanistan inquiry report that started this whole episode, of which the oversight panel has been critical. The Deputy Prime Minister and part-time defence minister attended the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and was asked about this final report. When the commission asked Minister Miles if the report we’re talking about here would be released before the royal commission was over, the minister answered that he was still thinking about it. There was no mention of prejudicial criminal proceedings, just deliberation. 

The minister has claimed he’s been advised there’s prejudicial information in this final report. The panel says it’s been cleared with Defence. The FOI refusal makes no mention of prejudice. The minister did not mention prejudice to the royal commission. The question is: from where did this advice appear? It smells like a delaying tactic. To be frank, I don’t believe the claim of prejudice is genuine. Yet it may be, and for that reason we’ve lodged freedom of information requests with the Office of the Special Investigator and with the Department of Defence as to when they advised the minister that this report would be prejudicial. 

We would expect the minister to provide much more detail on this claim of prejudice before we would even think of accepting it. We remind the minister that a Senate order is not something to be complied with at his leisure. We will pursue this report, which outlines how Defence senior leadership has failed to hold any senior officers accountable while throwing soldiers under the bus. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. 

Leave granted; debate adjourned. 

/2 Comments/by

The World Health Organisation is About to Act Illegally – Again

,

At the end of May, at the annual World Health Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) votes on amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR). Supported by Australia, the United States’ proposal was for 80 pages of changes that would turn the WHO into the world health police — 80 pages!

The WHO proposed egregious powers, including the ability to mandate vaccinations, medical procedures, lockdowns and border closures, and to detain individuals without due process. And yes, Australia really supported that. However, other nations are rightly now pushing back and as a result, the proposal has been watered down and the regulations are likely to remain advisory.

The WHO faces a dilemma: its constitution and its own IHR prohibit the vote. According to Schedule 2, Article 55 of the IHR, all matters subject to a vote must be circulated four months in advance. With only two months remaining, a Department of Health Freedom of Information request (FOI No. 4941) reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement to provide advance notification to allow member nations time to debate and make decisions has not been met and CANNOT be met at this stage.

Additionally, Article 21 of the WHO’s constitution specifies that the regulations can only cover international measures. Their constitution does not provide for expanding IHR to cover our own Australian domestic health response, such as the closure of state borders.

The scheduled May 2024 vote is not only contrary to the WHO’s constitution, but also proposes a scope outside its constitution.

I urge the Australian Government not to participate in an illegal vote. Instead, it should use its influence to ask the WHO to complete the changes first and then provide all members the required four-month notice of an Extraordinary World Health Assembly, specifically for the purpose of debating and voting on these changes.

The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation.

Transcript

At the end of May, at the annual world health assembly, the World Health Organization, WHO, votes on amendments to the national health regulations. The United States’ proposal that Australia supported was for 80 pages of changes that would turn WHO into the world health police—80 pages! It proposed egregious powers to force vaccinations, force medical procedures, force lockdowns and border closures, and allow detention without due process. Yes, Australia really supported that. Nations are rightly now pushing back. The proposal has been watered down and the regulations will likely remain advisory. 

Here is the World Health Organization’s problem: the World Health Organization’s constitution and its own international health regulations now prohibit the vote. Schedule 2, article 55 of the international health regulations requires all matters being voted to be circulated four months before. We are two months out and health department FOI No. 4941 reveals that the changes are still being worked out. The requirement for advance notification to allow member nations full-time in debate and decide has not been met and now cannot be met. Secondly, article 21 of the WHO’s constitution says the regulations can cover only international measures. The WHO constitution does not provide for expanding international health regulations to cover our own Australian domestic health response—for example, closing borders. May’s vote is contrary to the WHO’s constitution and proposes a scope outside the World Health Organization’s constitution. 

I asked the health minister to reconsider voting on the WHO changes because it will be challenged in the International Court of Justice under the new constitution’s article 75. This government wants to sign away more of our sovereignty and health decisions to the murdering rapists under WHO’s former terrorist leader, Tedros. The rule of law must apply to everyone, including the World Health Organisation. 

/21 Comments/by

Audit Needed on Closing the Gap Spending

,

I acknowledge the significant contributions Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians have made to Australia and highlighted the failure of the Closing the Gap initiative, with only 4 out of 17 targets being met, with some even worsening.

I recommended that resources should be directed straight to communities, bypassing the various entities within the Aboriginal Industry that thrive on perpetuating the Gap for their own benefit.

Despite receiving $4.5 billion for the 2022-23 year, the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) has little to show for it. It raises questions about where the money has gone.

I questioned why the Albanese government is refusing to conduct a full audit of government spending in this area. What are they trying to conceal?

Transcript

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are hugely talented in the NRL, the AFL, arts, business, science, sport and politics, with a higher proportion of Aboriginal people in the Federal Parliament than across Australia. I’ve driven to all Cape York communities twice and some three times. I’ve flown or boated into Torres Strait Island communities where people really care for each other, but government control removes meaning from life and suffocates that care. I have enormous faith in Aboriginal and Islander people. Why doesn’t the government? Aboriginal people are resilient after surviving Australia’s harsh environment for thousands of years. They don’t need mollycoddling. 

The Closing the gap annual report is clear—a total failure in closing the gap. Only four of 17 targets have been met or have achieved goals, and some gaps are actually worsening. Labor-Greens and Liberal-Nationals governments fail to listen to or meet people’s real needs. Patronising paternalism and top-down approaches suppress, torment and destroy Aboriginal people. In reporting to parliament on closing the gap, successive prime ministers and opposition leaders duck and weave, using broad, fluffy motherhood statements to portray vague, insincere aspirations devoid of data and specifics—lies. The governmental view that it knows best is clearly wrong.  

So where’s the solution? For the 2022-23 financial year, total resourcing for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, the NIAA, was $4.5 billion on programs. The result was rank failure. Where did the money go? This government continually refuses to audit government spending in this sector. Why? What’s being hidden from scrutiny? Last October in Senate estimates hearings, I asked whether money would be more effective if it went directly to Aboriginal communities. I meant it. The NIAA said that it sometimes allocates money to communities. I meant directly to communities, bypassing agencies for direct allocations to communities via a transparent, objective formula. 

When I travel across communities in Far North Queensland and the Northern Territory, listening to local Aboriginal people, it’s clear they know the answers. I was told that many, many activists, advocates, consultants, lawyers, academics, contractors and public servants rely on keeping the gap wide open, because they work the system, and their livelihoods depend on the program’s ongoing failure. They depend on the gap being maintained, not closed, to perpetuate the need for their roles and accompanying salaries. 

Reportedly, Mr Ian Trust chairs Empowered Communities, an Aboriginal organisation and alliance of 10 Aboriginal regions that lobbied hard for the opportunity to review funding decisions with government. In 2017, more than half of the funding considered was found to be duplication and misdirection. Of $1.98 million spent, $1 million was wasted. With sensible local representatives in charge, this model develops responsibility and ownership. Mr Trust supported the cashless debit card and objected to the Albanese government’s capricious decision to take it away without consulting the people. Despite extensive evidence of alcohol related harm to Aboriginal children, the McGowan Labor government ignored his calls for severe alcohol restrictions in his home town. Why won’t governments listen and learn? 

The Australian people spoke decisively when we overwhelmingly rejected the divisive Voice referendum 60-40. We, the people of Australia, do not want race to decide rights that should apply to all Australians, yet some states and territories are still actively considering introducing voices and/or treaties. That’s a big middle finger to the Australian people’s decision. South Australia’s One Nation MP, Sarah Game, is sponsoring a bill to repeal the South Australian voice legislation, which clearly has no public mandate. I applaud Sarah Game’s initiative. 

When will this government accept the advice from grassroots Aboriginal groups as to what does and does not work based on real-life experience and go beyond that to give communities real autonomy? It’s time that leeches and bureaucrats sucking on the teats of the Aboriginal industry realise that their time is up and that we’re coming for them. Senator Pauline Hanson opened this debate 27 years ago and remains at the fore of pushing for equitable treatment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, the same as for all Australians. Now in the Senate we have Senators Nampijinpa Price and Kerrynne Liddle joining us in speaking common sense and truth. 

The government needs to consider bypassing state and agency grants to fund communities directly to develop autonomy for real improvement. As a senator to the people of Queensland and Australia, I serve the people of Queensland and Australia. I support it as the quickest and most powerful way to develop responsibility, ownership and progress. This solution is based on autonomy, human community and responsibility being keys to closing the gap. 

Question agreed to. 

/13 Comments/by

One Nation is Proud to be a Populist Party

,

Senator Hanson recently spoke about record immigration and the human catastrophe this is causing to everyday Australians. The Australian newspaper described her words as ‘populist’. Among members of the news media, or commentariat, that label offers mythical protection, insulating them from having to actually discuss the issues we’re raising.

The commentariat may be interested in the definition of ‘populist’ being ‘a politician who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups’. Damn right!

The elites have been ignoring everyday Australians’ concerns for 50 years. Populist is exactly who we are in One Nation—a party that cares about everyday Australians and the financial, housing, social, and medical crisis now engulfing us.

I’m proud that One Nation talks with the people and listens to what they have to say. I’m proud One Nation votes in the best interest of Australians in parliament and I’m proud our supporters have the courage to stand up for what’s right.

This country might not be in such a dire state if other political parties in Parliament showed the same level of interest in the concerns of everyday Australians as One Nation does. Instead, they, along with the commentariat, seem to view the term ‘populist’ as a slur, as if it challenges their self-perceived superiority and arrogance.

I will continue to represent the interests of everyday Australians!

Transcript

Last week Senator Hanson spoke about record immigration and the human catastrophe it’s causing everyday Australians. The Australian newspaper described her words as ‘populist’. Among the commentariat, that label offers mythical protection, preventing them from having to actually discuss the issues we’re raising. The commentariat may be interested in the definition of ‘populist’ being ‘a politician who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups’. Damn right! The elites have been ignoring everyday Australians’ concerns for 50 years. Populist is exactly who we are in One Nation—a party that cares about everyday Australians and the financial, housing, social and medical crisis now engulfing us. 

I’m proud that One Nation talk with the people and listen to what people have to say. I’m proud One Nation votes in parliament for the best interest of Australians, and I’m proud our supporters have the courage to stand up for what’s right. This country would not be so far down the toilet if other parties in this place were as interested as One Nation is in the wants and needs of everyday Australians. Instead, they, like the commentariat, spit the word ‘populist’ from their mouths as if it were poison—as if it were an affront to their self-perceived superiority and arrogance. 

Such contempt for the word ‘populist’ comes from a deep-seated sense of superiority amongst inner-city elites and their champagne socialist ideology—socialists whose wealth insulates them and their ideologies from human outcomes. These are the people who eat the food and drink the wine grown on farms that the same champagne socialists demonise as enemies of their net zero revolution—farmers who they wish would get off their land to make way for solar panels, wind turbines and powerlines erected in the bush so city socialists don’t have to look at them. All the while, they pat themselves on the back about how worthy they are, under the hubris of their spiritual guide and leader, the World Economic Forum, which steals wealth and sovereignty from everyday Australians on behalf of globalist, parasitic billionaires. 

To them, it doesn’t matter that we Australians don’t want to have our cars taxed until we can no longer afford to keep them; be locked into 15-minutes cities; never again be allowed to travel where we want, when we want and how we want; be living in homes rented from the billionaires because land taxes forced us to give up our own homes; be forced to rent furniture and whitegoods because green taxes made it too expensive to buy; and be forced to eat bugs and forced give up red meat in favour of cancerlike fake meat cultured in bioreactors. Who owns the companies making this slop? It is the same billionaires campaigning against red meat. 

And what is the greatest threat of all? It is digital currency that comes with a use-by date. Spend every cent of the money you earn or your money expires. There’ll be no saving and no passing wealth on to our children. Australians will live in economic and physical slavery, except those wealthy and well connected under a different set of rules. 

When the commentariat dismiss us as populist, this is what they’re covering up. These people are the billionaires’ little minions—brainwashed ideologues and those simply greedy for money and power, operating in the bureaucracy, the media, corporations and parliaments around the world. Soviet Russia called these people the nomenklatura, and there’s evidence they’re in Australia, including here in this Senate. My words will be interpreted as some form of class warfare. Yes, they are. It was not One Nation, though, that started a war on working Australians. It will be One Nation that finishes it and wins it. 

Right now, fortunately, the public are waking to see the voice behind the curtain. The greed and ruthless self-interest are now obvious amongst the billionaires and the nomenklatura. This will not be an exercise in free will. You will be forced to comply. The elements of the control agenda are being shaped right now. 

The Digital ID Bill is on tomorrow’s Senate schedule. This bill ensures every Australian has a government-backed digital identity that must be shown to access daily services: transport; shopping; banking, including ATMs; the internet; and much more. If you’ve heard the phrase ‘papers, please’ in connection with totalitarian regimes and wondered how people accepted that, wonder no more. The legislation can be used to prevent troublesome populists like One Nation from being heard. 

The digital ID is paired with legislation previously passed through this parliament that allows government and business to scan everyday Australians’ faces in real time as we go about our business. The legislation that One Nation opposed yet the Senate passed allows police and any bureaucrat associated with penalties to determine your identity through a facial scan taken using your computer, your phone, your traffic cam, your street or shopping centre camera—even at supermarkets, which these days have more cameras than staff. The result is each Australian’s data history, which corporations are allowed to access. They will know everything about each of us, and this information will be traded to corporations and between corporations to build an even more detailed picture. Who is to blame for these tools of tyranny? Labor, the Greens, teal Senator Pocock and the globalist Liberals and Nationals. One Nation tried to pass an amendment to prevent this type of facial scanning yet the establishment parties voted our amendment down and out. They know this legislation’s real purpose is to extinguish populism so government can rule with total control. 

It was chilling last week to hear Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who graced business leaders with his thoughts on our future economy. The Treasurer believes Australia must become an ‘anti-fragile nation’ and invoked the philosophy of Nassim Nicholas Taleb—that strength and resilience emerge from confronting stress and disorder. The Treasurer said, ‘It is hard not to see the value in this idea.’ What may appear as a Treasurer trying to impress the big end of town with his pseudo-intellectual ‘wafflenomics’ on the nature of randomness is much, much more. The ‘non-fragile’ in that conversation means nothing the public can do, nothing the next ‘plandemic’ can do, will shape the total control held in the hands of government and their big business mates, the corporations. Nothing can and nothing will interfere with the flow of profit from everyday Australians into the pockets of the world’s predatory globalist billionaires. 

The Treasurer said ‘strength comes from confronting stress and disorder,’ which is a tenant of Communist political theory. To build a new world order one must first create chaos from which the public will beg to be rescued—climate fraud and fear, COVID panic and hysteria. We now see chaos in the housing market, in the food and cost-of-living crisis, in the hospital and medical crisis, in education and across social issues like the capture of language, and the erasure of women and gender. The Treasurer’s words were a frightening self-own. 

The government are not interested in solutions. They want chaos, to force the public to accept a loss of sovereignty and freedom in return for income, housing and false security. Many Australians are waking. Those who aren’t waking are running out of time. All that is needed to complete the suppression of opposition to this new tyranny is the misinformation and disinformation censorship bill that Minister Gallagher introduced. Free speech is the one thing preventing their plan from being complete, and the misinformation and disinformation censorship bill destroys speech.  

One Nation, being a proudly populist party will stick up for everyday Australians and oppose this control agenda. There is still hope. The internet is changing the ground rules, which is why they seek to control it. There is still time to sever the umbilical cord between the World Economic Forum and our parliament. Senator Hanson was right when she said last week ‘stop voting for parties that are deliberately making your lives harder. Stop voting for the Liberal and Labor uniparty. In the next election you have a choice: One Nation or tyranny. 

/4 Comments/by