Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

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

Happy Easter ✝️

,

As we stand on the brink of unprecedented challenges, it’s essential to reflect on the message of Easter.

The world may be in turmoil, but we must continue to strive towards a future of peace, prosperity and community. The farewell discourse from the Last Supper, though criticized by some, leaves us with an open ending and invites us to ponder our role in shaping a future as yet unwritten.

This Easter, I hope everyone can enjoy a well-deserved break with their families. Let’s use this ‘pause’ to strengthen our focus and objectivity, ensuring our story contributions are filled with peace, prosperity, and unity.

Transcript

In this week before Easter, I’m reminded of an old joke: Pontius Pilate said to Joseph, ‘I don’t understand, Joseph; you are a wealthy man and you have spent a fortune building a tomb for yourself and now you have given it to this pauper named Jesus,’ and Joseph replied, ‘It is only for the weekend.’ Easter weekend is upon us and the act of kindness from Joseph has endured for more than a weekend—for 2,000 years. Easter carries a message of rebirth, of starting over in the spirit of a God that forgives our transgressions while asking us through our actions to do better and to be better. John 14:27 records  

Jesus’s words at the Last Supper, the farewell discourse, as being: ‘Peace I leave with you, and the peace I give isn’t fragile like the peace the world gives. So don’t be troubled or afraid.’ All I can say is that Jesus got everything else correct; so I know he will again be right. Yet the world is on the brink of tribulations I have not lived through before and had hoped I never would experience. Some biblical scholars have criticised the farewell discourse as having been written too late after the event, leaving the ending of the discourse open. One would think that was the point. What is the ending? Will it be community and prosperity as we have enjoyed in this beautiful country for hundreds of years or will it be another Dark Ages, this time with the stain and stench of neo-feudalism, violence and immoral relativism, which is really just nihilism repackaged as woke agenda. Will those who think they are too smart for religion succeed in destroying real religions? That is the ending that was not made clear. How could it be? The ending has not been written and we can add just one part of it. 

I hope this Easter everyone has a nice break and, in the real world, with our families to strengthen our focus and objectivity, ensuring our contribution to the unwritten ending is peace, prosperity, family and community.  

/9 Comments/by

The Digital ID Will Change the Lives of Every Australian – For the Worse

,

As much as the Government attempts to downplay the importance of introducing a single central digital identifier for all Australians, the truth is that this legislation is the most significant I’ve encountered during my time in the Senate.

t’s the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition.

The government knows Digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a Digital ID.

The Digital ID will, in effect, create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts and associates containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as a first step in a wider agenda. Tech giants have been building huge data files on every Australian for years.

Those huge data files that contain every website you visited, every post you made on their social media, everything you have ever bought online. Keywords scanned from conversations overheard by Siri and Alexa in your home are now unmasked.

Until now, that data was anonymised using a unique identifier rather than name and address, which has always been there as well. However, tech companies were not allowed to use it or share data with others that included the person’s name and address. Until Now.

Look for the tech giants to ask for your Digital ID as a requirement of using their service. The point of that exercise is to ensure they put the right name on the right data treasure trove.

This is why the Liberal Party have moved amendments to the Digital ID Bill to bring private corporations into this roll out earlier. All those treasure troves of data worth billions, trillions, that have been accumulated for years illegally, by retailers, tech and data companies – all that unrealised profit just sitting there has been too much of a temptation for the Liberal Nationals to resist and is now joined with Labor in pushing Digital ID.

There will be no escape from the digital ID.

Australians now have a digital version of “papers please” and Australians will never be the same.

Transcript

Life is about to change for every Australian. As much as Senator Gallagher seeks to downplay the significance of introducing one central digital identifier for each and every Australian, the reality is that this is the most significant legislation I’ve seen in my time in the Senate. It’s the glue that holds together the digital control agenda by which every Australian will be controlled, corralled, exploited and then gagged when they speak or act in opposition.

The Digital ID Bill will be misused because this bill is written to be misused. The government knows that digital ID will be compulsory by the device of preventing access to government services, banking services, air travel and major purchases for any Australian who does not have a digital ID. The digital ID will, in effect, create a live data file of your movements, purchases, accounts and associates, containing reference to every piece of data being held in the private and government sector as the first step in a wider agenda. Google, Facebook and other tech giants have been building huge data files on every Australian for years. Those huge data files contain every website you’ve visited, every post you made on their social media and everything you have ever bought online, and the keyword scan from conversations overheard by Siri and Alexa in your home are now unmasked.

Until now, that data was anonymised using a unique identifier, rather than name and address, which has always been there as well. However, tech companies were not allowed to use it or to share data with others that included a person’s name and address—until now. Look for the tech giants to ask for your digital ID as a requirement of using their service. The point of that exercise is to ensure they put the right name on the right data treasure trove. It’s not just the tech giants heading into the data gold rush. Those reward cards you scan at the checkout have included terms and conditions to allow Coles and Woolies to make a record of every purchase you have made for years. This is why the Liberal Party has moved amendments to the Digital ID Bill to bring private corporations into this rollout earlier. All those treasure troves of data worth billions or trillions have accumulated for years illegally, and all that unrealised profit just sitting there has been too much of a temptation for the Liberals and Nationals to resist, and they have now joined with Labor in pushing digital ID.

Those listening at home may be wondering how an individual could avoid being drawn into this net of data trading and surveillance. The simple answer is: you can’t. This Labor government has already passed the Identity Verification Services Bill, which makes it legal for every Australian’s photo or video likeness to be used to verify that person against the database containing their biometric data. Biometric data simply means a digital representation of your face that allows for instantaneous electronic matching. Just days after that bill passed, the first thing the government did was to send an email to people with a myGov ID to update their myGov record by providing a facial scan on their phone. Yes, that really happened. This is what these people are doing to you. This is not voluntary.

Ten million Australians have a myGov ID. Most of those were forced into it to access Centrelink benefits. It’s cruel. There are another two million Australians who were forced to get a myGov ID to register as a company director, despite the director identity enabling legislation not even mentioning myGov. The government did it anyway! The database the government is using for data surveillance is the national driver’s licence database which has 17 million records—everyone who has, or has had, a driver’s licence. This government doesn’t need an excuse to further digital control for everyday Australians. Socialists love control. Socialism needs control. For socialism to exist, there must be control. The government knows control will be used by government to identify people who say mean things on social media to speed up enforcement of our new laws against saying home truths to crazy or dishonest people. No hiding behind anonymous accounts or false addresses; you can expect a knock on your door at home, work or school, as we’re seeing happening in other countries with digital identity already in place. Only by being able to keep tabs on citizens 24/7 can the government possibly hope to introduce the wealth heist they have planned.

Anyone viewing this topic for the first time can see the detail of what I’m talking about on my website. The committee report on the digital ID bill was a travesty. The committee made a recommendation to pass the bill which was simply not supported by the evidence they received during the inquiry. Witness after witness testified that this rancid evil bill failed to protect privacy, failed to establish that the ID would be voluntary, failed on human rights grounds and failed on technical grounds. One blackout, and the whole thing comes crashing down. Yet all these valid criticisms from leading organisations who, unlike the government, know what they’re talking about were simply ignored.

/31 Comments/by

Investigating the mRNA Mutant Crime Scene

,

I called on the Senate to support the inquiry into the federal COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Claims Scheme and restated my demand for the people of Australia to have their Royal Commission in COVID.

Australians are dying at a far higher rate than normal. Surely even the pharma industry lobby in the Senate can see that there’s a high probability that the cause, the one thing that has changed in the last 4 years coinciding with the increased mortality, is the jabs that everyday Australians were coerced and bullied into taking.

Why is the Labor Government so afraid of uncovering the truth? If they’re confident it’s not the cause, then shouldn’t they be prepared to have an inquiry into it?

This is an issue of life or death for the Australian people and it needs to be above suspicion. We need honest debate and proper scrutiny to understand why over 30,000 people more than normal have died so far.

In this speech, I go further into messenger RNA “vaccines”, the technology used to protect them and the actual mechanism by which these jabs could be causing the harm we are seeing.

I also talk about the “bait and switch” that was used during clinical trials, which saw trials conducted using the long-established method of using albumin to grow the vaccine. After testing, this was switched out for a new and untested method using a derivative of E. coli bacteria, which multiples much faster but contaminates the vaccine in the process.

During an interview on the ABC, Greg Hunt, the Health Minister at the time, admitted that “The world is engaged in the largest clinical trial, the largest global vaccination trial ever, and we will have enormous amounts of data”.

Where is that data now and what does it really say about our COVID response? The answer will only come from an inquiry. Clearly the Albanese Government and the Opposition do not want you to know.

Transcript

There have been more than 25,000 deaths. That’s more than 25,000 homicides. At Senate estimates hearings last November I produced an independent analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics data. It showed the unexplained increase in deaths for the period 2022-23—population adjusted, excluding COVID and respiratory deaths—was 13 per cent. The Australian Bureau of Statistics provided data using a different methodology, which agreed closely with my figure. An increase of 13 per cent above baseline on 195,000 deaths in 2022-23 means 25,000 more Australians died than expected. 

Did the novel COVID injections cause all of these deaths? While highly likely, it’s possible they did not. Were enough of these deaths caused by the injections to be of serious concern and to support an inquiry? Definitely yes. A common argument against having an inquiry is the issue that increases in mortality are due to many different causes—cancer, dementia, cardiac conditions and diabetes—so there can’t possibly be a single cause. An inquiry would need to explain this. In the absence of an inquiry, I’ll advance a theory from many credible medical authorities. I’ll do that in a minute. 

The COVID products are not vaccines because they don’t stop people getting COVID. They don’t stop people passing it on to someone else. I call them injections or jabs. The jabs include a segment of messenger RNA, which has the purpose of splicing a new segment into our DNA, which produces a protein to create an antibody to COVID-19. This raises the possibility that disease can be prevented, using mRNA techniques to get our bodies producing antibodies to stop cancer and disease in their tracks. This opportunity to play God has proven so intoxicating that many in our health industry have fallen for it; mRNA jabs are being defended with religious fervour. As with any religious zealotry, those who ask difficult questions like, ‘Why are so many people suddenly dying?’ are being treated in a way that is an afront to parliamentary process and civil government. This issue is life or death. It needs to be above honest debate and scrutiny. 

One potential explanation for increased mortality rates across a wide range of conditions is a scandal known as ‘plasmidgate’. This is technical, so I’ll use plain language and apologise to any specialist vaccinologists listening. Messenger RNA is too fragile to use in a vaccine. To protect the RNA sequence from damage, these COVID jabs use a new technique, wrapping each one in a protective coating called a lipid nanoparticle. This keeps the RNA intact on its journey from your arm to the nucleus of every cell in your body, where the coating helps the RNA enter the cell and bind with your existing DNA. Remember, there are billions of mRNA particles in every jab. 

The manufacturing process is not clean. Fragments of DNA are being picked up in the manufacturing process and getting coated in that protective layer as well, a coating that stops your body expelling the fragment. These fragments are coming from the E. coli bacteria, a derivative being used to grow on the mRNA. Yes, they’re using modified E. coli bacteria as the growing medium for the mRNA in these jabs. 

The clinical trials for this product were conducted using the previous growing method, albumen from eggs. That’s the clinical trials. Yet that was far too slow for Pfizer, claiming the so-called speed of science. So, after the clinical trials were tested, with a conventionally propagated product, Pfizer switched it out for one grown using the much faster E. coli bacteria method. Has E. coli ever been used before as a medium to grow on a vaccine? No, it hasn’t. No, it has not. Was any safety testing done? Well, that would be every person that has had done the jab. That’s where the testing was done, if you’ve had the jab. Now people are dying, and the mRNA vaccine zealots are ignoring the outcome. The crime of the century is that the Australian public have been injected with DNA from E. coli bacteria that was wrapped up in a protective coating and delivered into the nucleus of every cell in your body. 

It gets worse. The latest peer reviewed published data on this shows that, in a third of cases, the cell will not produce the antibody intended against COVID and instead will produce some other antibody—in a third of cases. It’s a process called frame shifting, which means the mRNA does not present itself to your DNA strand correctly and accordingly combines with your DNA in an unintended way before producing an unintended protein antibody. This is going on in people’s bodies right now. What does that mutant protein do to your system? Nobody knows. Here’s the final crime. These mutant proteins are not created in one-third of people; they’re created in one-third of cells, meaning that everyone who was injected with a COVID product has a third of their cells now producing mutant proteins. We don’t know what harm that will cause. The harm varies from person to person. 

Are these proteins now resting in our brain? Are they? We know it can cross the blood-brain barrier into our brains. Are these proteins resting in our hearts, in our livers, in female ovaries, in male testes? Is it turning off our body’s natural cancer defence, resulting in turbo cancers? Highly likely. These are questions, not statements. When some of the most highly qualified medical professionals on this topic are asking questions, there is no excuse not to be investigating when those questions are being asked. It’s time to treat the zealots of the religion of mRNA as the maniacs they are. They played God and they harmed people. They killed tens of thousands of people. They committed homicide—homicidal maniacs. 

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this motion from Senator Rennick, which will find out how bad the damage is, and, once again, I call on the Senate to demand a royal commission into the crime of the century. 

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

The Senate divided. [12:18]  

(The President—Senator Lines)  

/13 Comments/by

Give Australians a Say on Immigration

,

Australians have never been asked what they think is a fair amount of immigration. The Lib-Lab parties both advocate for high immigration and as there are many different issues that go towards deciding the party to vote for on polling day, elections simply don’t provide a way for the public to express their opinion on migration.

The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 aims to give Australians a say on immigration levels through a plebiscite. Senator Hanson argues that high immigration is causing a per capita recession and is detrimental to Australians’ standard of living.

Current immigration policies favouring high numbers of immigrants are driving up housing costs, leading to catastrophic homelessness among Australians. The Morrison government and now the Albanese government have failed to address this issue.

Australians deserve to have a voice on immigration levels that are impacting their security, lifestyle and their ability to provide for their future.

Transcript

The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 is simply saying, ‘Give Australians a say.’ That’s all we want. We want to listen to the people and let the people decide. Give the people a say—a ‘voice’, if you like. Senator Hanson is driven to do what’s in the national interest. That means protecting Australians and protecting Australians’ lifestyle. This is simply a voice—give Australians a say. 

Make no mistake; the figures show that we are in a per capita recession. I’ve said that in the past in the Senate and I continue to say it. Labor lies and policies are hiding that because you, as a government, do not want to be blamed for putting the place in recession. This is something that’s been carried through from the Morrison government to the Albanese government. Australia is in a per capita recession, and you’re hiding it with high immigration numbers. They raise artificially the GDP, making sure that we don’t have two quarters with negative growth.  

Without high immigration, this country would be in recession. You are doing the people a disservice and you are hiding the fact that we are in recession. You’re doing the people a disservice because they’re now sleeping in cars, under bridges, in tents and in caravans. They’re being moved to showgrounds—moved along from parks—in Bundaberg, Gladstone, Townsville, Cairns, Logan, Ipswich and Brisbane. I can step out of the CBD in Brisbane and within minutes of walking I can find people living in tents. Through the chair: Senator Watt and Senator Ciccone, are you aware that in our state, which is so fundamentally wealthy, we have thousands of people living on the streets? They are being moved on daily because they can’t be kept in one place any more than three days. Some of these people have got jobs—and that’s where they live! We’re creating and exporting our wealth to the world—5½ million Queenslanders are creating wealth for the world and our own Queenslanders are living in tents and living in cars. Some of them are being picked on by rangers, and as they’re moved on their kids are confiscated. These are working people.  

The key issue here is trust. We cannot trust the Albanese Labor government, just like we could not trust the Morrison Liberal-National government. Another key issue is serving the people. Senator Hanson mentioned it. I mentioned it. As servants to the people of Queensland and Australia, we are raising this issue because it is fundamental to Australians’ lifestyle, security and productivity.  

Senator Hanson raised immigration many years ago. She’s famous for it. Three of her four grandparents were immigrants. She’s not against immigration; she’s against overimmigration. She’s making sure that the quality of migrants is suitable for our culture, our laws and our values. This, though, has nothing to do with Senator Hanson. It’s simply a plebiscite to give people a say. You wanted it for gay marriage, homosexual marriage, and now you won’t let the people have a say in something even more fundamental. Senator Hanson has a very simple approach to politics. She hasn’t an elaborate political philosophy. She has a simple approach: do what’s right for the national interest—that’s it. That means doing what’s right for the standard of living.  

Senator Hanson and I are proud to support this bill because it is about propping up and restoring our standard of living. I raised immigration, particularly in connection with housing, starting a couple of years ago and I’ve been bashing it ever since. Have a look at my Facebook page, my Instagram page and my Twitter page. This has been a sincere and genuine concern of mine for years now. We have, as I said, people living in cars, tents and caravans and getting moved around in showgrounds. We had in January, just two months ago, record immigration. We had 125,000 new arrivals in January alone. I haven’t done the maths, but that’s around about 1½ million a year. After removing the number of people who left Australia that left 55,375 net migration into our country in one month. That was 40 per cent above the previous record for January way back in 2009. We have returned to the days of very high immigration, but we have gone way beyond that. We have 2.3 million people on working visas in this country, meaning 2.3 million beds and 2.3 million roofs over beds are needed. We have 600,000 students. We only have beds for 100,000 university students. So the university students we are bringing in to give us income are taking beds off Australians who need beds. 

Politicians in this country, the Liberal-Nationals and the Labor-Greens, follow a ‘big Australia’ policy—a ‘massive Australia’ policy. The people do not. The people want a ‘fair Australia’ policy. Trust, as I raised a minute ago, has been languishing in this place, and trust in the Albanese government has plummeted. Trust is made up of two components basically: integrity or honesty and competence. The Albanese Labor government is showing neither. 

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, let me tell you about a phone call I had just yesterday. I had a New South Wales truckie call me. This man was looking for a job. He admires the way our office runs and he wanted a job. He’s a truckie. I’ve met him in the past. He’s a wonderful man with a wonderful family. He’s on the Central Coast of New South Wales. He helped out during the fires. It cost him a lot of money to help out during the fires of 2019. He stood up to the COVID injection mandates in 2021. He’s a really decent person, who was making sure that he stood up because the COVID injections killed his aunty. This is a man who’s got the same genetics as his aunty, and he knew that the COVID injections would kill him. As a result of the COVID mandates which Scott Morrison’s government put in place and drove, and as a result of the economic policies that Anthony Albanese’s government is driving, he lost his business, a vibrant business employing seven people. 

Let’s look at housing. As I’ve talked about many times in the Senate and outside, we have a critical shortage of houses in this country. How do you respond as a government? You jack up the bureaucracy. You call it a $10 billion investment in housing when we know that that is just the fund and it’s only the returns from that fund which will be invested in housing—a few hundred million dollars a year. But you’ve added three new bureaucracies. They build bugger-all. What we need to do in this country is to stop the castration of property rights and to free up land. We need to free up tradies from overregulation and get on with the job of letting our tradies build the houses. People can’t find rental homes at the moment. The vacancy rate is 0.7 per cent—a record low. There are no bloody houses. And there are foreigners who own a lot of our houses and lock them up. But, no, you don’t want to do anything about that either. You turn a blind eye to that. 

My mother was born in this country. My grandparents were born overseas. They were immigrants. My father was an immigrant. So I’m half immigrant and I’m proud of that. I’m proud of being Australian, but I’m ashamed that the people in this chamber and the people in this parliamentary building want Australians to suffer. When you’re in Queensland, one of the wealthiest places in the world, and you cannot get a house, so you sleep in a tent or in a car with your family, and you do it because they’re covering up a per capita recession, that is cruel and that is inhuman. It’s not just un-Australian. It is inhuman—the bureaucracy; the regulations; the United Nations World Economic Forum alliance; policies restricting land; big immigration policy; energy; inflation caused by the people in this chamber, the previous Morrison government and now the Anthony Albanese government; and energy prices. Our country is the largest exporter of hydrocarbon fuels in the world. When you add up our coal and our gas, we are the largest exporters of energy, but we can’t use it here. We drive up inflation. We drive up energy prices. We drive up housing costs, and then we see people living in the streets in tents in Queensland. 

We see that the Liberals and Nationals are waking up to this issue. Senator David Sharma last night mentioned housing and immigration. We’ve been talking about it for several years now. He also mentioned that we need to do something about bracket creep. Recently, the Liberals and Nationals had a perfect opportunity to vote for my amendment on tax changes that would have ended bracket creep. You said no. Instead, you’re going to help the Labor Party steal $38 billion in the next four years from Australians because of bracket creep. You both want bracket creep. That’s the truth. You say that you don’t want it but, when the time comes to have a vote, you don’t vote for ending bracket creep. You vote for bracket creep because that’s how you steal more money from Australians, just like you’re stealing their livelihoods and their accommodation. 

I proudly speak about people’s wants and needs. Australians have very simple wants and needs. They want security, they want a good Aussie lifestyle and they want a fair government that looks after them—not one that steals from them. They want people in this place and in the House of Representatives to put the national interest first —not to bring in 2,000 Gazan immigrants with just one hour of processing. 

Only One Nation wants to give Australians a say. Under Senator Hanson as our leader—we’re the only party with a female leader, I might add, and proudly so—we’ve had a policy of a citizen initiated referendum for 10 or so years or perhaps even more, because One Nation is about giving the people a voice. One Nation is about holding Labor-Greens coalitions and Liberal-National coalitions accountable. A plebiscite is very, very simple. There’s only one question in it: should we reduce immigration? What are you afraid of? Should we reduce immigration? Let’s hear from the people: yes or no. That’s all we want. We want to put the people first in this country. That’s what we’ve been doing and that’s what we will continue to do. That’s why we have our energy policies and our immigration policies. We want to stop the mess that is unfolding in this country. 

Australia used to have the highest per capita income in the world; that was 120 years ago. We’re now slipping below many other countries. We’re heading for 20th. Yet, according to the United Nations, we have the richest resources in the world. You and you are squandering those resources. You’re stealing from the Australian people and now you’re making sure that they don’t get a house and that they don’t get a rental. They’ll keep sleeping in parks. All Senator Hanson and I want is to put the people first, to serve the people and to give the people a say. Should we reduce immigration? It’s over to the people of Australia. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Allman-Payne): The question is that the bill be read a second time. 

The Senate divided. [10:03]  

(The Acting Deputy President—Senator Allman-Payne)  

/13 Comments/by

Labor Abandons its Roots

,

The Labor Party’s famed light on the hill is now nothing more than the sun reflecting off solar panels, which we know are expensive, short lived and an environmental disaster – just like the Albanese Labour government. In a recent article in The Australian, Jenny George AO delivered a scathing assessment of the modern Labor Party, stating that “Labor today is not the party it once was. It has lost its moral direction.”Members of the Labor Party like Jenny George have not left the party – the party left them. Continuing in her own words – “The party that was formed to give political expression to the needs of working people has allowed the light on the hill to dim.” 

The duopoly of Labor and the Liberal-National Party, that Australians wearily switch between every few years, is no longer built on the foundations of what Labor and the LNP originally stood for. These establishment parties continue to take from working Australians to line the pockets of their billionaire mates at the World Economic Forum. 

One Nation is the only party that still stands for working Australians and will support all who’ve come to this country to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise.

Transcript

On the weekend, former ACTU president and former Labor member of parliament Jennie George AO published an article in the Australian newspaper. It’s compulsory reading. Jennie clearly holds Labor’s light on the hill in her heart, and her words echo the sadness and grief of many Labor true believers. She said: ‘The party that was formed to give political expression to the needs of working people has allowed the light on the hill to dim.’ In a recent speech I remarked that in 2024 Labor’s famed light on the hill is now nothing more than the sun reflecting off solar panels, which we know are expensive, short-lived and an environmental disaster—just like the Albanese Labor government. 

Jennie George’s judgement of the modern ALP is savage. She says: ‘Labor today is not the party it was; it has lost its moral compass.’ Ouch! Labor Party members like Jennie have not left the party; the party left them. The Overton window is a metaphor for the acceptable range of ideas and policies in which many politicians think they can act. Through it, such politicians see the middle ground of Australian politics. Under successive Labor-Greens and Liberals-Nationals governments, the Overton window has moved so far to the left and to the autocratic—that it no longer provides for everyday Australians. We’re losing wealth, spending power, access to housing, democracy and enjoyment of the riches our country has to offer. Establishment parties continue to take from working Australians to line the pockets of their millionaire and billionaire mates at the World Economic Forum. 

One Nation is the only party that still stands for working Australians and for all who have come here to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise. Our One Nation policies will make the lives of working Australians easier. Jennie George’s words embolden old Labor to take back their party and excise from its ranks those who wear the mark of the World Economic Forum. Restore the ascendancy of our parliament, and return power to the people we are supposed to serve. 

/2 Comments/by

Labor’s High Immigration is a Crisis in the Making

,

On Thursday, I asked simple straightforward questions of the Government regarding Labor’s record high immigration levels, which have contributed to a housing shortage crisis, leading to a humanitarian catastrophe. I had hoped for Minister Watt to acknowledge that the Government recognizes the disastrous impact its policies have had on everyday Australians.

The Minister’s four minutes of waffle and deflection only underscores that the Albanese Government has no intention of reducing immigration.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia is experiencing the largest immigration intake on record. Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that 518,000 net overseas migrants arrived last year and 55,375 migrants arrived in January this year alone—55,375 migrants in one month. That’s 40 per cent higher than the previous January record way back in 2009. Minister, how many migrants is this government going to let in this year? 

Senator WATT (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. The first thing I’d like to say is that the Albanese government is very proud of the multicultural nature of the Australian population. I heard you earlier today in another debate, Senator Roberts, acknowledge that your own family has a fairly recent history of migration, and I think we should all recognise the very valuable contribution that migrants have played, and continue to play, in Australia. Having said that, we do acknowledge that there has been an increase in migration to Australia, particularly as a result of the pause to migration that occurred through the pandemic. The figures that have come out today are entirely expected and are consistent with the forecasts for net overseas migration that we set out in the mid-year budget review at the end of last year. 

Migration levels are expected to have peaked in 2022-23 and are forecast to drop in half by next year. Our government is doing the hard work—not done under the former government—to bring migration back to sustainable levels, after all comparable countries also experienced a surge post the pandemic. The changes that we made late last year are having a significant and immediate impact. For example, student visa grants are down more than 35 per cent on last year’s level, and I know for a fact that Minister O’Neil, Minister Clare and Minister O’Connor have been working very hard on trying to tackle some of the rorts that were left behind in the international student visa system. That is having results in terms of bringing those student visa grants down by more than 35 per cent on last year’s level. 

The data that has been released today doesn’t take into account the very substantial actions that our government has taken to bring down net overseas migration, and that’s because most of those actions were implemented mid to late last year. But we recognise that this as an issue for Australians, and we’re taking action to deal with it. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: With people in Queensland, including working families with real jobs, now living in tents, in caravans, in parks, in cars and under bridges, there is a human catastrophe unfolding in this country in our state. Will you suspend further immigration until everyone who is here now has a bed to sleep in with a roof over their head? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I absolutely acknowledge that our country has a housing shortage. We have acknowledged that since the day that we were elected and had to deal with the massive housing shortage and housing affordability crisis that was left behind by the former government. That is exactly why we have been presenting a range of options to this parliament to deal with housing shortages, including the creation of the $10 billion Housing Australia Future Fund. Senator Roberts, for someone who says that we should have more housing to deal with this, I’m surprised that you and Senator Hanson voted against the Housing Australia Future Fund. In fact, I was reminded that Senator Hanson, in the last 24 hours or so, has described the Housing Australia Future Fund as ‘useless’. You continue to argue that we need more housing, just as the coalition argues for more housing, but when you have an opportunity to do something about it, what do you do? You vote no. We know that you’re intending to vote no to the help to buy legislation as well, so be consistent. If you want more housing, vote for it. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is immigration too high? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. The government is already taking action to try to deal with the increase in migration that we experienced after the pandemic and just as all other comparable nations experienced after the pandemic. That’s why we’ve made changes to student visa grants. They are down by more than 35 per cent on last year’s level—the settings that were left behind by the former government. That’s why we’ve taken a range of other actions to fix the utterly broken migration system that was left behind by Mr Dutton, the former home affairs minister. Yet again we’re fixing up the former government’s mess while at the same time we’re trying to build homes, even though we are obstructed every step of the way by the coalition, One Nation and, all too often, the Greens party. 

Senator Rennick: They want home ownership. 

Senator WATT: I heard an interjection that people don’t want public housing, they want home ownership. Firstly, they do want public housing; and, secondly, home ownership is exactly what we’re trying to do through our help to buy scheme. It’s in the name—help to buy. 

/1 Comment/by