Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, Labor is using every trick to keep Australians in the dark about their decisions. After 18 months of delays, Labor are protecting their mates while blocking Senate oversight on lobbying done by CBUS Super. The connections between CBUS Super and Labor run deep, with former Labor Treasurer Wayne Swan now chairing CBUS.
Despite ordering the government to hand them over, these documents were only unveiled through a separate Freedom of Information claim decided by an independent commissioner.
So much for transparency and accountability from the Albanese government.
Transcript
Here we are this morning in the house of review, and we hear cloaks of cover-up from the Labor Party when we’re trying to do our job. Labor responds, first of all, to Senator Bragg by hiding behind the gender argument. What that’s got to do with this is beyond us. Then Senator Walsh cloaks it as an attack from the coalition on super. How is making sure that we have probity on superannuation funds an attack on super? It’s protecting superannuation. Senator Bragg is just doing his job, as am I as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. We need questions answered.
The Labor Party’s defence this morning has not focused on Senator Bragg’s comments; it has focused on furphies and distractions, which are condemning the Labor Party. I’ve had the comedy of watching Senator Ayres respond twice in the last two weeks of sittings in this Senate—10 minutes each time of just nonsense, misrepresentations and labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the stupid, the dishonest and the fearful—no response based on fact. Instead we have distortions and labels.
To recall what Senator Bragg talked about, he wanted to know why the Treasurer told the Senate mistruths and false statements. That’s it. My question now is: why is the Labor Party trying to dodge and divert from that? We have a document from Cbus to the Treasurer. Cbus objected. Is Cbus running the country? They’re claiming commercial in confidence for not giving Senator Bragg the documents, while giving Mr Bragg the documents. What are they hiding by hiding behind commercial in confidence? It’s taken 18 months to get documents in this house of review—18 months. He had to use alternative channels as well. Labor’s behaviour in response to Senator Bragg is now rising to one of contempt—holding the Senate in contempt.
This is the way Cbus treats its members—hiding. This is the way this government treats the people of Australia—hiding. The government is protecting the CFMEU and Cbus. The government is doing more than just protecting it on superannuation. The government is protecting the CFMEU in Australia’s biggest wage theft case. The Senate has instructed the workplace relations minister to do an investigation into wage theft involving thousands of miners from Central Queensland and the Hunter Valley, up to a $211,000 claim from one person. It’s over a billion dollars in total, we believe, with miners being owed on average up to $41,000 per year of work. The Labor Party are burying it, hiding it, not doing what the Senate is telling them. Then we’ve got CFMEU directors involved in Coal Mines Insurance, Coal Services and coal long service leave, and they’re all protecting each other and protecting the CFMEU.
My position on super, just so the Labor Party is clear, is that I believe people should have a choice—to access their money or to have it in a super fund that is also of their choice.
My last point is that I proposed a fair way of adjudicating these matters of withholding documents due to commercial in confidence and public indemnity. That has been rejected. That is still available. I also make the point that the Labor Party, as I disclosed last night, has almost a million dollars in donations for the last election from big pharma, and it is hiding, under the cloak of commercial in confidence, the contracts from the people who paid $18 billion for COVID injections. That’s what we want. It’s hiding tens of thousands of homicides.
Confidence in Labor is plummeting. Support for Labor is plummeting. The truth has vanished, and that’s the reason you’re losing the confidence and support of the Australian people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lSViqRvaiF4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-19 10:17:352024-12-19 10:31:52Superannuation Bosses Team Up With Labor to Hide Dodgy Deals
We live in an age where mainstream education is often overloaded with irrelevant social engineering and is taught impersonally. External forces, including the political opinions of teachers, increasingly influence, pressure and distract students. As a result, Australia experienced a staggering 111% increase in homeschooling over just five years, from 2018 to 2023. In 2018, there were 20,260 home school registrations, a number that surged to 43,892 by 2023. Queensland increased the most with a remarkable 210% increase.
Home schooling offers an excellent alternative for many families, providing a learning environment that prioritises children’s welfare and provides more holistic development. During the COVID-19 school lockdowns, many parents were horrified to see how far mainstream schools had deviated from solid education. As a result, many opted to homeschool, finding it a better option to avoid public institutions’ involvement in raising their children while nurturing stronger family bonds.
I took the opportunity to announce One Nation’s policy to shut down the Federal Department of Education. Education is a State responsibility and federal involvement in this area has proven counterproductive. Under a federal led education system, Australia continues to slide backward in international league tables. This decline is largely due to an education system more focused on Marxist indoctrination than on actual genuine learning.
Closing down the Federal Department of Education, including eliminating the National Curriculum and NAPLAN, will not remove a single teacher from a single classroom. Instead, it will save billions in pointless bureaucracy—money that can be returned to the taxpayer, allowing you to keep more of what you earn.
Transcript
We live in an age when mainstream education is often packed tight with irrelevant social engineering and is taught impersonally. External forces, including the teachers’ political opinions, increasingly influence, pressure and distract students. As a result, Australia witnessed a 111 per cent increase in homeschooling in just five years, from 2018 to 2023. In 2018, homeschool registrations were 20,260, compared with 2023’s 43,892. Queensland has the highest increase, 210 per cent, tripling. The second highest is New South Wales, at 127 per cent, followed by Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and Tassie.
Homeschooling presents an excellent alternative for many families, providing an academic setting that prioritises children’s welfare and provides more holistic development. Anecdotally, during COVID school lockdowns, many parents were absolutely horrified to see how far mainstream schools had deviated from solid education, and they pulled their children out of school, preferring to homeschool. Educating children at home means avoiding public institutions’ involvement in their raising while nurturing strong family bonds. In traditional school settings, children spend most of their day away from home, leaving little room for connecting with family members. In contrast, homeschooling can not only facilitate academic growth but foster emotional stability and the family’s core values.
One of the biggest misconceptions about homeschooling is that it does not allow interaction with other children, which is needed for developing social skills. On the contrary, parents can choose a variety of social experiences in which the child can engage, such as community groups, sports, homeschooling co-ops, and visits to live community events and businesses. In this way, parents can guide such interactions, avoid influences not aligned with the family’s values, avoid negative influences and ensure the development of healthy relationships, free of the peer pressure and bullying that today often characterise traditional school environments.
Furthermore, socialisation takes place every day within the family unit, and the bonds created in interactions throughout every day are incredibly beneficial for the child’s mental and emotional wellbeing. In a traditional educational setting, though, children spend most of their time at school, leaving little time for deep and meaningful interaction with family members. Home education allows the development of trust among family members through shared experiences, activities and discussions—and connections and safety. Ultimately, the presence of a supportive family is an invaluable asset in children’s lives, especially during developmental stages, enduring strengthening of bonds fundamental for children’s wellbeing.
A notable benefit of home education is the program, which can be personalised and delivered in a way that suits the children’s learning styles and interests in ways not possible in traditional, overcrowded classrooms. Homeschooling’s flexibility ensures a stress-free learning environment and allows enough free time for extracurricular activities and personal interests, employing an allistic development approach. Lessons on emotional intelligence and social responsibility, for example, can be added along with core subjects and life skills such as financial literacy, household management and practical problem-solving, which is what adults need. There will be the exploring of peace within the child, regardless of the child’s surroundings. As a result, children grow up as well-rounded individuals with skills and knowledge which can be absent in their traditionally educated counterparts.
As said earlier, in the five years from 2018 to 2023, homeschooling more than doubled across Australia, with rates in Queensland more than tripling. This trend reflects parents’ distrust of educational institution. Several social and political factors drive this growing distrust, leaving parents increasingly feeling uneasy and concluding that traditional schooling is no longer the best environment for their children’s academic, moral, emotional, physical, spiritual and social development. Research on homeschooling shows that reasons parents take a step towards home education include the elements of dissatisfaction with the government, with conventional schools and with the curriculum. All these remained consistent pre and post COVID, as well as children’s needs and family lifestyles, which include religious or family values, for example.
Educational institutions are perceived as increasingly ideologically driven. To put it bluntly, they’re woke. Their purpose is to indoctrinate, not educate, and to create serfs who cannot think critically. As John Rockefeller said, these are factory fodder for his business empire, which is now global. Cross-cultural priorities of race and sustainability are integrated into the curriculum along with other aggressive narratives of gender and identity. I’ll give you a story about my son and daughter, who attended a school with many different races. One day I asked my son, as a four-year-old, how he enjoyed the Ethiopian twins in his class. They were two wonderful little kids. He said he didn’t know. I mentioned their names—Thomas and Anthony. He didn’t know. I mentioned they had black skin; he didn’t know. He really didn’t know. Then I mentioned their short, frizzy hair, and he said, ‘Oh, great, I play with them all the time.’ They played well together. Playing, working and studying with diverse groups builds tolerance experientially—the way people learn. Students discover for themselves.
Meanwhile, imposing welcome to country chants and calls to pay respect to the custodians of the land loses people. Adult teachers telling students they can change gender is ludicrous, with children having absorbed like sponges since birth the innate difference between ‘mum’ and ‘dad’, male nurses and female nurses and male teachers and female teachers. They’re all the better for it. Children are being taught about gender identity and pronouns and in some cases are made to apologise for the sins of their forebears, encouraged in the abrasive gender and transgender ideology. Children are in fear daily with climate fraud and lies saying we have only five years to live unless we stop driving cars, which will stop the global boiling. Unfounded guilt damages children. All this builds distrust in children and disrespect for woke teachers. Parents and increasingly people across society have had a gutful.
Meanwhile, between 2003 and 2015, the Australian academic landscape has been in steady decline. One in three students failed reading proficiency. Fifty per cent of students failed science literacy tests. Half are scientifically illiterate. No wonder the climate fraud and climate fear have taken hold! The average in mathematics declined 26.7 points. All these factors accounted for, taking back the lead on their own children’s education makes sense for parents. This sentiment was clear when Queensland Labor’s education minister put forward legislation enforcing the national curriculum in home education. Through the public pushback, with 900 submissions and a petition of almost 22,000 signatures, parents have made their feelings about education clear. Parents are unhappy with public educational institutions and with the national curriculum. Some are angry. More and more parents are re-evaluating educational choices for their children. From here, home education will only grow because it offers an academic pathway that’s more well rounded and allows for learning that is tailored and delivered in a way which takes into account the child’s or family’s interests, values and needs. When this speech is posted on my website, I’ll put in links to assist any Australians considering home education.
Whilst speaking of education and the growing home school revolution, I’ll comment on two more factors. Firstly, charter schools. This is an American term used in states where schools are started from community initiatives. The state provides funding per student and the money follows the child. Simplistically, to illustrate the concept: if parents withdrew their child and placed them in a public state school, the money goes to the public school. If the parents enrol their child in a private school, the money goes to the school. This gives choice. Principals have real authority to improve their school’s delivery of education to attract more students and more funding. Parents have real choice. Choice breeds competition and fosters initiative for improvement. Choice drives accountability.
Secondly, abolish the federal department of education. Reportedly, this bloated department employs 4,000 people, yet it has no schools. Constitutionally, education is a state responsibility, not a federal one. Now it’s become a wasteful duplication of resources. It has destroyed a fundamental tenet of our Constitution: competitive federalism. It’s destroying accountability and wasting taxpayer money. It destroys accountability because underperformance in schools leads to states blaming the feds and the federal government blaming the states. Worse, it enables a single gateway for UN initiatives to be ingrained into one national curriculum that then infects all states. When six states and two territories are responsible for education, globalist agendas have to be driven through six gateways, not one. If states alone return to managing and directing primary and secondary education, then we would restore competition between states—competitive federalism—improve accountability and improve efficiency. Universities can be regulated as businesses, which is what they now are.
Aligned with closing the federal department of education is abolishing the national curriculum, an initiative of the Howard Liberal-National government. I’m told New South Wales has just abandoned the national curriculum. The ACT is claiming it cannot be taught, because it’s too packed with politics and not enough reading and writing. Every parent’s top job is raising their family’s children. One of our nation’s most important tasks is educating children. We must support homeschooling, reform education and give parents choice. (Time expired)
Next election, Queensland voters will face a clear choice: the Liberal-National and Labor parties’ approach of ever-expanding government, or One Nation’s approach to shrinking government to fit the Constitution.
When Australia federated in 1901, the Commonwealth Constitution granted the federal government powers necessary to run Australia as a single country rather than six states – which included defence, immigration, currency, and taxation. Over the past 120 years, bureaucrats have expanded their reach into areas that are rightly the responsibility of the states, such as health, education, housing, and more.
A One Nation government will close down any Commonwealth department that lacks constitutional authority. This will not affect funding for frontline services. The federal government collects taxes on behalf of the states and One Nation will ensure that funding for schools and hospitals is not reduced. However, billions of dollars in savings will be achieved by eliminating the bureaucracy involved in this duplication of government services. One Nation in government will shrink the federal government to align with the Constitution and return these savings to taxpayers, allowing you to keep more of what you earn.
Transcript
As frequently happens, the Senate is dealing with a tangled mess of legislation that is flawed in design and will have unintended consequences. That’s inevitable when pressure groups run the government. It is a process that never involves the word ‘no’. Too many Australians think governments should solve all their problems, and too many in government think they can. One would have thought both would have sooner seen this folly.
When Australia federated in 1901, the state ceded only the powers necessary for the operation of Australia as a single country rather than six states. Today’s twisted, concocted federalism has given overlapping state, federal and local governments a bureaucratic tangle of incompetence and waste with no accountability and no consequences. It has allowed the Commonwealth government acquisition and abuse of power to go beyond anything our wise founding fathers envisaged. One Nation will honour our Constitution, withdraw the Commonwealth from areas that are none of the federal government’s business and return to competitive federalism, as Australia’s founding fathers designed.
This week I’ve called again for the abolition of the Commonwealth Department of Education, a move that will not take a single teacher out of a single classroom. I’ve called for abolition of the national curriculum, which is riddled with woke virtue signalling, victimhood and social engineering. Headmasters should determine and decide what’s best for students, not woke bureaucrats thousands of kilometres away. I’ve called for abolition of the department of climate change, along with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency, the Clean Energy Regulator, the Climate Change Authority, the Australian Climate Service and the Net Zero Economy Authority. The Clean Energy Finance Corporation will be rolled into a people’s bank, and there’s more to come. One Nation will shrink government to fit the Constitution and to serve the people.
On Wednesday of the last sitting week in November, Senator Shoebridge proposed a bill to legalise cannabis. While support for legalising cannabis is growing strongly across Australia and Queensland, it’s essential to approach the topic with care, data, and diligence. It’s important to understand that despite claims by the TGA and the Lib-Lab UniParty that medicinal cannabis is freely available, the reality is quite different. The plant is artificially expensive and restricted in availability.
In an honest and effective way, we need to make medicinal cannabis easy and affordable to access for millions of Australians. One Nation will continue to lead the way in taking this first, humane step.
While we welcome much of Senator Shoebridge’s bill, there are three key sticking points that One Nation cannot accept:
1. One Nation cannot support home grow at this time. The trial of home cultivation in the ACT has shown it’s not widely adopted. A licensed commercial system would benefit more people than home grow at this stage
2. The fines and jail sentences proposed in the bill are excessively high. One Nation believes in ensuring that the punishment fits the crime, and this bill strangely gets that balance wrong.
3. One Nation does not support creating a new government entity to maintain a cultivar database. Instead, we would work with existing entities to achieve this purpose.
That said, the approach of removing cannabis from the control of pharmaceutical company salespeople at the TGA and establishing a new unit led by people who understand the plant, the industry, and can advance medicinal cannabis—is an excellent idea that One Nation fully supports.
A vote for One Nation is a vote for Australian, whole-plant, natural medicinal cannabis for anyone with a medical need. It would be accessible via a prescription from a doctor, nurse practitioner, or cannabis specialist, and filled by a pharmacist or qualified dispensary under the PBS.
This plan will not increase costs to taxpayers. Evidence from countries that have adopted this model shows that cannabis reduces healthcare spending, as it’s cheaper than many expensive pharmaceutical alternatives—if implemented correctly.
Transcript
There’s much in the Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 which would make the regulatory environment for cannabis in Australia much, much fairer, so I thank Senator Shoebridge for bringing this bill before the Senate. I feel very pleased to speak, excited about some things and disappointed about others. For too long, the government of the day, both Liberal and Labor, have acted to defend the pharmaceutical state from the competition that medical cannabis represents. Indeed, our regulatory body, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, is funded from the pharmaceutical industry that it purports to regulate. The result is regulatory capture.
In recent years the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, has taken decisions that defy logic and that breach integrity—decisions that have placed 90 per cent of Australian adults at great risk of harm and death, decisions that have led to excess deaths it refuses to address, because the cause is the TGA and our health authorities. The TGA is a failed experiment; that is abundantly clear. It’s time to shut down the TGA and its apparatus of expert committees and agencies which act in concert to support the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of the Australian people. It’s time to return control of drug and medical device approvals to the department, where the parliament will be able to exercise oversight and ensure accountability and transparency, which are sadly missing with the TGA.
The department can be downsized. Health is the state responsibility. Centralised regulation of drugs in the hands of the Commonwealth makes sense, and the states should be charged the cost of doing it or do it themselves, as they used to. Cannabis was removed from medical options in Australia following the Menzies government’s passage of the National Health Act 1953. This legislation placed the British Pharmacopoeia as the primary source of standards for drugs in Australia. Cannabis was a stalwart of pharmacopoeia. In 2024 the only pharmacopoeia that still includes medicinal cannabis is the European version. My point is that cannabis was widely used and accepted as a legitimate medical option across a wide range of profiles for a wide range of conditions. Without a doubt, pharmaceuticals have been a boon for modern society in many ways, although for many people modern pharmaceuticals don’t work, or the side effects can exceed the benefit. There’s a simple reason for this: medical cannabis has thousands of versions, with different combinations of cannabinoids, terpenes, flavonoids, steroids and other elements of the plant. There are thousands of elements. The Australian cannabis cultivar repository has almost 1,000 live cultivars of cannabis and is adding more all the time.
The significance of this is that it allows a patient, under the right guidance, to match their strain of cannabis—known as the profile—to the condition that they have. Modern pharmaceuticals employ and promote the opposite approach, matching a pharmaceutical product to a condition—one size fits all, if you like. That’s not the way health should be. But both approaches should be available to the Australian people.
I know the government and the opposition will point to the number of prescriptions written under the pathway scheme for medical cannabis and use that to mislead the public about the success of the current system. Before they make that ill-informed statement, I ask for an answer to the question the TGA refuses to answer: how many people who received a prescription for medical cannabis actually filled it? I’ll ask that again: how many people who received a prescription for medical cannabis actually filled it? My office is hearing from patients who could not afford the prescription, who could not find a chemist to fill it—often because supply was not available—and who paid out big money to get supply that was stale or even mouldy. I want to know how many people who used a medical cannabis product then suffered a side effect. I received a response to a question on notice around this last year. The answer, though, did not differentiate between legal and illegal supply.
So many people have trouble with price or availability and they fill their prescription on the black market. Some of the black-market players run rings around the quality of the legal supply, and many others do not. On the volume of prescriptions written, though not necessarily filled, the rate of harm from medical cannabis is substantially below the rate of harm for many pharmaceutical drugs. Yet cannabis has not been embraced as an alternative treatment. It used to be the leading medicine in the medical almanac in the 1930s in America; it was No. 1. So why hasn’t it been embraced? Why has it been knocked out? Money talks.
Restrictions to medical cannabis are more than directly regulatory. Other subtle hurdles make it difficult to access and use affordably, and that’s to the detriment of Australians’ health. Cannabis will never be approved because the cost of navigating the TGA system is so high that no cannabis supplier can afford it. The Legalising Cannabis Bill 2023 contains a new regulator which could function as a unit with the department. The Cannabis Australia National Agency, CANA, would employ people who know the plant and who know how it should and should not be used. That’s a blessing. CANA would set standards for use, sale, promotion, production and importation without the need for a sponsor. CANA could work with the department to understand the supply needs of the pathway scheme to issue formal guidance on profile and volume until such time as the industry develop the critical mass to do that themselves. This solves the pathways scheme’s biggest hurdle: the supply is patchy and the quality is often rubbish. CANA would license strains of cannabis and issue guidance for use through a new agency. I suggest the Greens could have used the existing Australian cannabis register, although that’s a small point. Regulation is necessary. Some of these insane new varieties of cannabis coming out of the United States have THC levels above 30 per cent. The cannabis that came to Australia during the Vietnam War was only three per cent THC. Over 30 per cent THC is insane, though perhaps useful for palliative care at best.
At this point, One Nation and the Greens diverge. The bill allows home cultivation of six plants. One Nation cannot support home grow. There is a qualification here: our opposition to home grow can exist only if Australians have access to safe, cheap, tested, licensed and accessible product, with a prescription from a doctor or nurse practitioner filled through a chemist or other suitable agent and supplied on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. One Nation introduced a bill which would have done just that, and it was roasted, including by the Greens, can I say. In an interesting example of karma, their bill met the same fate.
The German government tried for two years, through 2022 and 2023, to introduce legislation which was similar to mine—sensible down-regulation of cannabis. They spent two years fighting entrenched interests, their own department and the Bundestag, the German parliament, and then lost patience. In a decision which could be characterised as ‘Stuff the lot of you’, the government simply legalised cannabis. That came into effect on 1 April this year. I’m pleased to inform the Senate that, in a country which is directly comparable to our country, Australia, legalised cannabis hasn’t caused the world to end. In fact, nothing harmful has happened. This was the same result in the Australian Capital Territory, which allowed home grow three years ago with the same result. No harm happened. In fact, nothing happened. And that is a problem. Legalising cannabis is supposed to help people treat medical conditions, reduce drug and alcohol addiction, reduce the presence of organised crime and chill. None of that appears to have occurred. Homegrown appeals to the small number of Australians within the cannabis community who know what they are doing and who have the land to home grow. For most Australians, regulated supply works better. At this point in the development of cannabis in Australia, regulated supply will help more Australians than home grow will. I’ll say that again. At this point in the development of cannabis, which is continuing, in Australia, regulated supply will help more Australians than will home grow.
The cannabis community makes a mistake that I find quite frustrating. They judge the plant on the basis of their experience and knowledge. They advocate for open grow and use like it were nothing more than a herb. It’s not just a herb. As I said earlier, there are 1,000 different profiles, and that number is increasing. How does an average Australian, a typical Australian, with no or limited knowledge know which one is right, how to grow it properly, how to prepare it properly and how to store and use it correctly? A typical Australian doesn’t know that, and that suggests smoking the plant, which One Nation suggests is the worst way to take medicinal cannabis. The most scientific, the most accurate and the safest is to purchase a cannabis vaping solution and vape it. But I won’t go there further today.
The other aspect of the bill One Nation cannot accept is the fines and jail sentences for minor breaches of the regulations. Seriously, six months in jail and 200 penalties earned, which is $36,000? On the other hand, children under 18 get off without a penalty at all. I get that the Greens are trying to raise the age of criminal responsibility, but a 17-year-old who starts a business growing and selling cannabis gets no penalty at all. One Nation questions that. This has not been thought through properly.
Let me finish with a warning and an invitation. Increasingly, One Nation is tending to the German response. If you won’t allow sensible regulation, then no regulation it is. We need sensible regulation. One Nation is prepared to engage with the government and others across the Senate to achieve a sensible regulation of cannabis, including on the PBS. We continue to listen to the community, to the people, Queensland and Australia, because we want to achieve a sensible regulation of cannabis including on the PBS.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/v-EreIqXC8s/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-12 15:13:502024-12-12 15:13:55Affordable Medicinal Cannabis Needed for Millions of Australians
Australia can easily be the richest country on earth with the resources we have. Instead, we’re being told to turn off air-cons and dishwashers because there’s not enough electricity. This is only possible because the people in charge hate you. There’s no other explanation for a country that sits on thousands of years of energy supply to be in the situation Australia is.
One Nation will put Australians first, and will fight for a wealthy, prosperous Australia.
Transcript
The Greens are continuing their war on natural gas, their war on humanity. Gas keeps the lights on when their wind turbines and solar panels aren’t working, and that’s often. This afternoon, New South Wales is facing blackouts, as wind and solar supplied less than a quarter of energy needs. They’re facing blackouts!
With the abundance of coal, oil and natural gas under our feet, Australia is an energy superpower. Hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—are the energy miracles, the human development miracles, the human progress miracles. Australia is among the top three gas exporters and the top two coal exporters. We are the largest exporter of energy in the world. Now, though, Australia is facing blackouts and energy rationing like we’re a Third World country. Thank you!
The New South Wales government has asked households to turn off their air-conditioners, pull the blinds down, turn off the dishwashers and turn off the lights this afternoon. Third World—thank you! Next they’ll probably ask everyone to just curl up in the fetal position on the floor. The anti-human greenies are winning. Coal is being shut down, as they want, and this is the result: east coast Australians suffer. You’re not going to believe the Greens’ brilliant solution to this. Just wait for it. They want to ban gas. Your gas stovetop and hot-water heater are going to be forcibly converted to electric, and you’ll be banned from turning them on when wind and solar don’t give the grid enough power. You can’t make this up!
Think about this: electricity prices are at record highs thanks to solar and wind. They’re three times what they used to be—trebled. Now we’re having less electricity, because we’re relying on solar and wind more, and we’re having increased demand, because we’re switching from gas to electricity. What will that do to prices? You can’t make this up. I guess you don’t need to turn your dishwasher on anyway, if you can’t turn on your electric cooktop to cook dinner. This is the green dream: no gas, no light, no cooking, no red meat, no fun.
It’s the hypocrisy that’s the worst part, though. The Greens want to ban us using coal here, yet it’s perfectly fine to ship coal over to China. China uses that coal to make wind turbines and solar panels, and our dopey government buys them back off China. We subsidise the Chinese to do it. We subsidise the Chinese to install them and we subsidise the Chinese and other parasitic billionaires and corporations to run them. Who pays for those subsidies? The people who use electricity do. The Greens are fine with that. Buying coal products from China—solar and wind turbines—is fine, but using coal here is not. One Nation says: unleash the resources we have in our country for the benefit of all Australian people. Talk to Queenslanders about the services and infrastructure being built from coal royalties.
China gives token signals about solar and wind, while using coal, nuclear and hydro. China produces 4.5 billion tonnes of coal a year, heading for five billion. They’re the world’s largest producer by a long way. Australia produces 560 million tonnes, and a lot of our coal is exported. Some of it goes to China, because they can’t get enough with their 4.5 billion. India produces around 1.4 billion tonnes of coal—three times what we produce—and buys more from Australia. Why? I’ll tell you why. It’s because they want what we have: a developed nation, with people living longer, safer, easier, more secure, more prosperous and more comfortable lives. They know the secret to these is affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas. Britain started its climb to development using coal. America continued using coal and added the benefit of using oil and gas. High energy density fuels released us from using animals as beasts of burden, stopped us using slaves and reduced exposure to harsh work conditions and work environments.
Why are hydrocarbon fuels—so powerful, so effective and lifting us to higher standards of living—repeatedly proven around the world? I’ll tell you why: high energy density, which lowers unit energy costs—more energy, lower costs. That gives us productivity. That’s why coal, oil and natural gas are so important. The largest component of manufacturing costs today is electricity. We are now uncompetitive because our electricity costs are amongst the highest. That hurts jobs. The Greens are antijobs, antidevelopment, anticivilisation and antihuman. Only One Nation will end net zero and pull us out of the UN Paris Agreement to restore affordable secure energy.
The government is promoting their Help to Buy scheme where they will own 30-40% of your home (instead of you). While it might sound good to Australians desperate to get into a house, the details are terrifying. One of those details that didn’t get much media attention was the structure of the mortgage. Government won’t be a co-owner of the house, they’ll be a second mortgagor. That means they are behind whichever Big Bank gives you the main mortgage.
This is bad news because if house prices go down at all (they are currently at record highs) the Big Bank gets first priority to recover all of their losses, leaving the homeowner and the government (aka taxpayers) out of pocket. That means the banks will probably be getting risk free profits at our expense. This is just one of the many problems with “Help to Buy” which means it won’t help at all.
One Nation has the real solutions to the housing crisis. Start with cutting record immigration, banning foreign ownership and letting tradies do their job, not pumping up Big Bank profits.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. Just to confirm, the bank or the lender would be the first mortgagor and the government would be the second?
Senator AYRES: Yes, that’s exactly right, and there are, of course, other arrangements that people have in the private sector that that will look very similar—that is, for the participant, the relationship with the approved lender and the second mortgage will be exactly the same as other Australians have, but there will be a lower mortgage threshold and lower repayments for that group of Australians who satisfy the criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: In the event of a default or price fall, is the bank entitled to recover its losses before the government does? That would seem to be the case.
Senator AYRES: Yes. Just like in an arrangement that you might have or any other Queenslander might have with their lender, there are shared risks and shared benefits.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/gqLhhTQEDwU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-10 15:52:412024-12-10 15:52:44“Help to Buy” is Actually “Help the Banks”
I co-sponsored a Bill to save the lives of babies born alive after a failed abortion. The Greens, as usual, are misrepresenting this Bill, falsely claiming it’s an attack on abortion. In reality, this Bill only takes effect after an abortion has occurred and failed to kill the baby.
Under this legislation, health practitioners would be required to provide medical assistance to a baby born alive after a failed abortion. In many cases, this would result in a humane and dignified passing. However, in some cases, the baby may be viable and will be able to live. Surely, it’s far better to give that child the chance to be placed in a home where they will be cared for and wanted, rather than casting them aside for hours until they die from hunger, thirst, and exposure.
Greens Senator Waters moved a motion to have the Bill removed from the notice paper. The Greens continue to defend the murder of babies born alive.
Fortunately, the Senate chose not to support the Greens’ motion, and I am grateful for that decision.
The bill remains on the notice paper, and I hope there will be an opportunity in 2025 to bring it to a vote.
Transcript
I seek leave to make a short statement.
The PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.
One Nation opposes this motion. Only Queensland and Victoria publicly release fulsome data on babies born alive after abortion. From this information and from media reports, we know of the following babies born alive, tossed in a cold, stainless-steel kidney dish and left to die alone and shivering: Victoria, 396; Queensland, 328; South Australia, 54; Western Australia, 27; New South Wales, one—they don’t know; Northern Territory, one; and the ACT—not reported. Senator Waters may never acknowledge this reality. These numbers are significantly less than the overall number of babies born alive following a failed abortion—babies born alive. Data reporting on abortion varies between states and territories, and there’s only limited data publicly released. This is a disgrace.
The Help to Buy Bill 2023, introduced by the Albanese Labor government, will make Australia’s housing crisis worse. The bill proposes to allow the government to own a significant portion of the house – 30% for existing homes and 40% for new ones. Providing buyers with an additional 40% purchasing power will only drive up house prices further, as highlighted by the Productivity Commission’s warnings about increasing demand leading to higher prices.
The bill is also criticised for being poorly targeted and not addressing the fundamental issue of housing supply and demand. The limited number of spots available under this scheme suggests the government know it will introduce inflation. Key questions about how profits, losses, and renovations will be treated are unclear. Participants in this scheme could be far worse off.
One Nation proposes a way for all Australians to be able to afford a house. We focus on addressing both supply and demand issues. These include throttling the amount of immigrants in the country from their record highs to pre-COVID numbers (for a start), banning foreign ownership of Australian residential properties, allowing Australians to leverage their superannuation funds towards owning homes, establishing fixed 5% mortgages, cutting GST on building materials and gutting the bloated building codes.
Under the government’s “Help to Buy” bill, you’ll become a slave in your own home. Under One Nation’s plan, the Australian dream of owning your own home will become a reality.
Transcript
The Help to Buy Bill 2023 is a bill that won’t help anyone. Right now, Queenslanders are sleeping under bridges and on riverbanks. In one of the world’s richest states, working families with children are living in cars. Where do they toilet or shower? It’s inhuman. Rents are skyrocketing—if a rental can be found. House prices are reaching record highs. This is a housing crisis, one of the worst we’ve faced. It’s an inhuman catastrophe.
The Albanese Labor government wants to look like it’s doing something. Enter the Help to Buy Bill. Under this plan the government wants to own a significant part of your house. If it’s an existing place, the government wants to own 30 per cent; if it’s a new place, 40 per cent—with the government paying for part of it with low-income earners. While a 40 per cent subsidy might sound attractive, it’s fatally flawed. If the government just borrows more money for this plan then one thing is going to happen. When you give people 40 per cent more money to buy a house, house prices are going to go up. The Bills Digest notes:
In 2022, the Productivity Commission concluded that—unless it is well-targeted … assistance to prospective home buyers presents too great a risk of increasing housing demand and, consequently, house prices.
The government’s own Productivity Commission warned them this plan would increase house prices. Even the Labor government recognises this. That’s why they’ve severely limited the amount of places available under the scheme—so that house prices aren’t drastically increased. There’s a contradiction right there. If the government is only opening limited spaces so there’s no impact on house prices, then it’s an admission the scheme will not help many people.
The problem of increasing house prices is one of too much demand for the amount of supply. This bill will only increase the amount of demand and increase house prices. In the absence of more supply, we need to decrease demand, not increase it. As Dr Cameron Murray from Fresh Economic Thinking accurately said:
If you want people to have cheap housing, give them cheap housing. You can go and do all the financial tricks in the world but at the end of the day if they’ve paid that price, someone’s paying the price.
This bill’s core concept and premise is flawed and possibly a lie. We can’t subsidise our way out of a house price problem.
Looking at the bill’s details or lack of details, the problem is worse. Firstly, let’s look at profit and loss and renovations. One of the most concerning questions is how the government will treat profits and losses and renovations. To these questions, this bill has no answers. How much of the profits will the government take if you sell your house? We don’t know. How much of the loss will taxpayers pay if house prices go down or the homebuyer defaults on their mortgage? Australian house prices have aggressively and consistently risen for 30 years. What if they fall? The bill is silent on how this would be handled. Would taxpayers be forced to pay for the entire loss on someone’s mortgage? The government basically acts as a mortgagor second to the bank. Does this mean the bank gets first call to recoup all their losses and the taxpayer simply has to cop the loss on whatever is left over? We don’t know.
If someone improves the value of the house with renovations, does the government take 40 per cent of the improved value while doing nothing? We don’t know. Imagine tearing up carpets, swinging hammers and sanding with bare hands for six months or a year, and the government takes 40 per cent of the profits from that hard work of yours. That’s entirely possible under the bill as currently drafted. Under the government’s Help to Buy Bill, Australians could become slaves in their own homes. We cannot wait for this bill to be passed and a minister to make a decision later down the track. These matters must be clarified and explained in the bill. Homebuyers and taxpayers deserve to know what the risk is here.
Secondly, let’s look at some criteria. The eligibility criteria are clunky and don’t cater for differences between states. The maximum income is set at $90,000 for singles and $120,000 for couples. This is despite the average house price and the required mortgage varying hugely between states and between towns. In Darwin, the average house price is $504,000. In Sydney, it’s $1.2 million, more than double, yet the same income thresholds apply. The price thresholds are not available in the bill, and it appears the government has not yet published thresholds. When it comes to the housing crisis, one size doesn’t fit all, yet that’s exactly what this bill tries to do. We’re just meant to pass the bill as a blank cheque and trust that the bureaucrats and the minister will get it right down the road—maybe.
Thirdly, let’s look at the constitutional basis. This bill is completely outside the federal government’s power. Some reviewers have said that Help to Buy is built on a ‘complex constitutional foundation’. That may be the understatement of the year. Put very simply, under the Constitution, this is not the federal government’s job. To make this bill legal, there are a huge number of constitutional headaches, state government agreements and transfers of powers. Federal parliament simply shouldn’t be dealing with this. It’s outside of the powers granted to us under the Constitution.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FW4fzjmfTTc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-05 14:05:002024-12-05 16:19:42Labor’s ‘Rent to Buy’ Plan Will Increase Housing Prices
I believe we need to have comprehensive tax reform. Australia’s current tax system is destructive. Individuals on average incomes pay a staggering 68% of their income in various taxes, meaning they work nearly half the year just to cover government obligations. With median incomes at $67,000, many Australians are struggling.
We need reform to address the regressive nature of the tax system, which hits the less fortunate the hardest. Let’s strive for a fairer, simpler tax future for all Australians.
Transcript
In my first speech, in 2016, and many times since, I’ve called for comprehensive tax reform. The tax system in Australia as it exists is our country’s most destructive system, and not just exorbitant tax rates. I’ll give you some figures from the late 1990s and early 2000s. Someone on the average income paid 68 per cent of their income to government in the form of rates levies, fees, charges, special charges and special levies—68 per cent. That means someone’s working from Monday to mid-morning Thursday to pay the government.
Since then, it’s got much more complex and more absurd, and some of the data I’ll give you is more recent. Some of the figures are indicative, not definitive. The ABS average income figure is $100,000. The median income figure is $67,000. Life is tough for people on the median. In 2015 Joe Hockey said that a typical person in Australia pays 50 per cent in tax—works from January to June to pay the government, and then gets to keep from July to December. Basically, as I said, people are working at least half the year—probably 68 per cent of the year—for government.
Then we think about the tax. Tax on a house, according to a News Corporation article a few years ago and according to recent figures, is 45 to 50 per cent of the house price, The effective tax rate is 80 to 100 per cent. International accountant and auditor Derek Smith in Queensland says that 50 per cent of the price of bread is tax, which is an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Petrol excise and tax varies. At 70 per cent, the effective tax rate is 230 per cent. So, a worker on the average income on payday gives 21 per cent of his or her gross income to the government. With what’s left—that’s 79 per cent—she the next day wakes up in her house and pays 80 to 100 per cent to have that house and makes some sandwiches because food is too expensive to purchase wherever she works. So, that’s a tax of 100 per cent. Then she fills up at the petrol station on her way to work, and that costs her 230 per cent tax.
Then we have GST. GST can be levied on bills, including stamp duty, so we’ve got a tax on a tax. So, there are three aspects. First, there’s the total tax paid. Second, how is it levied? And third, is it enforced fairly? Ultimately, the people pay a tax in the form of higher prices. So, it doesn’t matter if a company is being taxed or if another entity is being taxed; they pass it on to the customers.
Cost of living, inflation, overregulation and many other factors make sure that today’s system of government impositions—government cost recovery—is highly regressive. Look at the carbon dioxide tax and offsets—a UN tax, driven by the UN, introduced by the Liberals-Nationals in 2015 under Greg Hunt and Malcolm Turnbull and now ramped up under this government with Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese. We’ve got a highly regressive imposition of taxation and other charges by the government. The Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that the median income is $67,000. People on that median income are doing it extremely tough because of government and the mishmash that’s evolved in the taxation system.
That takes care of terms of reference (a) and (b) in Senator Rennick’s motion. I agree with them; in fact, I agree with his whole motion, and I thank him for his motion. I’ve raised the need for comprehensive tax reform many times, so I support this motion.
Then we see the core, one of the bedrocks of our federal system and Constitution—competitive federalism. That is being converted under the current tax system to competitive welfarism, destroying productivity in this country. The way competitive federalism should work is it promotes competition between the states—not cut-throat competition, just competition for efficiency. As I said yesterday, Joh Bjelke-Petersen, as Premier of Queensland, abolished death duties in Queensland and people moved to Queensland to retire, which developed the Gold Coast. The other states then saw their people were leaving, so they abolished death duties too. Now we’ve got Labor—and the Greens, I think—wanting to put in place a central death duty as a state duty—centrally imposed, no competition, no accountability. When you have a marketplace in governance because the state can’t operate according to their needs and the needs best suited to their constituents, then you have competitive federalism, a marketplace in governance, and that is priceless. One of the reasons we’ve got such low accountability in state and federal parliament is it’s too easy for the states to blame the feds and the feds to blame the states, as I said yesterday. The GST undoes competitive federalism and replaces it with competitive welfarism. It’s a reward for states like Tasmania and South Australia to be inefficient and not use their resources and, instead, bludge off of Western Australia.
I mentioned yesterday that systems drive behaviour and behaviour shapes attitude, and the combination of behaviour and attitudes along with values and leadership and symbols determine the culture, which is the most important determinant of productivity, security and accountability. Energy prices, as I said, are a huge regressive tax on the poor. Massive record immigration is a huge regressive tax on housing, especially on the poor. As I list some of these examples, as Senator Rennick listed some of his examples, I urge you to think about the impact on our culture in this country.
The tax system is Australia’s most destructive system. What behaviours does it drive? We’ve got the best and brightest accountants and lawyers in this country fighting the government, not helping our producers to fight our competitors overseas—the Koreans, the Japanese, the Chinese, the Americans. We’ve now got a tax system that’s grown-up like Topsy; it’s a mishmash of dishonest promises to various vested interests for favours. What behaviours does that drive? Is that productive? It’s certainly not productive. Inefficient or suboptimal allocation of capital, allocation of resources, leads to inefficient or suboptimal decisions and a waste of resources and inefficient allocation to minimise tax rather than to maximise wealth and value.
Then we have the ATO in a position where it can level complaints against people and businesses—small businesses particularly, because they don’t have the lawyers to back them up. In addition to prosecuting those cases, they adjudicate on those cases. How can that be justice? It’s not justice. It leads to corruption—and we saw that in the Australian Taxation Office just a few years ago.
There is the complexity of various structures that Senator Rennick mentioned; he’s got far more experience in that than I have. They’re unfair to people who can’t set up structures. Senator Rennick discussed some of the modern structures in the technologies that have come up. That increases the appeal for workarounds.
Then we’ve got something that Senator Hanson has talked about for many years, since 1996: multinationals basically pay no or little company tax. These use their resources for free. We’ve got the world’s biggest freeloader, the biggest tax avoider in the world, Chevron, taking our gas and sending it overseas, using our infrastructure, using our security forces, using our education system and not paying much at all for the gas. This is a figure I got from Jim Killaly, the former Deputy Commissioner of Taxation, Large Business and International, who retired in 2015 or 2016. I’ve met him. He said in both the nineties and in 2010—and it’s quoted in the newspapers—that 90 per cent of Australia’s large businesses are foreign-owned and since 1953 have paid little or no company tax. Who’s paying that share of tax? It’s the men and women of Australia, working families.
Since 1953, when we had double taxation legislation enacted by the Menzies Liberal government, we’ve had foreign companies paying little or no company tax. In the 1980s, we had Labor, with the petroleum resource rent tax, making sure that large companies such as Chevron pay little or no tax when exporting our gas from the North West Shelf. Then we had transfer pricing rorts and so many other rorts, which Senator Rennick went into. So terms of reference (c) and (d) are definitely worth keeping.
The tax reform, while it’s necessary and arguably one of the most important things in this country, is difficult because the uniparty, Liberal and Labor, sees new ideas, seizes on new ideas and then basically tells lies and misrepresents to destroy our tax system. Paul Keating, as Treasurer to Bob Hawke, introduced the concept of the GST. Later, when John Hewson raised it as opposition leader, who smashed it? Paul Keating smashed it. He destroyed the GST concept even though he’d come so close to putting it over the line in Australia.
When Pauline Hanson, who wasn’t a senator at the time, got hold of the transaction tax, it was also sent to Costello by the originators of that taxation system and taxation proposal. Peter Costello, as Treasurer—and a good treasurer—was asked about it and he said: ‘Sounds like a good system. We must have a look at it.’ Then Senator Hanson introduced it to the public, and he used it to try to destroy her.
And look at my motion for stopping bracket creep—a motion on a Labor bill for stopping bracket creep. Labor stood right up there and said it supports work to remove indexing of bracket creep, but it voted against it. The LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, did something similar. They stood up—Senator Hume, I think it was—and said, ‘We support removal of bracket creep, the stealth tax, the hidden tax, the deceit tax,’ but they voted against the indexation of bracket creep. Barely a few weeks later, Senator Sharma, in his first speech, said that one of his goals was to get rid of bracket creep. Well, pile on, but just a few weeks earlier he had voted against removing bracket creep.
As Senator Rennick has already mentioned, the tax system has been wangled and mismanaged to protect special interest groups feeding off tax loopholes. The terms of reference (e), (f), (g) and (h) are all necessary. Tax is the cost of government. That’s necessary. But it’s now got to the point where tax, in this country of ours, is the cost of excess government interference and excess waste—well, all waste. It’s the cost of poor governance, and it’s the poor who pay regressively for it.
I support Senator Rennick’s motion as a step to exposing the harm and inefficiency of the tax system. Because of the complexities of the tax system and because of the politics around it, I think the first thing to do is to get an agreement to understand that the tax system is so destructive and so inefficient. Senator Rennick’s motion is a commendable first step to exposing the inefficiencies and the unfairness in the tax system. Once there’s an agreement on the inefficiencies, then we need to develop principles—not a system but principles: for example, simplicity; efficiency, so the tax system actually collects more than the cost of implementing that tax; fairness; objectivity; and the fact that it’s inescapable, so we don’t have multinational companies coming here, stealing our resources and assets, using our infrastructure and our people, and skipping the country without paying their fair share. So we develop principles and get agreement on them, and then, once that’s done, the specific system falls out.
I see Senator Rennick’s motion as leading to an important first step in identifying the problems and some of the solutions and then, ultimately, we can take the next step: comprehensive tax reform, defining the ultimate system and the transition of baby steps to getting there. I support Senator Rennick’s motion. Question agreed to.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/jJUIqsDeMdE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-12-05 12:08:272024-12-05 16:01:43Tax Reform Urgently Needed to Create a Fairer System for All Australians
Not for the first time, the Senate heard the word “racist” being used improperly. The Oxford Dictionary defines racism as “having the belief that some races of people are better than others; showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.” The word “racism” exists to protect people from violence. Throwing around the word “racist” in an unedifying display of rudeness and intimidation devalues its meaning. When this happens, the word loses its power to protect those who genuinely need it.
Left-leaning parties are using the word to discourage the public from closely examining One Nation’s policies, and recognising that we act in the best interests of ALL Australians.
I issue an open invitation to anyone who believes One Nation is a racist party: please come along to a One Nation event in your area and see for yourself. Everyone—no matter your race, religion, or skin colour—is welcome at a One Nation event. The only requirement to join One Nation is a love for this beautiful country.
Transcript
Not for the first time, the Senate yesterday heard the word ‘racist’ used improperly. The Oxford dictionary defines ‘racism’ as: ‘Having the belief that some races of people are better than others, showing this through violent or unfair treatment of people of other races.’ Racism exists as a word because of the need to protect people from violence. Throwing the world ‘racist’ around in an unedifying display of rudeness and intimidation devalues the word to the point where it no longer provides protection for those who genuinely need it.
The word ‘racism’ to the political Left now means any opinion they disagree with—and even worse, it’s thrown at any human being whose views they disagree with. Shame on you for taking away the power the word ‘racist’ once had. Repetitive, incorrect use of the word does get in, which is why it’s the No. 1 tactic of the Greens and the political Left. It’s used as a strategy to stop people actually looking at our policies and realising they are in the best interests of the Australian community of which they’re a part. To any Australian who believes One Nation is actually a racist party, I issue you this invitation: come along to the next One Nation event in your area, and see for yourself. Did our members make you feel welcome? Did the topics we discussed make you feel uncomfortable by virtue of your race, religion or skin colour? When I end my speeches with ‘We are one community; we are One Nation’, that isn’t an election slogan; we mean it. All those who call this beautiful country home, those who were here first and the many who’ve come since must be allowed to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and, in so doing, benefit all who are here. Creating a nation which genuinely protects the natural environment, which provides religious freedom, which respects parents’ rights and primacy of the family and which limits government power to the bare necessities—these are One Nation’s core values. I can describe why I am proud to be a member of One Nation in four words: flag, faith, family, freedom. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/TTytMoHOlRo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2024-12-05 11:03:002024-12-05 16:25:18Judge One Nation for Yourself
