Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Medicinal Cannabis Overdue for Down Regulation

Proven over thousands of years and once America’s most prescribed medicine – until Pharma realised the profits it could make from patented products – medicinal cannabis has much to offer in terms of health and well-being. With 820 varieties growing in the Australian cultivar database, there’s a cannabis strain for many individual health conditions.

The Therapeutic Goods Authority (TGA) however, insists on tight control of the industry. This inevitably has enabled criminal gangs to provide much of the domestic medicinal supply, leaving the public vulnerable to potentially narcotics-laced products in the black market.

One Nation has advanced legislation to down-regulate medicinal cannabis so that any doctor can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with a medical need and have that prescription filled by a chemist on the PBS. The goal here is to remove the industry’s criminal elements while providing the widest range of quality, whole-plant and natural cannabis for individual patient needs.

The TGA has authorised a range of cannabis products for prescription under its restrictive pathways program, yet there’s no reason not to offer these products in schedule 4, for any doctor to prescribe — truly safe and effective products that have already been prescribed successfully for many years.

By restricting these products using an approval system that has buried the TGA in paperwork they never check, the TGA is just looking out for the pharmaceutical industry and ignoring the needs of everyday Australians.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people in our one Queensland community, I was pleased to accept an invitation from Isaac Balbin, founder of cannabis.org.au, to attend last Thursday’s national cannabis industry roundtable. What a pleasure it was meeting Isaac, Rhys and their team in Melbourne and speaking with other members of parliament who, like One Nation, believe medicinal cannabis is long overdue for sensible downregulation. Medicinal cannabis is marvellous. Proven over thousands of years, in the 1920s it was America’s most prescribed medicine before Big Pharma realised it could not make as much money from a natural plant. There are now 820 varieties—and growing—in the Australian cannabis cultivar database, many developed to suit specific health conditions or needs. 

Victorian MP David Limbrick made sensible comments about where the line between government regulation for the good of society and personal freedom should be—and it’s nowhere near where it is now. Legalise Cannabis Party MLC from Western Australia Sophia Moermond spoke to the need for some level of personal growth. While we may not agree on personal growing, there was so much commonality in views being expressed. I’m excited for the potential of the cannabis industry uniting behind a sensible cannabis downregulation. 

United Kingdom member of parliament Crispin Blunt updated us on how this is progressing better in the UK than here and provided a framework for evidence-based drug policy. Now, that’s an idea I can get behind: evidence based policy on medicine. 

One of Australia’s leading cannabis doctors, Dr Nic Guimmarra, Vice President of the Society of Cannabis Clinicians, raised his concerns that the current licensing schedule has led to a situation where some disreputable cannabis clinics are pushing patients through so quickly that the resulting prescription and instructions for use are counterproductive for the patient. It’s One Nation’s belief that the heavily regulated and restricted pathway system is burying the Therapeutic Goods Administration in paperwork that it’s not checking, causing suboptimal care and, likely, patient harm as conditions worsen instead of being treated. 

This is why One Nation advanced legislation to downregulate medicinal cannabis so that any doctor can prescribe medicinal cannabis for any patient with a medical need and have that prescription filled by a chemist on the PBS. Our legislation harmonises the THC level below which a planet is hemp, not cannabis, to one per cent. This aligns with changes made in all states. The bill further adds a level of THC and CBD below which a pharmacist could sell the product to an adult without prescription. 

I was pleased to hear Michael Balderstone, President of the Legalise Cannabis Party and a legend of the Australian cannabis industry, warn that new hybrid cannabis strains with THC of up to 35 per cent were a concern needing some regulation. Thirty-five per cent THC is insane. It would suit the treatment of chronic pain and palliative care and very little else. Michael called for some commercial growth activity as otherwise development of new strains will be compromised. This is the problem with free growing without a commercial option. The plant works best when the profile of THC, CBD, terpenes and flavonoids are set to the needs of a person with a specific health condition. Unlike pharmaceuticals, with natural plant cannabis, one size is not expected to fit all. For this development to continue, it needs a commercial market presence. Consensus in the industry may ultimately fall on some level of licensed free growing. One Nation will cross that bridge, in consultation with our members, when we get there. 

Last Thursday I heard an analogy for free growing. It was the belief that, just because people can brew their own beer, it doesn’t mean people will. In fact, almost nobody does, because people can readily buy what’s needed commercially. The challenge is to take out the industry’s criminal elements while providing the widest range of quality Australian whole-plant and natural medicinal cannabis at an affordable price. 

It’s a scandal that regulatory authorities insist on tight volume controls that enable criminal gangs to provide much of the domestic medicinal supply. These are gangs that lace cannabis with narcotics and then deliberately target kids at events like Schoolies. The TGA is driving practices hurtful and dangerous to children. It’s a scandal that the minister could downschedule cannabis today yet has not done so; scheduling is regulatory, not legislative. It’s a scandal that some in the cannabis industry, including pioneers, have developed their business under the current regulatory regime environment and see downscheduling as a threat to their nice little money-earners. 

There’s no reason the entire cannabis product offering that the TGA has authorised for prescription under their restrictive pathways program could not be offered in schedule 4, for any doctor to prescribe—products that have already been prescribed successfully and safely for many years. The minister could use a regulatory instrument to make it happen today, yet he will not, because predatory billionaire owners of pharmaceutical companies pull the strings in Canberra. Australians with a medical need for cannabis don’t get a look-in. This government is saying to everyday Australians, ‘Your needs don’t matter.’  

The TGA monitors impacts of cannabis and has found that medicinal cannabis has a lower adverse event rate than prescribed pharmaceuticals. Sensible downregulation will save lives. It will provide hundreds of tailored strains of medicinal cannabis designed to ease suffering and improve the health of our society, while taking the profit and control away from crime gangs. I look forward to working with cannabis.org.au to make this happen. 

/by

Watt Arrogance, Watt Contempt

Senator Murray Watt showed the people of Australia his inability to behave in a relevant, responsible or respectful manner when he failed repeatedly to answer questions about the unsustainably high levels of immigration his party and his government are presiding over. That he got away with it without being censured in the Senate Chamber speaks volumes.

Senator Watt laughably continues, along with the rest of his party, to blame the previous government for current issues while halfway through its own term. Either Labor is not fit to run things, or they know they’re in big trouble and desperate to point the finger elsewhere.

The headlines from the major media outlets are telling us that immigration is responsible for the housing crisis. It’s glaringly obvious that this and the failed Net Zero policy is to blame for rising energy prices and the cost-of-living crisis.

Labor is destroying much of what Australia stands for, and it has destroyed its own credibility in the process.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration.

Senator Watt repeatedly failed to answer my first and second questions. When will the Labor government stop this unsustainable high immigration? It revealed Senator Watt’s complete lack of care for the people of Australia, his dismissal of the people, his arrogance towards the people and his contempt for the real and serious issues facing Australians, such as the housing crisis, with the shortage and high cost of houses and rents; inflation due in part to increased immigration; and hiding the per capita recession. If it weren’t for the record high arrivals in Australia we would be in recession right now. Cabinet is covering up the fact that its policies, including net zero, are raising energy prices exorbitantly and destroying manufacturing, security and tertiary processing—and Labor’s big corporate mates are profiteering.

Halfway through his government’s term he’s still blaming the previous government. That’s all you’ve got, Senator Watt? And then he said falsely that I called immigrants terrorists. I did not do that. I would not do that. I was born in India. Minister Watt is clearly breaching standing orders by not being relevant and by impugning my motives. Senator Hanson was sitting beside me at the time, under the President’s censure, yet Senator Watt gets off scot-free.

The Albanese government is heading down the same dead-end road the Rudd government chose. I’ll give you some quotes from the headlines of the Courier Mail: Albanese ‘doesn’t properly read important briefing documents’; ‘S-show’—a four-letter word—’political chameleon’ who wasn’t prepared; a ‘shemozzle’ and decisions which have rocked the party to its core. How long before members of the government change from hearing negative statements about Prime Minister Albanese to actively working to oust him? The Albanese voice relied on the vibe, hiding the details and contradicting claims, and had an apparent belief that voice proponents could fool the people with emotion. Start treating the Senate and the people with respect. Be honest.

/by

What Will it Take to Get a Straight Answer?

I asked three simple questions of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs and yet again, Senator Watt turned the Senate Chamber into a circus to his obvious amusement and wasted precious time.

Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia? Yes or No? And how many net overseas migrants will arrive in Australia this year?

The Treasurer earlier this year stated that the government had no control over immigration numbers, yet this is not the case. Was this ‘misinformation’?

The Minister gave no specific answers and once again attempted to direct attention back to the previous government and promoted the Labor’s utterly useless housing bill.

Transcript

My question is to Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. Does the government control the level of immigration into Australia?  

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I note your interest all week in these matters of migration, and the short answer is that under governments of all persuasions, including those who are having a chuckle over there at the moment, the immigration program in Australia is demand driven. That has been the case under this government and the former government as well.  

Senator Roberts: Point of order: it was a very simple, short question. It needs a yes or no answer. That’s it.  

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. I presume you’ve finished your answer, Minister Watt?  

Senator WATT: As I say— 

Senator Canavan: It’s just a yes or no answer, Murray! 

Senator WATT: Yes, it’s quite normal for ministers who represent others to look at their notes. Senator Canavan, we can’t all be the genius that you are. You are a genius—I pay that—especially when you get into your dark web and your bunker and you dig out all those statistics. You’re an absolute genius! 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, resume your seat. Order across the chamber, but particularly on my left.  

Senator Ayres: Yes, old Telegram Matt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Ayres, you have a lot to say this afternoon. This is question time. Minister Watt, I’m asking you to refer your comments to me and not to particular senators.  Please continue.

Senator WATT: I know Senator Rennick was a bit offended by the fact I singled out Senator Canavan as the only genius in the opposition and the only person who could get into the bunker and find statistics, because we know Senator Rennick is pretty good at that as well.  

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes. I haven’t called you, and I haven’t called you because the chamber was still disorderly. Senator Hughes. 

Senator Hughes: President, you’ve made very clear this week, and we have heard from those opposite— 

The PRESIDENT: What’s your point of order, Senator Hughes?  

Senator Hughes: I would like Minister Watt to withdraw a whole raft of his commentary and reflections on a number of senators over here and his continual snarky personal smears and vilifications.  

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, if you want to raise a point of order about unparliamentary or personal language related to a senator, I need their name at least.  

Senator Hughes: I said Minister Watt! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, don’t backchat once you’re sitting down. You indicated that the minister had had a spray against a range of senators. I have no idea who that was. I am not going to make it up or guess it, so unless you have— 

Senator Hughes: I literally said it multiple times! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, you’ve raised the point of order. You haven’t named a particular senator. You’ve indicated to me who in your view made the offence but you haven’t said about which senator. 

Senator Hughes: I said it multiple times. Would you like to check the Hansard? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Hughes, resume your seat. Minister Wong. 

Senator Wong: I think the difficulty—through you, President—is it was a generalised proposition that the senator was making. If there is a request to withdraw particular language that has just been said— 

Senator Hughes: We got multiple lectures this week. 

Senator Wong: If that is the request, I’m sure the— 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: Okay. I’m just saying that a generalised proposition is a difficult one to respond to. 

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: I’m trying to assist here. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham. 

Senator Wong: I haven’t finished. 

The PRESIDENT: I’m sorry, I thought you had finished, Senator Wong. 

Senator Wong: Thank you. I was just waiting. The proposition— 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to continue? 

Senator Wong: There is a generalised complaint about Senator Watt saying things about a number of people. I don’t know what those are, but if the request is that Senator Watt withdraw particular language that’s just been used— 

Senator Scarr interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, no interjections. 

Senator Wong: All I’m saying if there is a request to— 

Senator Hughes: And he continues! 

Senator Wong: Wow. I’m really trying. If there is a request to withdraw particular language now, I would ask the President to call the minister. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham? 

Senator Birmingham: Thank you, President. I did want to pick up on one part of your ruling there, which was to suggest it was necessary for the senator to name a particular senator who had been impugned. I will make it clear that it is possible for groups of senators to be impugned or to have improper motives attributed to them by a senator and that is also against standing orders. 

The PRESIDENT: That’s correct. 

Senator Birmingham: President, as you’re well aware, it’s not necessary always for a senator to make a point of order and, in the spirit of this week, it would be helpful for strong proactive intervention if senators can’t restrain themselves to actually ask them immediately to withdraw. Preferably they would restrain themselves, Senator Watt. 

Senator Watt interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: I haven’t called you, Senator Watt. I am going to respond to those points of order. I am not in the chamber all the time. That’s the point that I made in the statement to the chamber yesterday. It is very difficult for me to ask a senator to withdraw when I don’t know where that language has landed. I take your point, Senator Birmingham, that a slur can be made against a group of senators. That’s not what Senator Hughes was implying. My understanding of what was indicated was that the minister had made, in Senator Hughes’s view, a number of comments to senators throughout the week, not to a group of senators. However, I know that Senator Watt is always willing to own his behaviour and I will, as Senator Watt— 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: For the benefit of those interjections, a number of you are always willing, on both sides of the chamber, to withdraw. Some of you are not but most of you are. So I am going to invite Senator Watt, if he thinks he has offended senators this week, to make a general withdrawal without making any comment to comments that you may or may not have uttered. 

Senator WATT: I make a general withdrawal. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, the government does have a range of controls in place around the numbers of migrants coming into Australia, the categories of those migrants, whether they be international students or tourists, humanitarian, skilled workers so the government does have a range of controls around the numbers and types of migrants who come into Australia. I think I know where you’re going with this, because you have followed these issues all week and I point out that we haven’t really seen a lot of consistency from the opposition on matters of migration either, because what we do know is that, for instance, when the now immigration spokesperson, the member for Wannon, was in government he was saying things like, ‘We need to get our international students back. We need to get our working holiday-maker visa holders back.’ 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, that’s not relevant to what I asked. 

The PRESIDENT: I’ll bring you back to the question, Minister Watt. You’ve finished. Senator Roberts, your first supplementary? 

Transcript: First Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: On 15 May, Treasurer Jim Chalmers told Australia that the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’. Minister, is that a lie, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I am going to ask you to rephrase that question.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that misinformation, given your government issues the visas and decides who comes to this country? Why are you letting immigration spiral out of control while hundreds of thousands of Australians are homeless?

Senator WATT: I reject the suggestion that the Treasurer has misrepresented the facts on this issue. It is a really important issue that Australia is dealing with at the moment. But, Senator Roberts, in answer to similar questions from you over the course of the week, I’ve pointed out a number of steps the government have taken to fix the fundamentally broken migration system that we inherited from the opposition and, in particular, from the now Leader of the Opposition, Mr Dutton, who oversaw the migration system as the Minister for Home Affairs for a number of years.

We’ve already scaled back the pandemic event visa. We’re taking action about the working hours for international students, which has been a real drawcard for international students coming to Australia. We’ve made all sorts of improvements to Home Affairs, in terms of its processing of visa applications. And, of course, when it comes to housing, as I’ve pointed out to you already, you and your colleagues have an opportunity to vote for more housing and you chose to vote against it.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?

Transcript: Second Supplementary Question

Senator ROBERTS: How many overseas immigrants, net, will arrive in Australia this financial year?

Senator WATT: Again, I know that we’ve addressed this issue in previous answers, both in chis chamber and in estimates, and the issues around the number of net overseas migrants is a matter that is handled by the Treasury. I’ve already acknowledged in previous answers on these questions that post COVID, when we had a couple of years of pretty much zero migration to Australia, it was always inevitable that there was going to be an increase in that migration as we had tourists, working holiday-maker visa holders and skilled migrants coming back into the country. That is exactly one of the reasons why our government is trying to fix the broken migration system that we inherited and trying to build more homes, despite your opposition and that of the coalition.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: On a point of order, I asked the question: how much net immigration this year?

The PRESIDENT: The minister explained it is a question that should be directed to Treasury, and the minister was answering it in his capacity. The minister has finished.

/by

Watt a Clown Show

When will this Labor government make the decision to cut unsustainable, record high immigration? This is a government that is halfway through its term, yet it’s still blaming the previous government. Are we really supposed to swallow this fairy-tale?

Australia’s immigration levels have been allowed to escalate under the Albanese government and they’re driving both the housing crisis and the high cost of living. These two issues have worsened exponentially under Labor.

I had to remind the Minister to answer the question because he was determined to use up the time allotted for answering in banter with others in the chamber, or to deliberately twist my words. When I pressed him to answer he could only pass the buck, talk up Labor’s grossly inadequate housing fund and it’s clear he is not prepared to accept any responsibility. The arrogance and lack of respect he shows to his position and by default, the Australian people, is deplorable.

Failure to take responsibility is a symptom of the ways in which Labor is failing the Australian people. A recent Weekend Australian article has reported that the migration surge is fuelling inflation, and the Reserve Bank backs that up.

The recent tsunami of new arrivals is under Labor’s watch and Senator Murray Watt needs to own it. These performances in parliament he’s indulging in, rather than taking his position seriously, do nothing to restore the people’s trust in government.

Transcript

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Senator Watt. With Labor embarking on the largest immigration program in Australian history, bringing in more than 500,000 people this year alone, more and more economists are warning these numbers are driving inflation and hurting everyday Australian families. Following yesterday’s 12th interest rate rise since Labor was elected, when will the government acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels?

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator Dean Smith interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie and Senator Dean Smith!

Senator WATT: Senator Smith, that’s most unlike you! I’m very disappointed in you! I’m very disappointed. Thank you for the question, Senator Roberts. I hear, again, in response to your question, Senator McKenzie demanding more spending for infrastructure. So I guess we’re back to, ‘Spend more in the economy, and drive up inflation!’ That’s where the opposition was at today—

Senator Rennick interjecting—

Senator WATT: Senator Rennick’s jumping up and saying no. The Liberals disagree. Okay!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts, I am going to direct the minister to your question, and I will remind those in here that the crossbenchers are entitled to be heard in silence and are entitled to have their questions answered. They get less time than others in this place. I would expect everyone to be sitting in respectful silence. Minister Watt, I refer you to Senator Roberts’ question.

Senator WATT: Thank you. Senator Roberts, I think I answered a very similar question from you the other day. I did acknowledge that Australia’s migration system, after 10 years of Liberal and National government, mainly overseen by the now opposition leader, Mr Dutton, is in utter 	disarray. We have acknowledged that. I know that the minister—

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts.

Senator Roberts: On relevance—I’m asking when he will cut the numbers to sustainable levels.

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will remind the minister of your question. Minister Watt.

Senator WATT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. It is important to put this in context, and we have acknowledged that the migration system that we inherited, overseen largely by Mr Dutton, the now opposition leader, is a mess. It is a completely broken system. We have already taken a number of measures—

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: When will they acknowledge they are completely wrong about high immigration and cut the numbers to sustainable levels? That’s simple.

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is going to your question, and I will continue to listen carefully. Minister Watt.

Senator WATT: We have taken a number of measures already since being elected to fix the mess of the broken migration system we inherited. For example, this government has ended the Pandemic Event visa, which was being abused in some cases—in many cases. We have changed the previously unlimited working hours that were available for international students, a system that was engineered by the former government, and we’ve also made changes to work exemptions for working holiday visa holders. We’ve also increase the temporary skilled migration income threshold from $53,900 to $70,000, and that is the first increase in a decade.

The PRESIDENT: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?

Senator Roberts: When will he deal with cutting the high numbers?

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, I think he’s being relevant to your question. Thank you, Minister.

Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, it’s up to you to choose whether you want to listen to my answer or not. But I’ve already outlined a number of measures that we have taken to fix the migration system, thoroughly broken, overseen by Mr Dutton, and to try to put in place a more manageable migration system and more manageable immigration numbers. We are conscious that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, and we’ll keep working on it. (Time expired)

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your first supplementary?

/by

“Closing Loopholes” Split Shows Labor Doesn’t Actually Care About Workers

I spoke in support of Senators’ Pocock and Lambie pulling out sections of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023 and dealing with them urgently. These are all worthwhile, all simple, and all carved out of the original legislation. This isn’t controversial. It is worthwhile legislation that needs to be dealt with now.

The Closing-Loopholes Bill is a cover-up and combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is a trick. There are some fantastic elements in this package but they’re using those to hide the flawed elements of the bill.

Despite the Labor party lies:

– One Nation will always support workers getting redundancy entitlements.

– One Nation will always support workers’ rights when they are suffering domestic violence.

– One Nation will always support workers safety against silica and asbestos.

– One Nation will always support our first responders receiving injury compensation for the PTSD they got from work.

Labor hates this move to split-out elements of the bill, because it proves they have abandoned the workers.

Labor is no longer the party of the workers. One Nation is the new party of the workers.

Transcript

We absolutely support these elements of the so-called closing-loopholes bill that we are now dealing with, that we will deal with. And I want to commend Senators Pocock and Lambie for their initiative in pulling out these four sections of the bill, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes) Bill 2023, because the bills that we’re dealing with this morning, which are carved out from the original fair work bill, are the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Small Business Redundancy Exemption) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Strengthening Protections Against Discrimination) Bill 2023, the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Asbestos Safety and Eradication Agency) Bill 2023, and the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (First Responders) Bill 2023, including access to PTSD compensation. These are all worthwhile, all simple, all carved out of the original legislation from Labor—exact copies.

The motion to reorder allows a sensible amount of time for debate, given that these are not controversial issues and they’ve so far received wide support from stakeholders. I agree with Senator Lambie that the closing-loopholes bill, in its entirety, is just a cover-up, a trick. That’s all they’re doing. Combining the bills under the ‘loopholes’ tag is dishonest, and that’s what the Labor Party is doing with this bill. It’s fundamentally dishonest. They are protecting and covering up the Mining and Energy Union in the Hunter Valley, the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman, Coal Long Service Leave Corporation, and Minister Burke and his staff, who were aware of some illegalities, some crimes, that have been committed in the topics that I’ve been discussion for the past four years in this place.

That’s why this bill is being lumped in, Senator Cash. We’ve got a lovely title, ‘Closing Loopholes’. There are some fantastic elements of it; I agree with Senator Lambie. But they’re hiding it under a dog. They’re protecting their own rackets.

Ensuring that all questions on the bills are put at 11.30 today will ensure that we get these sensible measures passed, as Senator Cash and Senator Lambie have said. It would be nice to pass some legislation in the Senate. That’s another reason why we need this suspension of standing orders motion. The government has been stuck on its non-sensical sea dumping bill, now in its fourth day. I heard Senator Pocock talking about it the other day. Why would you call it a sea dumping bill—putting pollution in the form of phosphates, nitrogen and iron into the ocean as an experiment? They can’t even name their bill correctly, using a decent term. Maybe it is correct, Senator Pocock, through you, Chair. It’s a sea dumping bill—that’s your title—and you can’t withstand the scrutiny that your own sloppy sea dumping bill has brought upon you. You can’t withstand the scrutiny, and you’re still going. That is what is happening with this motion. The Senate is slapping the government and saying, ‘This is how you get some legislation through.’ So I want to thank Senators Lambie and Pocock again.

We need to pass this motion for the insolvency practitioners that will be done over when the headcount falls below the small business threshold and will miss out on entitlements. This has wide industry support and is an aberration. We should deal with it now, as this motion proposes. People who are suffering from family and domestic violence should have access to protections in the Fair Work Act—sooner rather than later. That isn’t controversial. We need to deal with it now, as this motion proposes. We need to get on with the job with these four bills. I commend Senator Lambie and Senator Pocock, and we support this suspension of standing orders.

/by

Laboring Under the Delusion of Albanese’s Election Promises

Since 2020, real wages have gone backwards to the same level as 2009. It’s the worse decline in household income anywhere in the developed world, not a title we want.

Labor traditionally sold itself as the party of the worker, but today’s Labor is selling out Australian workers.

According to data from the OECD, the Albanese Labor government has presided over a 5.1% reduction in per capita household income. Before Labor tells you its because of the global problems caused by the Ukraine, or because of supply chain issues, not only did this Labor government reduce household incomes 5.1 percent, two thirds of developed nations actually grew their per capita income during the same period.

The government’s Net Zero climate scam is driving power bills up and driving employment opportunities down. Labor, far from championing the workforce, is selling out workers by allowing 2.3 million visa holders into the country and driving down real wages.

The real party for the workers is One Nation.

Transcript

Data from the OECD shows that Australia has suffered the largest reduction of real household income amongst all developed nations. The Albanese Labor government has presided over a 5.1 per cent reduction in per capita household income. Not only did this Labor government reduce household incomes by 5.1 per cent; two-thirds of developed nations actually grew their per capita income in the same period. Spain wins the gold medal for economic management, with a six per cent increase in income. Meanwhile, in Labor’s ‘socialist republic of Australia’, the real wages of everyday Australians have gone backwards to the same level as they were in 2009.

Labor governments somehow sell themselves to the electorate as being the party of the worker. Not anymore. Labor is selling out Australian workers with your net zero climate change scam, driving power bills up and driving employment opportunities down. Labor is selling out workers by allowing 2.3 million visa holders into the country, many of whom will cost Australia more than they will ever contribute, while driving down real wages. Labor is selling out the workers with your digital-prison legislation which is currently before the Senate. This will ensure that workers who want to keep a bank account—how novel—won’t be able to complain about having no job, no home and no future. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister is jetting around the world, enjoying the largesse of nations to which we’ve surrendered economic advantage. It’s the Anthony Albanese world tour of shame, complete with an appropriate and highly patronising canine reference from China that I will not repeat.

Everyday Australians are going backwards while corporate profits are at a record high. This is not the government of the workers. The Prime Minister’s billionaire mates are running a government of wealth and advantage for parasitic billionaires who feed off taxpayer subsidies. The workers party is now One Nation. We have one flag; we are one country; we are One Nation.

/by

Labor’s Latest Scheme to Buyback More Farmers’ Water

The Murray Darling Basin river system has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and it can continue to do so if we can save it from the city bureaucrats and Labor’s ideologically driven policies.

I put forward a motion on the Water Amendment Restoring Our Rivers Bill 2023 because it should not have any further consideration until the Albanese Government properly consults with the States. There was no Murray Darling Basin consultation and that’s the problem with this bill.

The Council of Water Ministers met in August, yet as of this November sitting we have still not seen the communication from that meeting. It seems clear that the states have not collectively signed off on the bill. I urged the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the Minister with a clear message to remove the sections the States do not support. Let’s complete the plan, and let’s do it properly for a change.

Transcript

I rise to take note as a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community. It’s no surprise to One Nation that the Senate is once again debating the lack of government transparency—transparency in this case being defined as: what’s the government hiding this time? Consultation from the Labor Party always stops at 39 votes. Everyone else is on a need-to-know basis. 

In the case of Senator Davey’s document discovery, the government has decided the Senate does not need to know the basis for government policy in a basin that accounts for $22 billion in food and fibre needed to feed and clothe the world, a basin that’s home to 2.3 million Australians, including those in my home state of Queensland. Apparently, we Queenslanders do not need to know what informed Minister Plibersek’s Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill—a bill on which this document discovery would have cast light. The fundamental failure of the Albanese government when it talks about consultation is its failure to understand that consultation requires disclosure. Already the government has been forced to make three pages of amendments to the bill to make it legally workable. How does anyone get a bill that wrong? Refusing to disclose—that’s how. Refusing to consult—’consult’ does not mean a quick whip around the staff room at the CFMEU or asking the luvvies at the ABC and the Guardian how to run the country. The Albanese voice referendum showed the stupidity of asking the Canberra bubble and inner city socialists what the rest of the country thinks is a fair thing. In real Australia, consulting means listening, sharing and learning. 

Senator Pauline Hanson and I have consulted with industry stakeholders and toured the basin, starting in Charleville, in Queensland, all the way to Goolwa, in South Australia. I’ve spoken to independent researchers and even shared a plane for three days with Topher Field as we flew over the basin to understand it and film it. I’ve driven the length of the Murray-Darling Basin three times and my staff another two times, most recently last Christmas. Along the way, I’ve listened to amazing farmers displaying a level of resilience that at times is superhuman. I’ve consulted with Aboriginal people, for whom the water in the river is their life, the centre of their culture and the centre of health and happiness. I’ve spoken with business owners fearful for their future in an agricultural industry this government is determined to replace with fake food made in urban intensive-production facilities. This is an amazing connected river system that has driven prosperity in our beautiful country and can continue to do if only we can save it from Labor’s inner-city ignorance and ideologically driven policy. 

Today the Senate will vote on my motion to prevent the Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Bill 2023 from being given further consideration until the Albanese government properly consults with the states. The Water Act 2007, upon which the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based, is very clear. The plan is a consensus document of the four states. The federal government does not get a vote, because it’s a servant to the states, not the master of the states. The ACT does not get a vote as it’s a territory, not a state, and that’s fine since the ACT clearly runs the federal government anyway. Giving the ACT a vote would be, in fact, two votes. 

The bill digest contains all the information needed to support my motion. It admits Victoria has refused to sign the new agreement, because Victorian farmers have given up enough water already. Good on the Victorian parliament for standing up for its constituents. Good on New South Wales Premier Chris Minns for being brutally honest in saying the New South Wales government is only signing up to the $700 million in federal buybacks federally for water projects and he is not signing up for water buybacks until after those projects are completed in 2027. The government has no consensus on water buybacks, which are, at best, two all. The rest of the bill contains a lot of good reforms to add accountability, improve measurement and reporting, align spending guidelines and budgets with what is needed and extend the deadline for completion. 

The council of water ministers met in August, yet we still have not seen the communication from that meeting. It’s now November. It seems clear that the states have not signed off on the bill in toto. I urge the Senate to support my motion to send the bill back to the minister with a clear message: take out the bits the states do not support, and let’s get the rest of this bill, which is almost all of it, through the Senate this sitting. Let’s complete the plan and let’s do it properly for a change. 

/by

Optus Failure Demonstrates Cash is King 

I called on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks stop removing cash and stop closing branches and ATMs. The Optus outage reminds us that persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism is insanity.

How did we get here? The current concept of a ‘digital identity’ was originally dreamed up at a 2015 World Economic Forum conference in collaboration with Accenture, a Fortune Global 500 company.

If the government’s Identification Verification Services Bill passes it will not only open the door to hackers, but it will also offer them the key. A single data file will make identity theft easier.  If the government centralises the private data it collects from citizens, on-sells the records to the commercial market while simultaneously mandating the use of digitised personal records within the economy, it will be installing digital socialism. A digital prison no less.

Government and its parasitic billionaire mates want to become the middlemen of all transactions between customers and businesses. One Nation says NO! 

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I draw attention to yesterday’s Optus outage. Payment terminals using the Optus network went down, requiring businesses to close or accept cash payments. The Optus failure makes a mockery of our arrogant, lying, profit-gouging banks’ campaign to totally remove cash from our society and to remove bank branches. I call on the Treasurer to use his regulatory powers to ensure banks do not remove cash from one more branch, do not close one more branch and do not close one more ATM. Anything less is asking for trouble the next time the internet goes down.

The Optus failure reminds Australia of the insanity of persisting with a single digital identity linked to a digital currency as the only approved payment mechanism. What happens if the government’s Identity Verification Services Bill passes and these myriad identification services are replaced with one central government run digital ID, complete with your biometric data? It will be a hacker’s paradise, with everything hackers need for identity theft and fraud located in a single data file. All that’s missing from the government’s digital ID plans is a massive sign saying, ‘Hack me!’ With digital ID, the government is not protecting us from identity theft; it’s making identity theft easier. If digital ID and digital currency are implemented, the next time Optus or Telstra go down, every Australian’s life stops. There will be no transport, no telephone, no keeping track of children and no buying anything. The government is creating a pinch point every time the internet goes down—a chokehold that comes at a terrible human and economic cost.

The government’s predatory billionaire mates are salivating at the control that digital ID and digital currency will give these parasites. The government and its parasitic billionaire mates aren’t good enough to make the technology work. It’s going to stuff everything up and screw everyday Australians and small businesses. To a digital prison, One Nation says no.

/14 Comments/by

Supporting Debate Supports Democracy

The motion from Labor on Wednesday 18 October shows complete contempt for the Senate and for the people of Australia who put us in this house.

I spoke to oppose Labor’s guillotining of debate. The Family Law Act is being amended and the government is amending its own amendments, which tells us the legislation is hasty. That demonstrates even more importantly that we must have scrutiny and debate on this bill. The modern Labor party is only interested in ramming through legislation on energy, immigration and other bills impacting Australians. Meanwhile, it plans to shut down debate across the country with its censorship bill.

Prior to the election Anthony Albanese promised that his party would listen and engage in consultation. Actions speak louder than words. This is a leader in bed with the United Nations — not a leader for the people of Australia. A government worthy of respect supports such protocols as debate, scrutiny, and accountability. It respects the will of the people. The current Labor party is failing the nation on all those checks and balances. It’s a party gone rogue.

Transcript

Here we are again today with Labor proposing to guillotine debate on bills. This will come up in the formal motions. It has become Labor’s custom and practice in this chamber to guillotine debate on bills and to stop orders for the production of documents, and who helps them every time? The Greens. They say they are the masters of transparency and scrutiny, but what do they do? They guillotine debate almost every time. They guillotine debate on just about everything. 

Let’s see who else supports them. Will it be the usual cronies or will they stand up and support debate? It’s true that the Liberal motion is also setting a guillotine, but at least it restores some hours for debate, and that’s what’s fundamentally important. It’s extended until 10 o’clock tonight, thank you, and extended tomorrow before imposing a limit. The Liberals are trying to compromise. That’s why today we’re supporting their extension of hours motion and sitting late tonight.  

Here we are again with the Labor Party avoiding debate on bills that are the subject of so many amendments. The Family Law Act is being amended and the government is amending its own amendment bills—not just once, twice or three times but many times. They won’t let discussion happened on that. The fact that the Labor government is putting forward so many amendments to its own legislation shows that the legislation is hasty. That’s why we must have scrutiny of this.  

The Family Law Act has been called the slaughterhouse of the nation. It has been killing people in this country—killing families and killing kids—since 1975 when it was introduced by the Labor Party following UN policy. That is a fact. There have been 48 years of the slaughterhouse of the nation thanks to Lionel Murphy and the Labor Party. Now they are introducing bills to make it even more complex. They won’t allow scrutiny of that complexity. What are they hiding? 

We also see that other parties, including my own, have got a significant number of amendments in this chamber. We’re not even allowed to discuss our own amendments or explain our own amendments. What kind of democracy is that? What kind of scrutiny is that? What kind of responsibility is that? 

Look at the two migration bills. Think of the impact on housing. We will be getting 1.2 million new arrivals in this country this year. Where are they going to sleep—under what roof and in what bed? What will that do to the cost of housing and the cost of rent in this country? Labor at the same time is invoking UN 2050 net-zero policies, which are raising the cost of living dramatically. We have high inflation raising the cost of living dramatically. Housing is going up, and they want to bring in more people. We have a lottery, a ballot. Energy prices and inflation—they won’t allow scrutiny of this.  

Instead of consulting properly in the first place, the government has chosen to put forward poor legislation and just ram it through. The Labor Party need to start doing what Anthony Albanese promised as opposition leader and start listening and consulting, not walking with their ears closed and ramming through legislation. Didn’t you learn from last Saturday? The disinformation and misinformation bill will shut down debate. Not only do you want to shut down debate here but you want to shut down debate right across the country. That’s the modern Labor Party for you.  

This is not how the Senate is supposed to work. The Senate is supposed to be the house of review on behalf of the people. We were elected to represent the people and to debate issues for the people. We’re not their masters; we serve them. This is the people’s house, and Australians expect their senators to give each piece of legislation careful, extensive and respectful scrutiny. The motion from the Labor Party this afternoon shows complete contempt yet again for the Senate and for the people of Australia who put us in this House and who we are supposed to serve. Labor promised consultation and listening, yet, in practice, shows us Labor does not even know what those words mean. 

/by

The Need to Avoid Catastrophic War is Paramount

I took the opportunity to set the record straight and clarify what Senator Penny Wong did to avoid answering a question I put to her on government misinformation. Having done so, I spoke in full support Senator Wong’s motion on Hamas attacks on Israel and ongoing conflict in her speech on the yesterday. Her speech was balanced, reasoned and befitting of an Australian Foreign Minister.

It’s true that the actions of radicals have caused untold death and suffering on both sides of the conflict. The Minister said what needs to be said and I refer everyone to her speech. The content, clarity and quality of her speech means I only have one point to add. There’s a chance this conflict could escalate to a catastrophic war and the need to avoid that happening must be paramount in the minds of all involved.

We have seen many such conflicts over the years and there’s one truth from them all: the sooner a ceasefire is declared, hostages are released and both sides sit down and talk to each other, the faster the suffering can be brought to an end.

May peace be with us all soon.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the motion that Senator Wong moved yesterday on Hamas attacks on Israel and the ongoing conflict. Firstly, though, I briefly mention the minister’s answer to my first supplementary question in question time yesterday. I asked about remarks the minister had made to the media in a press conference where the minister restated and amplified remarks that were made earlier in the day to the children of Cheng Lei, an Australian and Chinese citizen who is back in Australia following a period of incarceration in China, having concluded her sentence in prison. I am, of course, very pleased to see Cheng Lei free and reunited with her family, yet the minister chose to spin my question in a way that contradicted the events of the press conference, apparently to avoid actually answering my question. The minister’s comments were widely reported after her press conference. Responding to me yesterday, as the minister did, by invoking a motion was an inappropriate and false reflection. 

Turning to this motion on Hamas, I fully support Senator Wong’s motion and her speech on the matter yesterday. Her speech was balanced, reasoned and befitting of an Australian foreign minister. It’s true that the actions of radicals have caused untold death and suffering on both sides of the conflict. The minister said what needs to be said, and I refer everyone to her speech. The content, clarity and quality of her speech means I only have one point to add. There’s a chance this conflict could escalate to a catastrophic war, and the need to avoid that happening must be paramount in the minds of all involved. We have seen many such conflicts over the years, and there’s one truth from them all: the sooner a ceasefire is declared, hostages are released and both sides sit down and talk to each other, the faster the suffering can be brought to an end. May peace be with us all soon. 

Minister Penny Wong’s Speech

/by