The causes of the cost-of-living crisis are no mystery.
Deutsche Bank predicted this month that Australia’s net immigration for the financial year will top 530,000. There are 1.2 million new long stay visa holders which is almost triple the population of Canberra. That’s a million more people looking for housing, jobs, spending their money and using infrastructure and essential services that were already strained.
With the largest amount of wind, solar and batteries on Australia’s power grid in our history, power bills have never been higher. That pushes up goods and services costs for everyone and contributes to the pain.
Mortgages are climbing with another interest rate hike warning for November by the Reserve Bank to “fight inflation”. Why?
During the economy wrecking COVID response, the Reserve Bank printed half a trillion dollars out of thin air. Most of it went to foreign-owned multinationals. This $500 BILLION created out of thin air has, in turn, created the inflation problem.
Added to this, lockdowns devastated many of the smaller Australian businesses cutting off supplies of goods and further inflating prices.
The Reserve Bank’s longstanding policy on inflation is to raise interest rates to cause enough financial pain for mortgage holders to spend less and force the price of goods down. So having made the problem they are now punishing homeowners to try and fix it.
Here’s how One Nation would fix the cost-of-living crisis. Stop the flood of immigration into this country to fix the housing crisis; stop the chasing of the UN net-zero pipe dream to fix energy bills; and stop the Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to fix inflation.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I want to show how One Nation will fix the cost-of-living crisis. To fix the cost-of-living crisis there are only three things parliament must do: stop the flood of immigration into this country to fix the housing crisis; stop the chasing of the UN net-zero pipedream to fix energy bills; and stop the Reserve Bank printing money out of thin air to fix inflation. Every time we hear about the number of immigrants coming in, the number goes up. Just this week it was reported that Deutsche Bank predicts that a net immigration for the financial year will top 530,000. That does not include temporary workers. It does not include students, so the total is 1.2 million in one year. That is more than the entire population of Canberra arriving in one year; in fact, it is almost triple. Immigration is why we have a rental crisis. It is why we have a housing crisis. It is why many young people will never be able to buy a home. The big business donors to both Liberal and Labor benefit from big immigration. If we want a roof over every Australian head, we must stop this flood.
The next contributor to our problem is the UN’s net-zero scam. The lie that wind and solar is the cheapest electricity is debunked using one fact. With the largest amount of wind, solar and batteries on Australia’s power grid in our history, power bills have never been higher. Every country in the world that has tried to go down the path of wind and solar has had higher power bills—every country. Watch electricity bills drop when we abandon UN net zero, fire up the coal-fired power stations and let nuclear onto the playing field.
To fix inflation, just stop the Reserve Bank printing $500 billion, as they did during COVID—half a trillion dollars. That way the Reserve Bank doesn’t have to try and send mortgage holders broke to fix the problem the Reserve Bank caused. Many of the solutions are simple. We just need more One Nation members because only we have the guts to call this rubbish out.
Liberal Senator McGrath mentioned in raising this MPI motion that mortgages are up an average of $1,500 a month. Let’s rewind the tape and look at why that is happening. The Reserve Bank claims it needs to raise interest rates to fight inflation. Inflation is like an equation. When you have too much money chasing too few goods, prices go up. It is that simple. Throughout history, the idea has been that if the Reserve Bank raises interest rates enough, mortgage holders will not have money to spend, so prices will come down. That takes care of the too-much-money side of the equation. With interest rates higher, Australians will have less money to spend on goods, so inflation will come down.
Now, I am not kidding. This is what the Reserve Bank means when they say they are ‘fighting inflation’. They are sending Australians broke to solve a problem that the Reserve Bank created with the Morrison government. What no-one likes to talk about is the Reserve Bank’s part in creating the inflation problem. You will remember from our equation that too much money equals more inflation. During the pandemic the Reserve Bank printed roughly half a trillion dollars—$500 billion—out of thin air using what they call ‘electronic ledger entries’—their words. Half a trillion dollars was conjured out of thin air and dropped from a helicopter to compensate for the Liberal government’s economy-wrecking COVID restrictions that were not necessary. That $500 billion is new money and a major cause of the inflation problem Australia is still fighting, and who got the money? Largely, it was foreign-owned multinationals.
To summarise the inflation problem, the Reserve Bank printed hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air. That led to huge inflation. Now the Reserve Bank is trying to send enough mortgage holders broke so they will stop spending to try and bring inflation down—another housing crisis. Lockdowns devastated our economy, our businesses. That cut the supply side, which meant fewer goods, which meant prices for those of goods raised—inflation. This is not a comedy skit; this is the strategy of the people who were and who are running the country, and they are in charge of our economy. Every single part of this happened under the direction and watch of the supposedly conservative Liberal-National coalition government. For the Liberals to come to this chamber and bemoan the inflation problem and mortgage repayments is politics at its worst. I said earlier in the week that, with this economy, the Liberal-National coalition government gave Labor one of the largest hospital passes in political history. In saying that, Labor now wants to turbocharge the destruction of our economy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ajHcTo6yjfM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-23 20:08:302023-10-24 08:17:07How One Nation Can Fix the Cost of Living Crisis
Since July 2020, I’ve been speaking about the fear, the oppression and the inhuman cruelty of our COVID response. Each of the measures in the COVID response was designed to add to the fear and anguish to keep the population scared and compliant, with measures that contradicted the government’s own rule book that had just been updated in 2019.
Developed over many years of successes and failures, this document clearly had arrived at the right way to handle COVID. It’s called the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. Why was this Australian-made policies and procedures manual thrown out for a foreign military-style countermeasures response that involved national cabinet, secret contracts, clandestine meetings and authoritarian decision making?
No wonder the government is exempting itself and the mainstream media from its own misinformation and disinformation bill.
I promised to hound down those responsible and I will be relentless in keeping that promise. An inquiry must look at what we knew about the risk to human life at each stage of our response and compare that risk to the benefit achieved from the Commonwealth response to that risk.
The Chair of the L&CA References Committee spoke well and said he would welcome the task.
One Nation does not accept that the “toothless” inquiry the Prime Minister announced is in any way fit for purpose. If now is the appropriate time for the PM to call his inquiry into COVID, then surely now is also time for a Royal Commission.
Appointing COVID insiders, who championed the COVID response, to conduct an inquiry into themselves and their mates is a travesty of justice. We can’t ignore our sworn duty as the House of Review any longer and asked the Senate to start the process by passing this Motion.
Once the Terms of Reference are sorted, then the people of Australia will have an opportunity to use their voices to shape a Royal Commission.
Should the PM choose to defy the will of the Senate, the option of a Senate Select Inquiry is available to the Senate, which has similar powers to a Royal Commission and with the added benefits of a faster turnaround, lower costs and greater accountability.
Transcript
I move:
That, noting that a fully empowered Royal Commission with appropriate terms of reference is necessary to learn from the unprecedented government response to COVID-19, the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References committee for inquiry and report by 31 March 2024:
The appropriate terms of reference for a COVID-19 Royal Commission that would allow all affected stakeholders to be heard.
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak in favour of this motion. One Nation’s motion seeks to arrive at a fair terms of reference for a royal commission into the Commonwealth response to SARS-CoV-2. Those terms of reference could alternatively inform a Senate select committee of inquiry.
COVID resulted in the largest health response in Australian history. I put this motion forward as an invitation to all senators in this place, from all parties. Every single senator has heard from a stakeholder that the COVID response affected. This inquiry would ensure that none of those voices are missed by future terms of reference for a COVID royal commission. To be clear, the inquiry this motion seeks would not pass judgement on the COVID response. Its scope is simply to hear submissions from stakeholders to ensure that a future royal commission has properly informed terms of reference so that stakeholders will have an opportunity to have a say at such a commission.
Death, injury and suffering have been caused not just from the virus but from our response to the virus. Only a royal commission will sort out how much harm the virus did and how much harm we did to ourselves—and there was a hell of a lot of harm. Firstly, this harm was caused through the use of politicised fear. COVID has taken an unknown number of lives during the four years the virus has been present in Australia. I say ‘unknown’ because the number of people who actually died from COVID as opposed to dying with COVID is unknown. Knowingly increasing the death count to dial up the fear simply to ensure compliance with health directives appears to have been deliberate government policy at state and federal level. We treated people as though they were not human beings—rather, a problem to be managed.
Government did not manage the virus. Government managed us. They controlled us, the people. An inquiry must go back and look at what we knew about the risk to human life at each stage of our response and compare that risk to the benefit achieved from the Commonwealth response to that risk. From that process, we can create rules to guide our response to the next such event—fairer rules that dignify and sanctify human life. The anguish we felt was not just fear of the virus; it was fear of the governments. The public never knew what the governments were going to do next, let alone why. There was no excuse for that.
If we do actually have a handbook to be followed in a case like this, it’s called the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza. This document was last updated in August 2019, just before COVID, and was produced as a result of consultation with the states and territories. What happened to this? Let’s see what’s in it:
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza (AHMPPI), the national government health sector pandemic influenza plan, outlines the agreed arrangements between the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments for the management of an influenza pandemic. To support an integrated and coordinated response …
I would have thought that that seems to fit the bill exactly. In 2009 the Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was used to guide Australia’s response to H1N1 flu—swine flu.
Next I’ll quote this from that document:
The key factors in this plan’s approach include:
The use of existing systems and governance mechanisms as the basis of the response …
There is no national cabinet, no secret decisions and no new body—with no rules or structure—that uses secret data that the public still cannot see. I’m starting to see why the government put this in the bin. I quote again:
incorporation of an analysis of risks and benefits—
Oh wait; there it is, a risk-benefit analysis; what a marvellous idea—
… to support evidence-based decision making …
Evidence based decision-making—wouldn’t that have been nice these last four years? We had this rule book in 2019, developed over many years of successes and failures, which clearly arrived at the right way to handle COVID. Why didn’t we use it? Now, that is a question for a royal commission.
Secondly, harm was created as a result of making decisions on the optics, not the data, in direct contravention of the government’s own handbook. From page 11, under ‘Proportionate response’:
In the past all pandemic planning was aimed at responding to a worst case scenario, similar to the influenza pandemic of 1918-19. The 2009 pandemic showed clearly the need for the flexibility to scale the response to be proportionate to the risk associated with the current disease.
Our response was supposed to be set to the actual harm that was occurring, not the fears around the worst-case scenario, which, as it turned out, never occurred. Around the middle of 2020, it should have been clear to our health officials and to this parliament, as it was to me, that the scary videos of COVID deaths coming out of China were not representative of the strain of COVID active in Australia at the time or, for that matter, anywhere else in the world. Even worse, information came out at the time suggesting those videos were possibly faked, a suspicion confirmed in 2022, when some of the producers of the videos posted behind-the-scenes videos and photos of their work to social media. And yet this is what we set our response to—the fear, not the reality.
No attempt appears to have been made to determine just how dangerous Australian COVID really was. That was another of many direct contraventions of the rule book. Instead, the government leveraged dodgy Chinese videos to ramp up the fear. When that didn’t convince the public, the states started making their own fake propaganda videos, portraying the worst-case scenario, here in this country, something they had agreed not to do the year before. When people took to the streets to protest the measures being taken, the government responded with yet more fear. Then came the military and the police. We have all seen those videos of elderly Australians being tasered, shoved to the floor, knocked out, and a pregnant mother arrested in her own home for sharing information about a protest. We have seen protesters being shot with rubber bullets and hunted down in parks, and the Premier gloating. Each of these measures was designed to add to the fear and anguish, to keep the population scared and compliant, with measures that contradicted the government’s own rule book. No wonder the government is exempting itself and the mainstream media from its own misinformation and disinformation bill. Using any measure, the COVID fear campaign would have been struck down under that legislation and the government left to argue their case based on data, as the government were required to do but they didn’t.
Thirdly, harm was caused economically—severe harm, right across the country. The Commonwealth COVID response was the most expensive federal government line item since World War II. Taxpayers have been left with a bill in excess of $600 billion, a bill that keeps going up with every interest payment on the money we borrowed to pay for our response. Not all the money was borrowed, though. The Reserve Bank printed a large amount, or, as the Reserve Bank prefers to say in answer to questioning from me, it created money out of thin air using an electronic journal entry. That money printing is a direct cause of the inflation and cost-of-living crisis Australia now faces. Lives were destroyed as a result of our economic mismanagement during COVID. Businesses were closed. Personal wealth was taken from everyday Australians and handed to the predatory billionaires who were behind every COVID curtain. Worldwide, $4 trillion has been redistributed from everyday citizens to predatory billionaires, and this figure continues to rise.
Fourthly, marriages and families were destroyed. Children had stability, love and support taken away from them. Elderly people were left alone to die. All the while, troops were on the streets enforcing lockdowns that were unprecedented in the history of our beautiful country, as part of an international American, British, Canadian, Australian COVID defence countermeasures consortium. A royal commission must determine if the cruelty was justified. An inquiry must look at the medical decisions taken. It will not be easy to peel back the layers of medical disinformation coming from university academics and research scientists that have a track record of saying whatever they are paid to say. There were so many alternatives to the pharmaceutical response our secretive National Cabinet decided upon. Why were these banned, ignored or ridiculed? What went on behind this veil of secrecy to pursue untested, fake vaccines above all else and the secrecy around big pharma’s unproven antivirals like remdesivir, or, as it’s known after killing many people here and overseas, ‘Run, death is near’. Turning to the injections themselves, I don’t call these injectables vaccines because they do not comply with the definition of vaccine in use before COVID. The fact that the definition of vaccine was changed to make room for these dangerous injections should have been a red flag to everyone. A vaccine is supposed to prevent you getting the disease and prevent you transmitting the disease. It should provide long-term protection such that even if someone does get the virus, the body fights it straight off. None of that is true with the COVID injection. These fake vaccines do not prevent people from getting COVID and do not prevent people from spreading COVID. They cripple immune systems, making people more susceptible to future infections. Any protection from severe symptoms is for such a short period of time that it’s nothing more than a substandard treatment, a treatment that has caused more harm than good.
This is not my opinion. It is among the findings of a landmark, published, peer-reviewed Cleveland study that found that every dose of the COVID jabs administered to the sample of 50,000 health employees made them more likely to get COVID. A separate re-examination of the Pfizer stage 2-3 clinical trial data that took 18 months, peer-reviewed and published by the Brighton Collaboration, found that the Pfizer vaccine was associated with a 14 per cent worse health outcome than the unvaccinated control trial. If the TGA was doing it job, these injections should never have been approved.
The bad news about our medical response to COVID keeps coming. Only last month a panel of international scientists revealed that the COVID-19 mRNA injections are contaminated with plasma DNA from the manufacturing process. This can cause inflammation of organs and it can cause cancer. Last week I was sent a mainstream television piece which talked about turbo cancers being at record high levels. Medical researchers and doctors interviewed were apparently baffled about the cause. Let me help those researchers out. Here we have a substance that is contaminated through bacterial plasmas known to cause cancer, is full of spike proteins that are a whole class of medication which have not been studied for adverse health effects, and contain a substance called SV40 that directly inhibits our body’s resistance to cancer. The injection studied in the clinical trials was not the same product that was used in Australia. That has killed 14 people here and is suspected in a thousand more, and doctors have reported a thousand more deaths. Post-mortem data shows a direct link between the injections and turbo cancer, while at the same time Australia has had 30,000 excess deaths in the last year directly correlated and traced under much scrutiny to the COVID injections. New turbo cancers are at record levels. Australians whose have been in cancer remission for years have suddenly seen their cancer return. Despite the facts now coming out, doctors say they are baffled. The one person more than any other that must be referred to a royal commission is Dr Baffled.
Finally, One Nation does not accept that the quickie COVID cover-up that the Prime Minister announced is in any way fit for purpose. It’s not. Asking these commissioners, three COVID insiders, who championed our health response, to conduct an inquiry into themselves and their mates is a travesty of justice that has been roundly condemned right across the Senate. None of us know the guarantees that Prime Minister Albanese gave pharmaceutical salesman and World Health Organization sugar daddy Bill Gates at their meeting in Admiralty House last year and early this year. Surely the need to cover up the evil committed in the name of health was discussed. Did Prime Minister Albanese agree to do just that?
I’ve been speaking about the fear, the oppression and the inhumane cruelty of our COVID response since July 2020. I promised to hound down those responsible, and I will continue relentlessly to keep that promise. If now is the time for the Prime Minister to call his COVID cover-up, then now must surely be the time for a royal commission. We can’t ignore our sworn duty as the house of review any longer. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and the whole nation wants answers, or we will never heal and, worse, we may well go through all of this again. I ask the Senate to start the process today, pass this motion and let’s get the terms of reference sorted.
Former Special Forces Commando Heston Russell repeatedly asked for a correction and an apology for stories the ABC published that defamed him and November platoon. The ABC accused them of committing war crimes in Afghanistan at a time when they weren’t even in that country.
Heston had to sue the ABC for defamation instead. The judge noted the ABC became defensive and considered any criticism as merely part of a culture-war attack. If they had responded properly, the taxpayers could have saved millions of dollars.
The response from the Minister shows a similar level of denial and lack of accountability, answering serious questions with cheap political taunts. What the government needs to remember here is that special forces commando, Heston Russell, was a victim of disinformation published by the ABC. It was an ordeal that he calls the ‘hardest battle he has ever fought’.
As the Government failed to answer, their Misinformation and Disinformation Bill WOULDN’T protect people like Heston Russell from fake news by the ABC as they’ll be excluded from the Bill.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Senator Watt. Former special forces commando Heston Russell repeatedly asked for a correction and an apology for stories the ABC published that defamed him and November Platoon, accusing them of committing war crimes in Afghanistan at a time when they weren’t even in that country. He offered to settle the case for $99,000, which the ABC refused, and proceeded to trial. The defamatory articles were brought to the attention of Minister Rowland, the Minister for Communications, by a 26,000-signature petition, which she acknowledged on 20 March and on which she failed to act. Minister, what is the cost to the taxpayer for the ABC’s legal fees in this matter so far?
Senator WATT (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts, for that question. I will have to take on notice the exact details of that question that you’ve asked. Presumably, these are matters that you’d also have the opportunity to ask the ABC at estimates next week. So I am happy to come back to you with any details that I can provide on that. The broader issue around any defamation action taken against the ABC is really a matter for ABC management. Of course, this government believes in the independence of the ABC and, in particular, its editorial independence.
Senator Rennick: You mean the bias.
Senator WATT: Senator Rennick, on the other hand, thinks that it’s a biased organisation. That’s a very disappointing remark to make about the national broadcaster but perhaps one that we’re used to after years of ABC cuts under the former government. It would appear that Senator Rennick isn’t the only member of the opposition who regards the ABC as biased. Again, it’s a very disappointing view to express about the national broadcaster—the only publicly funded broadcaster. Again, it probably indicates why the ABC suffered such severe funding cuts under the former government.
So, Senator Roberts, you’ll obviously have the opportunity to ask those questions of ABC management at estimates next week. I know Senator Henderson always has questions for the ABC as well, so she will no doubt do that again next week.
Senator Ruston interjecting—
Senator WATT: Sorry, Senator Ruston, we get to answer the questions, and I’ve already—
Honourable senators interjecting—
The PRESIDENT: Order, across the chamber! Minister Watt, please refer to me when you’re answering the question. Senator Henderson?
Senator Henderson: On indulgence—
The PRESIDENT: No, Senator Henderson. Resume your seat. Minister, please continue, or have you finished your answer?
Senator WATT: I actually answered the question in the first five seconds by saying that I’d take those details on notice. But I’m obviously able to then comment on the question more broadly, and that’s what I’ve spent one minute and 55 seconds doing.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS: The judge in this trial was scathing of the ABC journalists involved in the case, saying they became defensive and considered any criticism as merely part of a culture-war attack and this inhibited ‘a proper remedial response to criticism’. The ABC journalists thought they were part of a culture war, and that prevented them from acting impartially and reasonably, leading to a potential multimillion dollar bill to taxpayers. Minister, what consequences will the journalists involved face for eroding people’s trust in the ABC, and why hasn’t their employment already been terminated?
Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m pleased to inform you that Australia now has a government that doesn’t have political interference in the ABC and so we have no intention of repeating the sort of intervention that we’ve seen—
Opposition senators interjecting—
Senator Canavan: Where’s the accountability?
The PRESIDENT: Order!
Senator WATT: from some of the people who are yelling across the chamber now in matters involving the ABC. These are matters that are the responsibility of ABC management, and we respect their independence. I understand, Senator Roberts, that the Federal Court has obviously handed down its decision in these defamation proceedings. There do remain several settlement matters before the court, so I probably shouldn’t be commenting any further on what might happen there. And, as I’ve said, the ABC is responsible for managing its legal matters, including defamation claims and litigation, just as any media proprietor, whether it be publicly funded or privately owned, is responsible for managing its legal matters, including when it’s sued for defamation. We believe that the ABC is a trusted source of news, information and entertainment for all Australians and we support it.
The PRESIDENT:Senator Roberts, a second supplementary question?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Heston Russell was a victim of disinformation published by the ABC in an ordeal that he has called the ‘hardest battle he has ever fought’. Can you please confirm that Minister Rowland’s misinformation and disinformation bill would not cover the ABC and won’t protect people like Heston Russell from government disinformation?
Senator WATT: Senator Roberts, I’m very pleased that you’ve taken an interest in matters involving misinformation and disinformation. I welcome your sudden interest in misinformation and disinformation, and I hope that that’s something that you will retain an interest in when it comes to election campaigns that you’re involved in, Senator Roberts. I really do hope that you do that. We’d like to hear more about that.
Senator Canavan: Mediscare was a great example!
Senator WATT: And, Senator Canavan—he’s a big fan of misinformation and disinformation as well, so I look forward to Senator Canavan supporting us in tackling misinformation and disinformation.
Senator Rennick: Where’s this greenhouse that you keep talking about? Talk about disinformation—
Senator WATT: Oh, and Senator Rennick. We’ve got everyone! We’ve got all of the kings of misinformation and disinformation up commenting today!
Senator Rennick interjecting—
Senator WATT: Hello, Gerard; how are you? Of course, the government does have legislation before the parliament to deal with misinformation and disinformation. We think that it is an important issue in today’s media environment, particularly in the social media environment that we’re operating under, and we think that it’s an important piece of legislation to deal with.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6Ih7dkYD63M/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-20 15:07:072023-10-20 15:07:52Multi-Million Dollar Defamation Bill Due to ABC Arrogance
The return of Cheng Lei is good news and I can only imagine how relieved her family must be. My intention here was not to discuss Cheng Lei’s release but to highlight the misinformation from Labor around this story, and how this relates to the ACMA Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation Bill the government is aiming to implement.
Penny Wong, as Foreign Affairs Minister, last week took credit for the release of Australian journalist, Cheng Lei. That may be misinformation. According to a Chinese government post, Cheng Lei was released after serving her sentence in China for publishing information under an embargo. In other words, she completed her sentence and was sent home.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it himself: Cheng’s return was not part of a deal struck with Beijing and her release followed the completion of China’s judicial process. It couldn’t be more clear.
Yet the Labor government is passing off Cheng Lei’s release as a Labor government achievement with Penny Wong taking credit herself. The PM even advised his caucus in the aftermath of his failed $450 million Voice referendum to “focus on achievements” and placed the release of Cheng Lei at the top of the list.
Why did I feel this was important to point out in the senate and on the record? It’s an example of misinformation from a government that is about to censor everyone except itself and the accredited media. To a bureaucracy with a censorship hammer, every bit of unapproved information looks like a nail.
I think most of us agree after the past few years that if we are to combat misinformation and disinformation then the government and its media mouthpiece would be the best place to start.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. It’s based on a constituent’s inquiry. Australian journalist Cheng Lei was convicted in China of illegally providing state secrets to overseas parties and imprisoned. Cheng Lei was recently released and arrived back in Australia last week. Minister, can you inform the Senate what role you had personally, your department had and the Prime Minister had in the release of Cheng Lei?
Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank the senator for his question. Obviously, as you would expect, this is an issue on which there has been a lot of discussion at various levels with the Chinese authorities, urging the return of Ms Cheng and urging her to be able to return to Australia. I can indicate to you—and obviously some of this is at officer level—that, as I said publicly at the time, this was my first engagement with the then foreign minister Wang Yi, when I first met him at the first bilateral discussion in Bali. It is the practice of Australian governments to ensure that we raise consular cases with other countries, China included, at all appropriate meetings.
I can indicate to the senator that Ms Cheng Lei was the subject of representations from me, the Prime Minister and officers, just as with other consular cases such as Dr Yang’s and with those obviously facing criminal charges. We made those representations at the Prime Minister level, at the foreign minister level and at officer level, and we will continue to do so. I would acknowledge also that this has been the practice under successive governments. I spoke to former senator Payne after I had met Ms Cheng Lei at the airport to let her know before the news became public. I acknowledge that she also raised this with the Chinese authorities— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese ministry of state has posted on Weibo that Cheng Lei had been sentenced to two years and 11 months in prison and had been deported after completing her sentence. Minister, your words on Cheng Lei’s arrival at the airport, as quoted in the Guardian, made it clear that the government was taking credit for her release. They quoted you as saying: I made them a promise some time ago we would do everything, I would do everything I could, to bring her home …Minister, who is telling the truth—you or the Chinese government?
Senator WONG: Senator, you and I have differences of opinion, but I regret that you would use something I said about what I said to her children in that way.
An opposition senator: Seriously?
Senator WONG: No—not ‘seriously’. It was an expression of hope, emotion and a degree of humanity, because, like all Australians, I wanted to see a mother return to her children. That was also what I said publicly. The Chinese legal system has been completed. We have seen what they have said—that is, the articulation of the Chinese legal position. What I can say is that we made a priority to make representations— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, is this a case that proves the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill should not exclude ‘government misinformation and disinformation’ and instead should include ‘government misinformation and disinformation’?
The President: Senator Roberts, I’m not sure how it relates, but I’m sure the minister will respond as she sees fit.
Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, there is no misinformation on our side. There is no disinformation on our side. What we have said—and if you had actually tracked every engagement I have had with the Chinese authorities, what I have said afterwards when I have articulated, at least in summary version, what I said to the Chinese authorities and what the Prime Minister said to his counterparts—you would know that we have made these representations. All I can say is this: this is not a partisan issue, and this is not a political issue. This is an issue about an Australian who is now home with her children. Behind her were many Australians across this country and across the political divide who made the same representations to Chinese authorities at all levels that Australians wanted to see a mother united with her children. I think that is a good thing. It was a great privilege to have the opportunity— (Time expired)
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Senator Wong) to a question without notice asked by Senator Roberts today relating to the reporting of the release of Chinese Australian citizen Cheng Lei.
The Chinese government announced that Cheng Lei’s release was simply a matter of her completing a sentence of two years and 11 months. In her explanation though the minister claimed an emotional high ground that is not supported by events at the airport. Minister Wong was most welcome to make remarks to Cheng Lei’s children in private, and she did so. The minister then restated and expanded her remarks to the press, which were widely reported. Further, at that press conference the minister stated that the release of Cheng Lei was a result of Senator Wong’s perseverance, which the minister did not restate in her answer to me. Did her representations have any effect on the Chinese government? Not according to the Chinese government. Who is right? We may never know.
One Nation is concerned about the Albanese government’s misinformation and disinformation bill as applied to this situation. As drafted, the government and mainstream media are exempt from the bill. The Guardian‘s slobbering all over Minister Wong and the Albanese government over Cheng Lei would be exempt from this bill. The government can say whatever it likes and the mouthpiece media can repeat and even embellish those claims and that would be legal. Bloggers and social media companies who question the narrative though would be guilty of misinformation and fined or shut down. Weibo, which announced the Chinese government’s side of the story, has an office in Sydney and would be regulated under that bill. There’s no provision in the bill for truth as a defence. There’s no definition of what is misinformation. If this bill is passed, democracy itself will be at risk from an unending one-sided glorification of the ruling party. Last weekend, Australians rejected this sort of propaganda in the referendum campaign. The government proceeds with a misinformation and disinformation bill at its peril, because the people will see through it, just like they saw through the lies in the ‘yes’ case. This is about censorship.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/80nU2QvkUDs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-19 06:50:302023-10-19 09:36:45Return of Cheng Lei is NOT a Labor Government Achievement
The government is defying the senate and ignoring its orders for the production of documents. That is contempt and must be punished as such by the Senate.
In this speech I made it clear to the Coalition and to the Greens, if they are serious about orders for the production of documents, about the explanations for refusing, about transparency and accountability, and if they’re serious about being the House of Review, then bring on a motion of contempt or censure. We will support it.
I will be proposing an amendment to Standing Orders in relation to the production of documents. Senators should assess public immunity claims and be able to decide if they are genuine. That assessment can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected.
No more slaps on the wrist in response to the callous disregard for the orders of this Senate on behalf of the people the Senate represents. It’s time to enforce the will of the Senate on behalf of the people of Australia.
Transcript
Unfortunately, we are here again for yet another slap on the wrist. This government continues to defy the orders of the Senate. There is no other word for this behaviour. It is contempt. It’s time that the Senate started treating contempt with real punishments. Orders for the production of documents are a vital part of our democratic process. The Senate is constitutionally superior to every law or excuse that government might try to use to justify not handing over documents.
Right now, we’re stuck in an ineffective cycle. The Senate makes an order demanding that the government table documents. The government may have a different opinion, yet these orders are not optional. They’re Senate orders. The government defies the Senate anyway and refuses to hand over the documents. The Senate makes even more orders, rejecting the excuses from the government and affirming that the documents must be produced. The government yet again ignores the Senate’s orders. That, ladies and gentlemen, is called contempt. We must punish it as such. Instead the minister is hauled in here for 15 minutes to give more excuses, and everyone lines up to give them a slap on the wrist and call them a naughty boy or a naughty girl. At the end, the minister sits down pretty chuffed with themselves because they haven’t had to hand over any documents and haven’t suffered any real punishments.
I say to the coalition and to the Greens: if you are serious about orders for the production of documents, about the explanations, about transparency and accountability, about being the house of review and about serving the people, bring on a contempt motion against the minister. We don’t need a referral to the Privileges Committee to tell us whether it is contempt or not. The minister is now in direct defiance of multiple orders from the Senate. Bring on a motion of contempt or censure, and you will have our support.
I foreshadow that I will be introducing, before the end of this year, a confidential process to review documents where any public interest immunity is raised, such as these documents. Public interest immunities are raised on the basis that sensitive information should not be released to the public. Whenever the government makes that claim, it needs to be assessed. Senators should assess public interest immunity claims. That assessment can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected. I’ll say it again: that assessment by the senators can be done confidentially so that the public interest is still protected.
To this end, I will be proposing an amendment to standing orders in relation to orders for the production of documents. This would trigger a formal process whenever a minister wishes to raise a public interest immunity claim. This process would require the relevant minister to explicitly outline to the Senate the actual harm that they say would flow from releasing information to the public, who we are supposed to serve. The minister would then be required to confidentially produce the documents to a Senate committee, where the documents would be made available only to senators for confidential viewing purposes. The Senate chamber as a whole would be able to confidentially make an assessment of the public interest immunity claim and whether or not there is any merit to it. If the minister does not comply with the process, it will be very obvious that the public interest immunity claim is not genuine. The Senate can then be more confident in applying sanctions such as censure and contempt. This would be fair to everyone.
This government continues to show callous disregard for the orders of this Senate on behalf of the people we represent. It’s time the Senate punishes such behaviour appropriately. No more slaps on the wrist. Instead enforce the will of the Senate, acting on behalf of our constituents, the people of Australia.
PM Albanese has failed Australia. His failed Voice referendum cost the Australian Electoral Commission a hefty $450 million alone. That’s $100 million over budget.
Added to this, the official Yes campaign was bankrolled by major corporate interests including the Big4 banks, the 3 major supermarkets, Qantas, Wesfarmers, Rio Tinto and BHP. Many of these companies made donations in the millions when they have been laying off staff to cut costs. Their donations to the Yes camp show how out of touch they are with the Australians they provide goods and services to.
The PM has swiftly moved on from his failure to warn that Australia is heading for economic and financial trauma. This is not news to Australians. In fact, it was made abundantly clear during the Voice campaign that Australians were more worried about the cost of living and felt it was inappropriate to hold the referendum.
Why was dangerous virtue signalling the government’s top priority? Why? I’m saddened to be the one to break the answer to you: this government does not care about you.
Will the government listen to the people now? It’s committed to Net Zero by 2050 but may as well be committed to driving us all off a cliff.
Every other country that’s tried to force their power grid onto wind and solar has had their power prices go up by a proportionate amount. When plotted on a graph, it’s nearly a straight line heading upwards, and it’s all for nothing.
The hard data shows that Australians’ carbon dioxide production cannot affect the climate above natural variability. The lie that wind and solar are cheaper is easily debunked by the fact that with more wind, solar, batteries and hydro on the grid than ever in our history, power bills have never been higher. It’s all a crock designed to fill the pockets of parasitic billionaire wind and solar proponents, fraudulently taking subsidies and donating to people in this Senate who support wind and solar.
Australians have already paid billions in subsidies to these billionaire predators and pay again as their power bills skyrocket. Yet both Labor and the opposition are committed to the UN’s net zero by 2050. The cost-of-living crisis cannot end until we ditch the United Nations’ Net Zero agenda.
Transcript
The failed Albanese Voice referendum is the latest spit in the face Australians have had to cop from the government. At a time when bills are going up and bank accounts are going backwards, Australians are going to be furious when they hear how much Anthony Albanese’s Labor government just wasted on a referendum. All I can say is: brace yourself for the answer. Four hundred and fifty million dollars—that’s how much the Australian Electoral Commission is estimating last week’s referendum cost. If you woke up with a hangover after some celebrations on the weekend and were scared to check your bank account, spare a moment to think about the Australian Electoral Commission. If their estimates are correct, the AEC have blown their budget for the referendum by nearly $100 million. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, Anthony Albanese has blown $450 million, almost half a billion dollars, on his personal vanity project.
What did Australians get for this? Australians rightly rejected inserting racial division into the Constitution, with a thumping victory for the ‘no’ case. Not a single state reached a majority yes. Only the small Canberra territory, the bubble, recorded a ‘yes’ majority. The ‘yes’ side spewed divisive, racial, abusive rhetoric while claiming the high moral ground. The country is worse off for being put through this divisiveness, at a huge cost and for a proposal that should never have been put forward. Australia rightly asks: why is this Voice issue distracting government as mortgage payments skyrocket, grocery bills shock budgets and life continues to get tougher? Why was dangerous virtue signalling the government’s top priority? Why? I’m saddened to be the one to break the answer to you: this government does not care about you.
While I thank the Liberals for bringing on this matter of importance and allowing us to discuss it, they weren’t any better in government. Honestly, the Liberals put a wrecking ball through the economy and handed it over to the Labor government in one of the greatest hospital passes in political history, yet Labor doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of navigating us out of this one. Neither the Liberal Party nor the Labor Party can fix the cost-of-living crisis because they’re both committed to the UN’s net zero pipedream that caused the cost-of-living crisis.
This government is committed to net zero by 2050. They may as well be committed to driving us all off a cliff. If we keep going down this path, the number of Australians who can pay their power bills will be next to zero.
Australia doesn’t have to do this by ourself and find out the hard way. We can learn from many other countries further down this pipedream path than we are. Every other country that’s tried to force their power grid onto wind and solar has had their power prices go up by a proportionate amount. When plotted on a graph, it’s nearly a straight line heading upwards, and it’s all for nothing.
The hard data shows that Australians’ carbon dioxide production cannot affect the climate above natural variability. The lie that wind and solar are cheaper is easily debunked by fact—this fact: with more wind, solar, batteries and hydro on the grid than ever in our history, power bills have never been higher. It’s all a crock designed to fill the pockets of parasitic billionaire wind and solar proponents, fraudulently taking subsidies and donating to people in this Senate who support wind and solar. Australians have already paid billions in subsidies to these billionaire predators and pay again as their power bills skyrocket. Yet Labor, the Liberals and even the fake farmer friends, the Nationals, are all committed to the UN’s net zero by 2050.
After all the talk about truth telling, here’s some cold hard truth: the cost-of-living crisis cannot end until we ditch the United Nations’ net zero plans. One Nation is the only party that accepts those facts and can deliver cheaper power bills for Australia, turn the coal fired power generators back on, cut all the subsidies with the parasitic wind and solar industry and just get back to common sense, hard data and truth.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/gA3QdPPEJAM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-17 16:00:452023-10-17 16:00:49The Cost of Living with Labor
We are witnessing permanent environmental vandalism under Labor.
I spoke today on the Green’s motion to increase the rate at which net zero policies are turning our natural environment into wind and solar industrial landscapes.
A year after Kaban wind turbines turned pristine Australian bushland into an industrial landscape, the heavy machinery is still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. Rock that is releasing arsenic into the environment with unknown consequences.
Koala habitat has been taken, and while the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about.
This vandalism must stop.
At the end of a mining operation, the mine can be filled in and remediated. In fact, legal contracts require it. Not so with the destruction created by wind and solar. There is no replacing a mountain top after it has been blasted off and bulldozed to make way for wind turbines.
Transcript
One Nation joins Senator McKim in mourning the current environmental damage as a casualty of destructive net zero climate policy. We do, though, disagree on who’s responsible. As we speak today, heavy machinery using diesel engines are still crushing the rock that was bulldozed and blasted off the top of mountains in the Atherton Tablelands to make way for wind turbines. A year after Kaban, when turbines turned pristine Australian landscape into an industrial landscape, the crushers are still going. There was that much destruction. That act of environmental vandalism disturbed arsenic in the rock, released into the environment with an unknown cost to our flora and fauna and to humans.
Koala habitat has been taken. While the Greens talk frequently about saving the koalas, they pick and choose which koalas they care about. The Morrison government refused the Lotus Creek wind installation because of the amount of koala habitat the industrial landscape would remove. The Albanese Labor government reversed the decision and approved the creation of another industrial landscape holding 55 turbines. Native habitat protecting biodiversity included the masked owl, the magnificent broodfrog, the sarus crane, the red goshawk, the northern greater glider and the spectacled flying fox—and the devastation is just starting. Mount Fox will have 193 of these machines—these destructive wind turbines; Chalumbin, 94; Windy Hill, 20; High Road, 20; and Mount Emerald, 37. This is in just 300 kilometres of pristine North Queensland mountain range.
At the end of mining, a mine can be filled in and remediated. Chopping the top off beautiful mountains and cutting 70-metre-wide roads into a mountainside to bring in the wind turbines on diesel powered trucks is permanent environmental vandalism.
On Saturday over 60% of Australians realised that the people are parliament’s masters, not their servants.
I spoke this morning on the Voice to Parliament, which saw 5 electorates with the largest Aboriginal population give the Voice a thrashing.
Australia voted NO to feelings-based governance and NO to elevating one group within our community over all others based only on skin colour.
Saturday’s result clearly shows Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.
It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs.
I asked the Senate a simple question – who is better to run Aboriginal affairs: the Canberra Aboriginal industry, or local Government who are in the bush ready to build the roads, utilities and community facilities rural Aboriginals need so badly.
Transcript
Last Saturday was the day Australians said no — no to feelings based governance, no to elevating one group within our community over another based only on race, no to a Prime Minister whose chief skill is to cry on cue and no to spending more tax dollars than our taxpayers can afford. Australians are already struggling with a cost-of-living crisis as a result of shoddy governance from successive parliaments. People need to keep more of their own money, not less. On Saturday, Australians realised that the people are the parliament’s masters, not its servants. The irony is that the referendum did give Aboriginals a voice, and they used it. The five electorates with the largest Aboriginal population gave the Voice a thrashing. It was a result which clearly shows that Canberra no longer represents the values and beliefs of everyday Australians.
For those in this place who supported racism and apartheid—and you were the majority—now is the time to ask yourself, ‘What the hell was I thinking?’ How could you think it was okay to take a system that has failed Aboriginal people for 120 years and embed, enshrine and perpetuate that system in the Constitution? We don’t need to preserve a broken system that’s failed Aboriginals in the bush; we need to tear it down. It’s time to dismantle the Canberra Aboriginal industry and deliver resources directly to those in need in the bush. It’s time to stop preventing rural Aboriginals from owning their own homes and running their own affairs. It’s time for city grifters in comfortable offices thousands of kilometres from rural communities to stop keeping money meant for the bush—money that’s used to fund their own empires and line their own pockets. Enough money goes into the funnel to make things right. A drip comes out the bottom. It’s time to turn the damn funnel around.
Today is a new day for Australia’s Aboriginals. Let’s not waste the chance to ask ourselves this question: who’s best to run Australian Aboriginal affairs? Is it Canberra bureaucrats and the Aboriginal industry, or is it best run from local communities and councils right there in the bush, ready to get cracking on housing, roads, power and community facilities?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/u7synW08jVU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-17 06:57:002023-10-17 06:57:05Australians are the Masters of the Government, NOT Servants to the Government!
I asked Senator Tim Ayres, Assistant Minister for Trade, why the Albanese Labor government has allowed one million people to arrive in this country in just one year. Those one million arrivals is made up of around half migration and half student visas. Every single person need a bed and a roof over their head. There’s also an additional 200,000 arrivals with other visas. That’s a total of 1.2 million people, making a population flood the size of Adelaide in just 12 months.
The housing and rental crisis is completely government made. If your rent has gone up, you can’t afford a house, you can’t even find a place to live like those in regional Queensland towns living in caravans, tents, in parks, in cars and under bridges, remember this Labor government brought in over 1,000,000 people into this country in just one year.
With this bill, the Albanese government is claiming that it will build a few thousand houses to ‘fix the problem’. Supply chains for materials are still damaged from the government’s COVID response. Those shattered supply chains are further hobbled under Australia following the United Nations’ 2050 policy driving up energy costs.
The Greens want more houses built, but they won’t let us use timber. In fact, they have a bill on notice to end logging of sustainable forestry. Timber is a renewable resource yet we can’t harvest the wood for the frames. What about steel frames then? The two main ingredients for steel are coal and iron ore,which are Australia’s two major mining commodities, yet the Greens want to end all mining in Australia.
The Greens SAY they want to build more houses, yet if Australia implemented all their policies we’d have no wood, no steel and only expensive and unreliable sources of energy to build these houses.
A cut to immigration would allow our housing and essential services time to catch up.
As you will hear, Senator Ayres completely failed to address my concerns.
Transcripts
Minister, I’m a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. In that capacity, I note that this bill is completely unnecessary. It’s not needed. Here’s why: if the government cut Australia’s immigration intake by just 10 per cent of the current one million arrivals, it would save the building of many more houses than Labor claims this fund will build. The housing crisis will lessen. Instead, we are here dealing with dirty deals done dirt cheap. The deals are cheap for the Greens, yet taxpayers will be paying billions. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that the people of Australia are disgusted to look at this parliament and see the rotten horse-trading and deal-making going on. The Greens hold themselves up on their moral high horse and virtue-signal to the world that they are the pure ones while telling everyone what to do. In reality, they’re down in the mud doing dirty deals like the rest of them.
What deal do we have to look at today? The government is going to build and own houses—not the people of Australia but the government. This is full-blown communism delivered express to your door. As the infamous Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum has repeatedly told the world already, ‘You will own nothing, and you will be happy.’ The goal of the Greens and Labor is to come into this chamber to preach to the world that they’re helping Australians—helping you. The Greens’ rent caps have already led directly to faster rent increases, because landlords understandably want to get ahead of the rent caps. The Greens are already hurting renters. The housing crisis is a problem that government created entirely.
The government is now claiming to have the solution. That’s a fraud, Minister. The Albanese Labor government has allowed one million people to arrive in this country in just one year. That’s 460,000 in net migration and 540,000 students visas. Every one of those needs a bed and a roof over their head. That’s not to mention the additional 200,000 other visas. That’s 1.2 million. A population flood the size of Adelaide has hit this country in 12 months. That’s the cause of the housing and rental crisis. It’s completely government made. If your rent has gone up, you can’t afford a house or you can’t even find a place to live, like the people in regional Queensland towns living in caravans, tents, parks and cars and under bridges. Just remember this: the Albanese Labor government brought one million people into this country in one year.
With this bill, the Albanese government is claiming that it will build a few thousand houses and fix the problem. Who will build them? Supply chains for materials are still damaged due to the government’s COVID reaction and mismanagement, which shattered supply chains. The energy crisis has been inflicted due to the government adopting the UN 2050 net zero policy and driving up energy costs. Australia’s tradies already build houses at the fourth-fastest rate in the OECD. There’s a question that has to be answered: can we more quickly build even more houses? Trying to flood this industry that is already at capacity with huge amounts of taxpayer money is only going to make the funnel spill over. That will mean millions and potentially billions of your taxes wasted. Let’s not forget the government’s figures. They think they can build a house in Australia for $83,000. What kind of house is that? They must be smoking some powerful stuff over in the ministry for housing. It doesn’t matter how many billions this government wants to spend; we will never be able to build enough houses to catch up with the current rate of immigration. That is a clear fact. It’s basic arithmetic. It’s practical.
Next: what do the Greens want us to use to build these houses? They won’t let us use timber. There is a bill on the Notice Paper right now that the Greens introduced to end sustainable forest logging. Timber is the only resource that’s truly renewable, yet the Greens have a bill saying we can’t harvest the wood used in house frames while claiming with this bill that they want to build more houses. I guess that is okay. We can just build houses with steel frames, right? Not according to the Greens. Too many ingredients in making steel are coal and iron ore, Australia’s two major mining commodities. The Greens want to end mining in Australia, so we would have nothing with which to make the steel. So the Greens say they want to build more houses—virtue signalling—yet if Australia implemented their policies we would have no steel, no wood with which to build houses. And if our coal, iron ore and timber industries survived the Greens blight, prices of house timber and steel will be far higher thanks to the Greens restrictions. The hypocrisy is so damn thick we could cut it with a knife.
The Greens policies are antihuman. One Nation’s policy includes many solutions to the government-created housing crisis, taken together holistically because the problem is many factored. Among these immediate solutions to the housing crisis is that we must cut immigration immediately, reduce our arrivals to zero net immigration, meaning only allow the same number of people into the country as the number that leave so departures cancel out arrivals. As Australians know, this country is already bursting at the seams. A cut to immigration would allow our housing stock, our essential services—hospitals, our schools—and other services time to catch up. If we don’t stop immigration or cut immigration, life is going to get far, far worse for Australians, and it is already getting bad with the cost of living being the No. 1 problem on people’s minds. To continue this unprecedented immigration intake in the face of the housing and cost-of-living crisis is an act of criminal negligence against the Australian people.
Minister, why is the government allowing one million students and permanent migrants into the country in just 12 months? How many houses does the government expect the million student and permanent migrant arrivals will need? How many houses does the government expect to build in 12 months? How many houses will the government’s allocation of taxpayer funds build?
Senator Ayres (Assistant Minister for Trade and Assistant Minister for Manufacturing): There was, in fact, a question at the end there. The government does not support the policy prescription that you’ve offered on migration. While you can hear echoes of the proposition that you’ve just put in relation to migration in some of what is best described as circular comments of the Leader of the Opposition on migration and housing, in fact, migration will be an important part and has been an important part of the housing industry in Australia since World War II. In fact, if you spend time on any building site in Australia, what you will find are migrants, permanent and temporary—mostly permanent—who in fact make up a very large part of the labour force building homes, building apartment blocks, building shopping centres all over Australia.
The government’s migration settings will be made over time and will be made in the national interest. I hear your argument with your colleagues down here in the Greens’ political party. The government has always made it very clear: where there are constructive suggestions from anyone on the crossbench we will work with people—senators and members—across the parliament in the national interest where there are sensible amendments proposed to reach agreement on legislation in its passage through this parliament.
There is nothing like the disappointment of a crossbench senator who doesn’t feel like they’ve got their way in the process, but I’ve heard the complaints from crossbench senators over the short time I have been here. I’ll just assure you, and all of the crossbench senators, that the government’s approach has been consistent in terms of this legislation and will be consistent in the future. Where there are opportunities for constructive discussion about government legislation then we will engage in that.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/7dsZpTtVEtw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-05 10:54:542023-10-09 10:22:19Heads in the Sand as Immigration Fuels the Housing Crisis
Speaking in support of the ACT Self Government Amendment Bill 2023, I commend Senator Canavan for introducing this bill. I strongly support pushing for an inquiry into the ACT government’s seizure of the Calvary Hospital in Canberra. This is a blatant attack on religion in healthcare. It cannot be dressed up as anything else.
The issue that is being tiptoed around is the clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living, viable foetus. Those same principles stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person who may make a different decision, free from coercion or momentary despair, on a different day. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia whilst the Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules.
This has inflamed the ACT autocrats who have decided that there is no place for religion in healthcare. So much so that they planned this takeover for 12 months without telling Calvary who continued to negotiate on a new Northside Hospital in good faith.
These are the same mindless, hypocritical zombies that push for drag queens to expose themselves and read adult porn to young children in libraries and schools. Their answer to the uproar against this perversion is “if you don’t like it, don’t go”. This works both ways. If you don’t like religion in healthcare, aged care or education, the remedy is simple. Don’t go. Freedom of choice! Except the Canberra autocrats don’t like freedom either. They’ve embraced a totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in Australia.
Federal Parliament has precedence over ACT law and this matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview. My message to the Canberra Health Bureau autocrats is this: God decides who lives or dies. Not you.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Amendment Bill 2023. Senator Canavan is quite correct to want an inquiry into the ACT government’s seizure of Calvary hospital. I commend him for introducing this bill to the chamber. I was the first senator to speak out against this takeover—on 27 May 2023 at the March for Life rally in the Rockhampton Riverside Precinct. Senator Canavan was in attendance as well. I commend him for taking it up.
This is a blatant attack on religion in health care. It cannot be dressed up as anything else. I note that the Catholic archbishop has avoided using those words. That may be because the archdiocese is reliant on government funding across many health and welfare areas and does not want to ruffle feathers. It wants to protect that funding. What has happened to churches in this country is that they’ve been captured. I consider the Catholic archbishop’s decision a poor decision. Bending in the wind is not what religion is about. Defending religious theology is a central function of the Roman Catholic Church.
This issue is a clash between religious principles that stand against abortion of a living viable fetus and health bureaucrats that would kill such a fetus, a human. It’s a clash between religious principles that stand against ending life through euthanasia of a person, who may make a different decision free from coercion and momentary despair, and health bureaucrats seeking to use euthanasia as a device to balance their budget. The only god autocrats respect is the god of power.
The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules. That has inflamed ACT autocrats. The common reply repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies is: ‘There’s no place for religion in health care.’ It seems to me that this is the most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in drag queen story time the religious groups were told, ‘If you don’t like it, don’t go.’ Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don’t want religion in your health care, don’t go to a Christian-managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don’t like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility. If you don’t like religion in education, don’t send your children to a religious school. See how it works? Freedom of choice. That is what is irking the Canberra autocrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced totalitarian agenda since COVID normalised such behaviour in this country.
Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital and who are grateful for it. We know from many media reports the enabling legislation was prepared a year ahead of this takeover. Calvary were not informed of this and continued to negotiate on a new northside hospital in good faith. We know the ACT government just had its credit rating reduced. There has been no progress on negotiations over the cash compensation the ACT government must pay to Calvary for the seizure of its assets. I wonder if they have the money to pay?
Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview, and I am strongly in support of this bill. I said this before and I’ll say it again: my message to Canberra health autocrats is God decides who lives or dies, not you.
