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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/g7jFA4REKCI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-14 13:08:382023-11-14 13:08:42Laboring Under the Delusion of Albanese’s Election Promises
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lSvAm9t7Hto/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-11-13 16:05:572023-11-13 16:06:39Labor’s Latest Scheme to Buyback More Farmers’ Water
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.
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WKaSHTtCMXg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-10-23 20:19:162023-10-23 20:19:21The Need to Avoid Catastrophic War is Paramount
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.
