Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Federal Government Enables the States to Steal Property

I supported a motion from Senators Colbeck and Cadell that called for an inquiry into property rights. In particular, I speak here about the compulsory acquisition of land for the short-sighted and unsustainable failed wind and solar experiment across vast tracts of our countryside.

Although our Commonwealth Constitution recognises and enshrines secure property ownership, this is worthless because the States have become adept at stealing land from landowners, mostly in an ongoing attack on farmers. Worse still, State Governments are not paying “just compensation” that Australia’s Commonwealth Constitution demands (Section 51, clause 31), because the States each have their own constitutions that do not provide for just compensation.

The Labor Government is hell bent on vandalising vast tracts of prime environmental habitat and productive food-producing land for banks of expensive, unreliable wind turbines and toxic solar arrays, each with access roads and a spiderweb of high-voltage power lines that leave permanent scars across national parks and private land.

City dwellers will eventually recognise that demonising farmers and hijacking their land for massive energy white elephants is contributing to the rising cost of living.

Remember the words of Thomas Jefferson – you can have farms without cities, but you cannot have cities without the farms.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I remind people of what Thomas Jefferson said: ‘we can have farming without cities yet cannot have cities without farming’. No farmers, no Australia! Why does this Labor government use the states to steal property from hardworking landowners and rip off farmers left, right and centre? Why? Because it can. And it builds on actions of past Liberal-National governments. 

Before explaining that, Madam Acting Deputy President, let me say that I have a list of eight keys to ongoing, sustained human progress—just ones that I’ve developed over the years. The first is freedom. The second is the rule of law. The third is constitutional continuance and competitive federalism. The fourth is secure private property rights. That’s fundamental. It enables freedom. The fifth is strong families. The sixth is affordable, reliable energy. Then there’s fair and honest taxation and honest money. 

Secure property rights are fourth on my list. Why? Because secure property rights are fundamental to reward for genuine effort and creativity and for investing and taking risk. People won’t do that if they can’t keep what they earn. Secondly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise initiative. Thirdly, secure property rights are necessary for people to exercise responsibility and accountability, because if you can just steal it then why would you have any accountability? The fourth fundamental about secure property rights is freedom. It enables freedom. This has been well known for centuries. One of the reasons communism and socialism always fail is that they steal property rights. And it’s the reason, always, that personal free enterprise succeeds until the government—and this has happened repeatedly throughout history—gets too big and infringes on civil liberties. It destroys property rights and infringes on civil liberties. 

So it’s very important, and our founding fathers agreed, because our Commonwealth Constitution recognises and enshrines the importance of secure property rights. Under Section 51, Clause 31 of the Commonwealth Constitution, our Constitution, the Commonwealth may acquire property from a state or person providing it is on just terms. So reading that in context, Section 51 of the Constitution says: 

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to: 

then one of them is listed, one of the many listed is – the acquisition of property on just terms from any State or person for any purpose in respect of which the Parliament has power to make laws; 

That is clear—’just terms’. This means that the Commonwealth, the federal government, must pay the person being dispossessed of rights to use their land reasonable and just compensation for the property the Commonwealth acquires. If the Commonwealth interferes with rights to use land, it must pay just-terms compensation. 

Generally, the states lack such property protections. Should a state acquire—or even steal, as has happened—land for a state, it does not need to provide compensation. Under state constitutions, no compensation is required. Even if a state acquires land for a Commonwealth purpose, the state is not bound under the Commonwealth Constitution to acquire it under just terms. This would then enable working around the constitutional protection for landowners, as I’m going to tell you with a story that is actually factual. 

This is a story about the worst theft of property rights in our country’s history. It happened during the lifetime of everyone in this chamber. In 2007, after John Howard was booted from office, I wrote a personal letter of thanks to him. I thought highly of John Howard. I thanked him and acknowledged him for his 30 years of work and for being at the forefront of the governance and policies introduced by the Keating and Hawke governments as well as has his own government afterward. Yet I didn’t know at the time something that I’m going to share with you. It was the former Liberal-National coalition government under Prime Minister John Howard who came up with the disgraceful mechanism of using the states to do the federal government’s dirty work for it. This is not new. This goes back to 1996-97. 

The story starts with the United Nations Kyoto protocol on climate variation and John Howard’s admitted desire to comply with it. He said he wouldn’t sign the 1997 Kyoto protocol but we would comply with it as a country. He or his government realised that people were not ready at that time to shut down industry, power stations, agriculture, travel and transport that produce carbon dioxide, so they came up with a different idea—a worse idea: stop the farmers clearing their land. Stop the farmers using their land as they were free to do. The Constitution, though, requires compensation. That would have been worth hundreds of billions of dollars. The federal government could not afford that, so the Howard government went around the Constitution, using the states to do the federal government’s dirty work of stealing farmers’ land to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol, because John Howard’s government realised that they could cut the production of carbon dioxide or they could stop the clearing of land, which would be getting credit for giving more absorption of carbon dioxide. It was the same net effect. He did it without any scientific basis, as I’ll explain in a minute. 

One of the Howard government’s early responses was to do a deal with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland. We had a National Party government in Queensland and three signatures from the senior National Party people, doing a deal with the Liberal-National federal government. They did a similar deal with Bob Carr, of the Labor Party in New South Wales, and then entrenched the deal with Peter Beattie in Queensland. Despite the denials under the Morrison government, this is still something the federal government relies upon for climate compliance. The irony is that John Howard betrayed himself as a champion of the Constitution and a champion of property rights that are fundamental to free enterprise societies. If you don’t believe me on this story, ask Peter Spencer, who nearly died protesting. Ask Dan McDonald and many farmers who are awake to this in Queensland and New South Wales. 

In 2013, six years after being booted from office, John Howard said, as the annual lecturer on climate at the London Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is a sceptic think tank opposed to the impacts of climate policy economically, that, after doing what he did to destroy our electricity sector and steal farmers’ property rights, on the topic of climate science he was agnostic. None of it was driven by climate science. Yet he led a government that stole farmers’ property rights and introduced a renewable energy target that is now gutting our electricity sector—shipping manufacturing overseas because of high electricity prices, driving families broke and causing inflation. His government concocted the National Electricity Market, which is really a racket. It’s not a market; it’s a bureaucracy that controls prices. Contrary to what people have been saying about Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd, John Howard was the first leader of a major party and of a government to put in place an emissions trading scheme as policy.  

This set a pattern for Labor because, if you look at the history of climate policy and energy policy, the Liberal-National coalition introduces climate and energy initiatives and the Labor Party, when it comes in, then ramps them up. Have a look at the safeguard mechanism as a foundation for a global carbon dioxide tax. That was admitted when Greg Hunt, under Malcolm Turnbull’s prime ministership, introduced the safeguard mechanism in 2015. It wasn’t Chris Bowen—he just ramped it up. The UN’s net zero strategy was first introduced to Australia by Scott Morrison, and it was then ramped up by the Greens and the Labor Party. Carbon farming—or money farming—sterilises and steals and locks up the land, increasing the cost of feral animal management and noxious weed management for all the farmers in the area. Locking up land means it becomes full of weeds. For UN biodiversity policies, look at the Howard government again.  

Back to the Howard government, the 2007 Water Act and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority separated water entitlements from the land. Now we see in the Murray-Darling Basin—with the loss of property rights and water entitlements—the land is now married back up with water in the hands of corporate farmers on corporate farms. One of the aims of the Water Act, which is repeatedly stated throughout the act, is compliance with international agreements. What the hell is that doing in our legislation? 

Let’s have a look at the Labor state and federal governments. The Beattie Labor government in Queensland ramped up the stealing of farmers’ property rights by imposing more restrictions on farmers’ use of land, and so did Anna Bligh’s government. Campbell Newman’s government failed to restore property rights and just looked the other way. Annastacia Palaszczuk has since extended the stealing of property rights and entrenched it. The states have become adept at this method of stealing land from landowners, mostly as an attack on farmers, and not paying just terms compensation. Another way the states—Queensland in particular—do this is by using environmental reasons to justify placing restrictions on farmers’ use of land, reducing the worth of land, preventing it from alternative productive use and preventing the development of the land for agricultural or grazing purposes. For example, the Great Barrier Reef protection legislation—contrary to the evidence of farming having no impact on the Great Barrier Reef—is having a devastating impact on communities because of the unfounded and unscientific restrictions that the Labor government has placed on farming communities up and down the east coast of Queensland. This is destroying productive land—with woody weeds under native vegetation protection legislation—and turning productive land with a bright future into a monoculture of woody weeds and no grass, which increases erosion.  

This Labor federal government has declared war on farmers and primary producers. It’s hijacking prime agricultural land to install banks of ugly wind turbines and poisonous and dangerous solar panels, vandalising literally acres of otherwise productive food-producing land. Any person should be able to see the stupidity, the hypocrisy and the economic devastation of such actions. In its desperate attempts to virtue signal to the world that it is a conservation and climate-saving giant, the Labor government is hell-bent on covering the landscape with expensive and inefficient wind turbines, ugly banks of solar panels—and damn the consequences. We see huge complexes of solar and wind farms built with no connection to the grid. We see it in Victoria and we see it in Queensland.  

Now they are thinking, ‘We’d better build transmission lines.’ Transmission lines are going to chew up prime environmental habitat and farming. Now more than 100 square kilometres of koala habitat in Queensland is under threat from the developers of these destructive wind turbine projects, all in the name of so-called renewable energy and at the cost of the environment and the extinction of rare wildlife—another aspect of killing the environment to save it. Other damage to farming by the Labor government include stopping regional infrastructure spending to improve the productivity of the regions and stopping live cattle and live sheep exports.  

Farmers are hard pressed to stop the states, acting for the Commonwealth, from stealing land and attacking the property rights of farmers. The Labor government, in bed with the Greens and the teals, is pushing inhuman and antihuman policies, antienvironment policies and anti-Australian policies. Labor, Greens and the LNP, the Liberals and Nationals, are hell-bent on promoting projects that are destroying the land, destroying the environment, increasing unemployment, destroying the economy and pushing up the cost of living in Australia and reducing our security by exporting our major manufacturing. When it becomes too expensive to sip a latte in the city, even the teals might wake up to the fact that their lefty policies are making it too hard to continue living in what was the lucky country. 

If our farmers chuck it all in, this country is lost, and the Chinese can simply walk in and create a food bowl to feed Asia. I remind you that Thomas Jefferson said, ‘You can have farming without cities, but you cannot have cities without farming.’ No farmers, no Australia. I haven’t got time at the moment, but the stealing of property rights is not restricted to farmers. It is happening in urban environments, including Caboolture, near Brisbane. It is happening in Mosman, in Sydney. I fully support this motion from senators Colbeck and Cadell. It needs to go much further to encompass past theft of property and federal-state collusion enabling uncompensated theft of property rights with no just terms of compensation.  

/by

Special Forces Veteran Slams Chief of Defence Force Failures

I had the privilege of reading a letter sent by a Special Forces Veteran into the HANSARD record.

He shockingly details the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) General Angus Campbell abandoning the soldiers that served under him. Due to the CDF’s successive failures and appalling state of Defence bureaucrats, the soldiers are abandoning him.

We need to make our Defence Force as lethal and full of warriors as possible, but that won’t happen with the current CDF at the helm.

Transcript

Tonight I’ll read a letter from a constituent, a special forces veteran who chose to leave the Australian Defence Force after seeing Defence leadership callously throwing soldiers under the bus. It’s a long letter, a clear and scathing indictment of Defence’s supposed leaders. Here’s the letter:  

Dear Senator Roberts 

On the 19th of November 2020 a certain number of SASR soldiers were accused of having a toxic culture with the release of the Brereton report.  

This was a sound bite Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, AO DSC, repeated to the world. He accused Australian special forces non-commissioned officers of attempting to fuse excellence with Ego, Elitism and Entitlement.  

The Brereton report, written by General Campbell’s subordinate, absolved successive defence force leaders of anything other than ‘moral responsibility’, including the CDF. 

It wasn’t written in the report, but the message was loud and clear: there was another “E” in the equation. That of Exemption, Exemption for defence force senior leaders.  

The Inspector General Australian Defence Force investigation and media campaign was clearly endorsed by ADF leadership.  

In contrast, we have seen the lower ranks of those who served Australia in the Special Operations Task Force/Group in Afghanistan systemically abused, disempowered, marginalised and their valuable service denigrated. 

Many of these men and women have since medically discharged due to poor mental health caused not only by aspects of their active service, but more damagingly, their treatment by defence and the media on returning home.  

Treatment akin to that of a bygone era.  

We have seen ADF leaders recuse themselves from command responsibility and the very laws and standards established after World War 2.  

The Yamashita standard saw the Allies demand a Japanese General be hung for crimes committed by his soldiers.  

Now, after losing our war, and in the hope of avoiding scrutiny from the International Criminal Court for their failures, it is OUR military leadership who demand their soldiers who fought under their command be punished while they refuse to accept anything other than meaningless ‘moral responsibility.  

During the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the combined total cost to the Australian taxpayer was approximately $13.5 billion. 

During that same time frame Australian soldiers fought with substandard and rented ISR, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance equipment.  

They had no integrated close air support and borrowed US helicopters.  

Both Government and Defence ‘procurement specialists’ wasted three times the cost of both wars on failed and failing procurements.  

Now, we see the failed MRH-90 Taipan helicopter procurement feature in the tragic loss of life, devastating defence families and the serving community.  

We have seen veterans abandoned by defence and given no choice but to defend themselves in court without financial, legal, moral, or any other form of support from the same leaders they once served. This situation demonstrates complete disregard for those who loyally fought the wars of our generation and of the families who supported them.  

This ongoing treatment by defence leadership is yet another failure in their duty of care to the people they proclaim to value. 

Leadership then took their disregard a step further giving tacit approval to journalists by failing to correct the lies and fabrications they published.  

We saw the CDF and his service chiefs demand that senators’ questions in relation to the failure of the MRH90 helicopter be considered and respectful due to the families impacted by loss.  

This is a stance in complete contradiction to his grandstanding on the release of the Brereton Report, an uncaring act ignorant of the thousands of families impacted, and without consideration of the accuracy of the unproven and untested allegations, or of jurisprudence. 

We saw a victim falsely labelled a perpetrator by the cold and dispassionate Royal Australian Airforce chief.  

When offered the chance to set right the incorrect and damaging slur, the chief instead doubled down on his untrue statement with impunity.  

This further damages all victims in defence, while simultaneously highlighting to Australia the class distinction between an out of touch but untouchable leadership, and those they supposedly lead.  

We have seen defence leadership use national security as an excuse to cover their lies, mistruths, and omissions.  

And we have seen how the same leaders hide behind the ‘in consideration of the impact on families’ excuse, selfishly treating grieving families as human shields to protect their reputations. 

These families are strong families, they have supported loved ones through their years of service to this country, they don’t need protection, they need the truth.  

And now, we have seen elected senators voicing the concerns of their constituents and veterans, be labelled as divisive and bullied by the leader of Australia’s Military.  

If a lower ranked service member had publicly acted in the same way the CDF did at Senate Estimates, they would likely be charged with prejudicial conduct. 

If the civilian overseers, the elected senators responsible for scrutinising defence force activities and spending, are not immune from the wrath of our Defence force leaders, is there anyone in Canberra able to hold them to account?  

People do not leave bad jobs; they leave bad bosses. Defence has been pushing woke agendas to appease minorities leading to so many poorly conceived and implemented reforms.  

Furthermore, due to the defence leadership’s damaging use of the media to denigrate its veterans whilst recusing themselves, they have sidelined and denigrated ADF’s best assets, its people, and they are leaving in droves. 

This devastating recruitment and retention crisis is weakening Australia’s defence capability and national security, the very thing our leaders say they are protecting.  

This exodus of people from the ADF creates a vacuum that will take years to replace. These men and women are patriots; they are not leaving defence due to the promise of better-paid jobs.  

They are leaving because they are not valued and because of the incompetence, failures, double standards, blame-shifting, and lack of support from defence leaders. 

What has been the leadership’s answer to the current recruitment and retention crisis?  

To appoint yet another general to investigate why those who did, and those who normally would serve our great nation, no longer wish to do so.  

It’s a weak, box-ticking exercise to avoid leadership accountability and fails to resolve the issues.  

To Defence leadership, I say, if your medals are so important to you, keep them, and take ours back; there are more pressing items on the agenda. 

Over two decades, incompetence in a Defence hierarchy more intent on accolades, awards, and power, has mismanaged Australia’s defence force into its weakest ever position, and done so at a time when the world is in its most volatile and dangerous state since World War 2.  

These leaders leave us poorly defended, and solely reliant on another nation with a dubious track record for supporting its allies in war.  

Those of us who have been to war, who have been ‘in action’, don’t relish another one, especially one fought at home, that require our children to fight.  

On releasing the IGADF Brereton report into war crimes allegations, Angus Campbell was reporting as saying, “We are a nation that stands up when something goes wrong and deals with it and that is what I intend to do.”  

Well, as a concerned special forces veteran and father of Australian sons, this is me standing up, hoping someone in government will deal with this crisis.  

Or am I right with the final E? Exemption: Are our Defence Force leaders truly exempt from their failures and above international and domestic laws? The sorely needed Royal Commission into veteran suicides is a direct reflection of the poor leadership that has mismanaged defence over decades. 

A Royal Commission into ADF leadership, specifically the failures in leadership during the Afghanistan war, and subsequent to it, is now imperative to ensure the same failures are not repeated. The Government fails the nation if it does not. 

Signed: A concerned father and ADF Veteran. 

Name and address supplied. 

Anyone who hears the letter I just read into the Senate Hansard record will understand why many soldiers, veterans and senators, including me, have called for the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, to be fired. There are too many examples of hypocrisy, failure and incompetence from Defence leadership to list them all in one letter or one speech. Get rid of every single general who isn’t completely focused on making sure our Defence Force is as capable and lethal as possible. The safety and sovereignty of the entire nation require it. 

The state of the Defence Force is the fault of many successive governments and shiny generals, yet the responsibility for the current state of Defence must lie with the current head of the organisation, and that is General Angus Campbell. The Defence Force is going backwards—literally, when it comes to headcount—and the Special Air Service Regiment is facing an unprecedented capability crisis. One Nation believes warriors should be welcome in our military. We don’t need to spend time making sure drones are gender neutral. How about we just buy enough drones to defend ourselves? Spend money on ammo for our defence personnel to train with, not more gender advisers. Give medals to the heroes who show bravery in combat, not the bureaucrats who sit in air conditioning and shine their arse for half the war. The safety and sovereignty of our entire nation require that our ADF, the Australian Defence Force, starting at the top, tell the truth and be held accountable. 

/1 Comment/by

Wind and Solar Investors Cut and Run

Major investors are deserting wind and solar installations, walking away and writing off billions of dollars, as their share prices plummet. The ‘Green Dream’ is morphing into a nightmare of failure and financial loss.

What’s more, electric vehicles are losing value at twice the rate of petrol and diesel, while insurance policies rise at twice the rate. Hertz is hurting over the money it’s losing on its EV fleet and Australia’s Drive magazine writes that more EV sales will actually increase demand for coal, because solar and wind generation is not up to the job of charging these batteries.

Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) corporate blackmail is hitting resistance. Even Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative, citing risk and poor returns.

ESG initiatives rely on government handouts and because of that, our economy is being destroyed for a virtue-signalling initiative that is falling apart before our eyes.

We cannot ignore the signs – it’s time we followed in the investors’ footsteps, cut our losses and start putting Australians first.

Transcript

Madam Acting Deputy President, as a servant to the many different people in our one Queensland community, my second topic tonight is solar and wind energy’s financial failure. The tide is now against out-of-touch elitists whose income insulates them from the hardship their virtue-signalling, feelings based beliefs cause Australians. The recent referendum showed that the good sense of everyday Australians will shine through. Recent polling shows working Australians deserting the Albanese government over the cost of living, housing and immigration—crises due to virtue-signalling, feelings based urban elitist policies. 

Look at disasters in recent months engulfing the green dream. Orsted, the huge offshore wind charlatan, booked a US$5.5 billion writedown on the value of its offshore wind installations, and the stock price this year is down 50 per cent. Last week, Norway’s Equinor booked a $300 million writedown on its offshore wind portfolio. Its share price, though, was saved due to its investment in oil and gas. Siemens Energy is down 60 per cent after losses in offshore wind caused a return on investment of minus 17 per cent—negative. Vestas is down a third after announcing losses in its wind division and is now offering a return to investors of minus 11 per cent. This is from the Australian Financial Review: 

The Andrew Forrest-led Fortescue terminated approval applications for the Uaroo Renewable Energy Hub last month. 

The Daily Express reports that electric vehicles lose value for owners at twice the rate of internal combustion engines. Insurance policies are rising at twice the rate because of EVs’ rising maintenance costs. In America, Hertz announced it is losing money on its EV fleet, and it’s now scaling down purchases. The American Automobile Association tested EVs and found that, with a family of four and their gear on board, the highway cycle range of a family EV was reduced by 25 per cent, whereas petrol cars actually get greater range. American EV dealers now have a hundred days of stock sitting in showrooms. Business Insider reports that EVs have hit a market share plateau. There are only so many rich public servants ready to waste money on virtue-signalling vehicles suited to short city trips. The share price of the United Kingdom’s EV company Arrivals has fallen 96 per cent. Drive magazine says more Australian EV sales will actually increase demand for coal, since solar and wind generation is insufficient to charge these things. 

Recent large demonstrations against offshore wind should have caused Minister Bowen to take stock, yet he’s now full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes. Ignorance never ends well. Sydney’s inner-city elites will not have to look at these monstrosities, because the Labor Party are installing huge wind turbines off the workers’ suburbs in Newcastle and Wollongong. 

And the ESG corporate blackmail is hitting resistance. In the last week, United Kingdom investors withdrew $1 billion from ESG funds, making it five months in a row of negative inflows. Last year a paper showed that ESG funds do not offer superior returns to those of regular investment funds, which is why Vanguard pulled out of the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative last December due to poor returns and risk. Last July, the Australian newspaper said: 

“Green” investing has hit a crisis. Mounting questions over standards and effectiveness have been building for years. This year, investors voted with their feet and rushed for the exits. 

…	…	…	 

Whatever way you cut it ESG is a thematic – in creating exclusions it means investors will have more volatile returns than a fund that simply invests for the best return. 

Large corporates, superannuation firms and investment funds have a fiduciary duty to investors to operate for the best and safest returns. ESG is not safe and not profitable. ESG initiatives rely on government handouts. 

Our economy is being destroyed. The urban elites’ wealth and income can only last so long before feeling the pain they’re now inflicting on everyday Australians. The green dream ends when the government stops propping it up with taypayers’ money, the green dream nightmare ends when the government stops propping it up with taxpayers’ money. 

Make the decision today to start putting everyday Australians first. We have one flag; we are one community; we are one nation. 

/by

Medicinal Cannabis Overdue for Down Regulation

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Watt Arrogance, Watt Contempt

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

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

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

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

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move:

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

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

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

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

/by

What Will it Take to Get a Straight Answer?

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

Senator WATT: As I say— 

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting— 

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

Senator Ayres: Yes, old Telegram Matt! 

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting— 

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hughes: I said Minister Watt! 

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

Senator Hughes: I literally said it multiple times! 

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

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

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

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

Senator Hughes: We got multiple lectures this week. 

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

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

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

Senator Hughes interjecting— 

Senator Wong: I’m trying to assist here. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham. 

Senator Wong: I haven’t finished. 

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

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

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Do you wish to continue? 

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

Senator Scarr interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Scarr, no interjections. 

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

Senator Hughes: And he continues! 

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Birmingham? 

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

The PRESIDENT: That’s correct. 

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

Senator Watt interjecting— 

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

Opposition senators interjecting— 

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

Senator WATT: I make a general withdrawal. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, please continue. 

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

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

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

Transcript: First Supplementary Question

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

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

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your second supplementary?

Transcript: Second Supplementary Question

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

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

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

/by

Watt a Clown Show

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

Senator McKenzie interjecting—

Senator Dean Smith interjecting—

The PRESIDENT: Senator McKenzie and Senator Dean Smith!

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

Senator Rennick interjecting—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, your first supplementary?

/by

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

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

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

Despite the Labor party lies:

– One Nation will always support workers getting redundancy entitlements.

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

/by

Laboring Under the Delusion of Albanese’s Election Promises

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

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

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

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

The real party for the workers is One Nation.

Transcript

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

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

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

/by

Labor’s Latest Scheme to Buyback More Farmers’ Water

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

/by