From COVID mismanagement to inflation. Unsustainable immigration and the resulting housing crisis. Where do you put a million extra arrivals when you can’t house those already here? And at the core of it all is the price of electricity which hits every single part of our lives because it affects everyone from the householder to small businesses, manufacturing and farming.
The price of the United Nations Net Zero pipe dream isn’t just on your power bill. It’s on every other bill as well. If wind and solar were as cheap as we were promised we’d have the cheapest power ever. Instead it’s the highest it’s ever been along with the cost of living.
The irony of the Liberal party trying to deflect all the blame for skyrocketing electricity onto Labor is almost laughable. It’s thanks to the Lib-Lab policies and backroom party power brokers that we are all paying the price for the globalist interference in our government, no matter which wing of the bird we are looking at. It’s the same bird every time. It just costs more to roast it these days.
Party politics has corrupted this parliament and we need to return it to a house of representatives for the people.
Politicians should be warned. They’ve been able to get away with dodgy deals and dodging questions for decades. The hollow promises and empty performances were once met with complacency. Those politicians might think they’re clever but people are watching them now. They see through it. Life is getting tougher by the day for Australians and they won’t take it much longer. People are waking up at last.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I find it ironic that the Liberal Party has decided to bring on this matter of public importance mentioning the skyrocketing price of electricity, when they are the ones pushing for the United Nations net zero pipedream. It’s ironic that they would mention growing mortgage stress. Their government was the one that printed over $500 billion out of thin air during the COVID mismanagement. That caused Australia’s inflation problem. The Reserve Bank of Australia said they needed to raise rates to fight inflation by sending people with a mortgage broke. Supposedly they were trying to fix the inflation that the government caused—the gall, to mention real wages, which are forced down by the spiralling inflation problem, and suppressed by our unsustainable immigration intake.
Only today the Liberal Party was completely absent from a vote on my amendment to the Housing Australia Future Fund bill to acknowledge that our immigration problem is a problem for housing. It’s the core problem driving skyrocketing house prices and rentals. Big business loves high immigration, because it keeps wages down. With a million more arrivals into the country fighting for the available jobs, no-one has to put wages up. On top of that, the government’s inflation is stealing everyone’s purchasing power. Australians are getting hit with a double whammy. If you want life to get better, unfortunately that won’t happen if you vote for either Liberal or Labor. They’re two wings of the same bird.
The core of all the problems is the price of electricity. The price of electricity is being artificially inflated by green United Nations net zero policies. Electricity prices affect every part of our lives, not just the power bill at the kitchen table. Without cheap power, manufacturers can’t produce the products we want and need at a reasonable price, farmers can’t afford to pump the water that irrigates crops and keeps cattle alive, and shops can’t afford to keep the lights on and keep the doors open. So, you don’t just pay the price of the UN climate net zero pipedream once, in your power bill; you pay for it again and again and again in every other bill as well.
Wind and solar cannot supply our baseload power needs. The more wind and solar that’s put into the grid, the higher electricity prices go. This is a fact, and it’s replicated in every country that has gone further down the United Nations net zero path than has our country. The proof is already here in Australia, too. With the highest amount of wind, solar and batteries ever on the grid, our electricity prices have never been higher, thanks to your policies If the wind and solar crowd isn’t lying when they keep telling Australia that wind and solar is the cheapest form of energy—your electricity bills would be lower than ever, cheapest forever. They’re lying, and we are all paying the price.
The elites of this country won’t let us have a conversation on the actual solutions to these problems. Backroom party powerbrokers rule the major parties with an iron fist. Anyone who has an original thought, acts on it and steps out of line is kicked out of the party. It’s actually against the Labor Party rules to cross the floor. No matter how much you morally disagree with something, if you vote with your conscience you can kiss your job goodbye. This is the rot that’s corrupting our politics. We need to return this parliament to a house of states’ representatives, people’s representatives. That means you come here to actually represent and serve the people who elect you, not the party powerbrokers. Politicians should be warned: you’ve been able to get away with these dodgy deals for decades because of the apathy of the Australian people.
No more! Every day, thousands of Australians are waking up. More people than ever are watching exactly what you’re doing in this chamber. They’re not impressed. You might think you’re clever in the way you dodge questions and in the political games you play—yes, Senator Simon Birmingham; yes, Senator Don Farrell: you think you’re clever—but people see through it. Meanwhile, life is getting tougher for Australians. People won’t take your hollow promises and empty performances any longer. The people of Australia are waking at last.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8poKlfYtGNY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-18 13:37:232023-09-18 13:37:28No More Net Zero Performances from Politicians
John F. Klauser, winner of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in quantum mechanics, went public last week with the following statement – “I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.” In response, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the financial arm of the United Nations, cancelled his scheduled speaking engagements.
Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam though. Top US climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims that the Northern Hemisphere’s July was the hottest month on record.
In an article published in The Australian last month, Cliff Mass, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington, said the public is being “misinformed on a massive scale” and that there’s a “stunning amount of exaggeration and hype of extreme weather and heatwaves”.
Forests that have been overgrown and not taken care of have a tendency, when a fire is started, to burn catastrophically. When we blame climate change for this rather than environmental mismanagement, we fail to deal with the real problems.
John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Alabama, which runs the official NASA satellite temperature records, says heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as recent ones. In fact, the increase in temperature since 1978 is only 0.3°C in keeping with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Measuring mean temperatures is confounded by urban creep. The growth of cities has subjected existing weather stations to additional heat. “In central Houston, for example, it is now between 6 and 9°F warmer than the surrounding countryside, explained Prof Christy.” It’s worth noting here that large solar arrays create the same heat sink effect as creeping urbanisation.
Despite the concerted efforts of climate alarmists to control the narrative, there are growing numbers of scientists and experts who are distancing themselves from the climate pseudoscience promoted by government agencies and the media. Even Jim Skier, head of the UN climate body, says a 1.5° temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. There is no climate crisis.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I asked the question: Can you feel the winds of change? Leading climate alarmists are deserting their ship. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres demonstrates just how out of touch climate carpetbaggers really are. The only thing boiling dry is Antonio Guterres’s credibility. Nobel science prize winner John Clauser last week publicly stated, ‘I can confidently say there is no real climate crisis and that climate change does not cause extreme weather events.’ After saying that, the IMF cancelled his scheduled tour. Silencing scientists won’t save the great global warming scam. An excellent article in The Australian reveals two of America’s top climate scientists have correctly rubbished claims July was the hottest month on record, deploring a ‘stunning amount of exaggeration and hype’.
Cliff Mass, professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington said the public was being quite ‘misinformed on a massive scale, with a massive amount of exaggeration. He goes on, ‘In Houston, for example, in the city centre it is between six and nine degrees centigrade higher than in the surrounding countryside.’ That isn’t global warming; that is the urban heat island effect, which, by the way, is easily countered—plant trees.
John Christy, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Alabama Huntsville, said heatwaves in the first half of the 20th century were at least as intense as those recent heatwaves. This is the university that runs the official NASA satellite temperature record, the umpire of datasets, which shows an increase in temperatures since 1978 of only 0.3 degrees centigrade, on trend with temperature trends since the mini ice age 200 years ago. Even the warmer-in-chief, Jim Skea at the head of the UN’s climate body says, ‘1.5 degrees temperature rise is not an existential threat to humanity. we will not die out.’
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EplH2WtD40o/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-14 10:52:202023-09-18 13:40:03Nobel Prize Winner in Physics Says There Is No Climate Emergency
I spoke in support of Senator Hanson’s motion for an inquiry into Native Title.
The problem many of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders we speak to have continuously raised with us is that under Native Title the land is locked up and can’t benefit from it. That’s about half of Australia locked up under Native Title and held with the government. Is it any wonder the United Nations is so interested in Native Title?
The white and black aboriginal industry consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucrats. They all claim to be ‘closing the gap’ between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ standard of living and other non aboriginal Australians. The fundamental flaw in this system is that those running the industry are parasitically living off the money that is given to the aboriginal communities. It is a self-perpetuating problem.
Every year the billions of taxpayers’ dollars poured into solving the problem is being syphoned off by the same individuals who “claim” to be helping. Very little of the money makes it through to those in need.
You may recall when the Western nations were called upon to donate to ease the famine in African nations, very little of that aid often didn’t make it past the greedy government bureaucrats. This is what’s going on in Australia now. The pressure to scale it up is significant, but it will only increase the size of the industry and make it worse. What is needed is a solution to the Native Title problem that’s locking up the land. A sunset clause in the Native Title act should also be included. We need accountability within the white and black aboriginal industry.
Autonomy and accountability is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities are hungry for, yet they are being blocked by those who are living off the industry in the cities, both aboriginal and non-aboriginal.
It’s time to close the gap for good. We need this inquiry.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak to Senator Hanson’s motion, which I’ll read for clarification. It states:
That the following matter be referred to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee for inquiry and report by 4 June 2024:
(a) the establishment of a sunset date in relation to submission of claims of native title, after which no further claims of native title can be made; and
(b) the effectiveness of the operation of the native title system, options to improve economic development resulting from native title, and options to improve certainty over the claim process.
We want an inquiry.
Since the concept of native title was accepted by the High Court in the case of Mabo there have been mixed views from Indigenous and non-Indigenous commentators as to the benefits that have flowed to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The extent and nature of these was spelt out in the now rather complex Native Title Act 1993 and some further decisions of the High Court, including the Wik case in 1996. The act sets out a bundle of rights, some exclusive and some non-exclusive. Some exclusive rights relate to traditional activities, including the rights to fish, hunt and gather within the determined claim area—and I note as an aside here that Minister Plibersek’s latest piece of legislation seeks to take that away from Aboriginals, according to Aboriginals in northern Australia—but those rights cannot be transferred or on sold. Native title is extinguished by subsequent freehold and suppressed by leasehold, although that may revive at the expiry of the lease. Recent figures from the Native Title Tribunal indicate that determinations comprise more than 50 per cent of Australian land mass, more than half of our country.
One of the features of the Native Title Act is the attempt to balance the rights of all parties. The use of Indigenous land use agreements is a way of establishing possible land use, including mining leases and other means of gaining some commercial benefit, registered for the traditional owners. These can be varied at some later time through the National Native Title Tribunal.
When we were last in Cooktown we met with a local community leader, an upstanding man, who shared with us his views on native title and its impacts on his community and on many communities across Cape York. He said that native title was important from the aspect of recognition of the Indigenous perspective of their relationship with the land and recognising that Indigenous people were the first inhabitants of Australia and that they have inherent property rights in the land. His view was that the Native Title Act was not providing Indigenous people with something tangible, because they could not use native title to advance any individual interests. Land under native title cannot be mortgaged to help build a home or be used as collateral to support a business loan. The land is essentially locked up and not used to support small projects.
It’s really about seizing the land, holding it and not giving it to anyone to use. It’s no wonder that we see the words ‘United Nations’ so frequently in the Native Title Act preamble. This is a land grab and the Aboriginals are not benefiting. Because the land is not freehold, nobody is able to work towards owning their own home because the property is now locked away out of reach. No-one is getting this land. The Commonwealth government are able to reclaim native title land and convert it to freehold, and some compensation is then paid to the traditional owners, but this does not benefit any individuals. People in the cities think that this was all fixed years ago. They don’t realise that the No. 1 complaint in remote Aboriginal communities across the north of Australia is that they can’t get access to land to have their own houses and their own businesses. With land ownership prevented, there is little incentive to work towards beneficial goals. My friend said that he wished to own his own place in this community. He cannot own his own place in the community. He wishes to build up and expand his small business as a shop owner but he cannot buy the premises. He must hope that he can lease the shop from the local traditional owners.
These comments were echoed right across the cape by constituents, council mayors and council members, and in the Territory and, we’ve heard also, in Western Australia. It was universal. Not one person to whom we spoke had a good thing to say about native title, other than that it provides some recognition of them as First Australians.
When asked about the government’s closing the gap policy, he made the telling comment that the government was not serious about closing the gap because that would be contrary to the white and black Aboriginal industry that thrives on keeping Aboriginals dependent. With the exception of two Aboriginal members of parliament, Senator Nampijinpa Price and Senator Kerynne Liddle, Aboriginal senators—the other nine—don’t talk about the white and black Aboriginal industry that consists of lawyers, consultants, activists, academics, politicians and bureaucratics who are living parasitically off the money that is given to Aboriginal communities. They’ve stolen it from the Aboriginal communities. The billions of dollars that are poured into solving the problem are siphoned off by those supposed to be assisting, and little of the money and other handouts makes it to those in real need. That’s what’s going on in this country. It’s important for many people to keep the gap wide open.
I listened to a councillor on Badu Island, up in the Torres Strait, about closing the gap. I’ve been across the cape twice, and to some communities three times. In every community we asked, ‘What about closing the gap?’ Some people said, ‘What’s closing the gap?’ Others said, ‘It’s useless.’ When we asked this particular councillor on Badu Island, he said to me, ‘Malcolm, the point about closing the gap is that it will never be closed because there are people feeding off the maintenance of the gap.’ The parasitic white and black Aboriginal industry are feeding off closing the gap.
My friend went on to say that one of the biggest problems in communities was the lack of decent community housing. There were 19 people living in one of the local houses, and many people were homeless. In his community, 70 per cent of the residents were receiving welfare. Many were not coping. Mental health issues were climbing. What my staff have seen on Mornington Island is disgraceful. It’s caused by the white and black Aboriginal industry. They perpetuate the misery so that they can get the funds. As I said, this was a common comment across the cape and up into the Torres Strait.
Further north, a mayor told me that the problems also involved how grant moneys were divided up between the various interest groups, and again highlighted the housing and employment crises. There were no jobs and there was not enough housing.
Why will only two Aboriginal members of this Senate discuss the white and black Aboriginal industry? I have to commend Senator Nampijinpa Price for doing so with vigour. She points out that that white and black industry is destroying accountability, and things in Aboriginal communities won’t change without accountability. The people in the communities that I’ve listened to are hungry for autonomy and accountability. They want it.
I understand that in 1998 John Howard, as Prime Minister, attempted to amend the Native Title Act by putting in place a sunset clause. John Howard, I’m advised, moved to put in place a sunset clause. As Prime Minister, what advice did he get on the legality? Senator Cash would get some answers to clause (a) if there was some form of inquiry. What’s wrong with having an inquiry? Why do you keep blocking Senator Pauline Hanson wanting simple inquiries into basic, fundamental questions?
As I understand it, before Cook arrived the Torres Strait Islands had some form of property rights, handed down from generation to generation, where the holder of the land was clearly recognised. But the mainland not so, I’m advised. We were reminded by Senator Rennick that the High Court decision on Mabo was very close: four to three. We need an inquiry to see how it’s working and to go back to fundamentals. ‘Thirty-one years,’ Senator Rennick said. ‘We need an inquiry. We’re the house of review.’ I concur with Senator Rennick.
Senator Ayres raises the point about Aboriginal Warren Mundine possibly entering the Senate. I don’t know, but does Senator Ayres not want Aboriginals in the Senate because of their views? No-one tonight has offered a solution to the native title problem of land locking, although revisiting Indigenous land use agreements and considering leases for individual housing projects may deserve further consideration.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/M-mQHa0z0hM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-14 08:16:272023-09-14 08:16:31Native Title Inquiry Needed Now
I spoke in support of Senator Smith’s matter of urgency motion on airline competition in Australia to ensure transparency and scrutiny of the industry to protect consumers and promote healthy competition. It was once an iconic symbol that Australians could be proud of, but no more.
Qantas took and kept the Jobkeeper handouts during COVID then unfairly sacked ‘below the wing’ staff anyway. It outsourced the jobs to cut costs and as a result safety, despite the airline’s record profits.
That’s not all. The Australia Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC) recently charged Qantas with selling flights that didn’t exist. Ghost flights. Qantas does it to hog the departure and arrival slots and restrict the competition that would bring down prices. Always it’s the passengers who suffer.
Qantas share registry is controlled by the same parasitic billionaires that are destroying our banking and other corporate sectors. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street. There couldn’t be a clearer need for strong government and regulatory action to ensure honest competition and restore the calibre of Australia’s flying kangaroo.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I support Senator Smith’s matter of urgency motion. The level of corporate cronyism and greed in Australia’s airline industry is out of control. COVID was used to change the public’s perception of what constitutes fair and reasonable behaviour in the airline industry. Fares are up, service is down and luggage is nowhere to be found. One survey found that Australian airlines managed to lose baggage 10 per cent of the time. Qantas international fares are up 20 per cent in two years. International market share has doubled, and profits have followed airfares up and now stand at $2.47 billion. Despite this, Qantas COVID cancellation credits expire on 30 December. Virgin COVID credits expire on the same date. Is it a mere coincidence?
The ACCC recently charged Qantas with taking bookings on flights that were already cancelled. There’s a reason for that. Our established airlines have a legacy allocation of airport landing and take-off gates. In order to restrict competition that may bring down prices, airlines schedule fake flights and sell tickets with no intention of operating that service. By informing customers at the last minute of the cancellation, despite knowing of the cancellation for days or weeks in advance, the airline does three things. Firstly, it keeps that slot out of the hands of a new competitor who may compete with them on price or service. Secondly, it allows airlines to squash passengers into flights that become very profitable. The domestic load in March 2023 was 85 per cent. Thirdly, passengers suffer. Everyday Australians miss connections and lose time away from loved ones. Travellers are left to reorganise holidays on the fly, usually costing them more and taking days off their holiday break.
The predatory billionaires that own Qantas shares are perfectly happy with this. Billionaires use investment funds like BlackRock, Vanguard and First State in order to turn Qantas or, more accurately, everyday Australians, into cash cows. As long as they can use restrictive trade practices, like nobbling competitors, as they did with the recent Qatar airlines decision, and as long as they can get away with hogging landing and departure slots, their dividends will grow.
From where do these excess profits come? Everyday Australians of course. Taxpayers contribute yet more. Qantas took $900 million in JobKeeper payments during COVID and, despite record profits, kept them. The ACCC should look at all of these things, not just pricing. The power of parasitic billionaires must be cancelled out through strong government and regulatory action to restore honest competition, ending crony capitalism through restoring free markets and real competition.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/IO7efWpvGGc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-14 07:41:422023-09-14 07:41:46QANTAS Monopoly Puts Profits Over Service
I spoke in support of a motion to protect Australia’s space program. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the national space mission for Earth observation (NISMO) is shortsighted and false economy.
Investment in a homegrown space program designing, building and launching satellites was a recommendation by the Australian Academy of Science in a 2022 report. Apart from the career opportunities and jobs the program would have offered, it also provided national security. It would provide Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities and reduce sovereign risk. It would give us the ability to respond to emergencies and track bushfires, floods and extreme weather events.
Does PM Albanese not understand remote sensing? The cancellation of NISMO follows last month’s axing of the Australian Spaceports Program, which would have seen government funding assist the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil.
This is not about saving money — we still need this capability somehow. It would be far better to have the capability under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign suppliers.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Fawcett for his matter of public importance, which One Nation supports. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the National Space Mission for Earth Observation, NSMEO, will cost jobs in North Queensland. Abbot Point is a perfect location for a space facility. It’s close to the equator and offers consistent beautiful Queensland weather, providing for a reliable launch. A North Queensland space industry and launch facility would be able to capitalise on the Abbot Point steel park, already gazetted and just waiting for the Iron Boomerang steel mills. An Australian Academy of Science report from 2022 called for:
… investment in a home-grown Earth observation satellite program, which would design, build, launch and operate the satellites and the sensors on-board used to collect a wide range of data types.
The program providing Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities, with all the jobs and expertise this would involve, was designed to reduce sovereign risk. Remote sensing is the mapping of Australia from space, providing, firstly, an emergency capability to track bushfires, floods and the usual extreme weather events; and, secondly, routine commercial mapping that would have grown Australia’s productive capacity. Did the Albanese government not know what remote sensing was or the importance of having this capacity under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign government suppliers? It’s not as if we can save the money. We still need this capability somehow.
The cancellation of the NSMEO follows the axing last month of the Australian spaceports program, which would have seen government funding assist in the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil. The effect of these decisions, taken together, is to decimate the Australian space industry at a time when the industry was moving into a commercial phase. This decision is damaging regional Australia, damaging our national productive capacity, damaging our national security and reducing opportunities for career choices for our children.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/w4sH7t1ZBA0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-13 18:41:392023-09-13 18:41:43The Labor Government’s War on Space
It’s PEOPLE that build a nation. What do they need? They need the infrastructure in place to build upon. This supposedly independent bill proposes to review any previous government infrastructure project that has not yet had spades in the ground with the purpose of stopping previous government commitments. This bill guts the Infrastructure Australia board, reducing the number from 12 people who know about infrastructure and business to three people for whom there is no requirement to know anything about infrastructure at all.
This bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. Where there is expertise, it will no doubt be in solar, wind and battery backup, because this is the point of the bill: more taxpayers’ money sacrificed on a pointless quest to save the world from cyclical, natural climate variation—natural warming and cooling cycles.
By facilitating the destruction of native Australian forests and replacing them with industrial wind and solar landscapes energy prices are inevitably forced up. The energy scarcity from ‘renewables’ destroys employment in small and medium businesses and contributing to a massive transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to billionaire climate carpetbaggers.
To guarantee Australia’s power supply, we only need to build coal fired power stations using new technology that captures the carbon dioxide and turns those into useful products, fertiliser, fuel and hydrogen. This is new technology. This new technology provides clean energy to meet Net Zero targets while providing reliable baseload power at a fraction of the cost of solar and wind.
I don’t give a damn about the UN’s Net Zero targets, but here’s a way of doing it productively. It is a solution that should be supported across this Parliament. Yet these hypocritical Net Zero vandals will not admit that transition is a disaster, harming everyday Australians and will never deliver cheap, reliable energy.
One hundred years ago our country’s per person income was the world’s highest – number one! We can return to that number one spot. All it requires is freedom and infrastructure.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Infrastructure Australia Amendment (Independent Review) Bill 2023—supposedly independent! This bill proposes to review any previous government infrastructure project that has not yet had spades in the ground, to stop previous government commitments. This bill guts the Infrastructure Australia board, reducing the number from 12 people who know about infrastructure and business to three people for whom there is no requirement to know anything about infrastructure—nothing. I expect the government to appoint three bureaucrats who appreciate that advancement in the Public Service is based on giving the government whatever it wants to hear. To call that an impartial board is a joke.
This bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. Where there is expertise, it will no doubt be in solar, wind and battery backup, because this is the point of the bill: more taxpayers’ money sacrificed on a pointless quest to save the world from cyclical, natural climate variation—natural warming and cooling cycles. This bill will facilitate the destruction of native Australian forests and replace them with industrial wind and solar landscapes. These are parasitic misinvestments forcing up energy prices and, as a result of energy scarcity, destroying employment in small and medium businesses and contributing to a massive transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to billionaire climate carpetbaggers.
An amendment from Senator David Pocock will force this exact outcome. The bill ensures every project must have a sponsor, meaning Infrastructure Australia can’t advance its own projects. Good ideas aren’t always commercial or may be so large that a project sponsor risks bankruptcy to do the homework to advance the project to the funding stage. In this case, Infrastructure Australia should be allowed to step in and develop an initial business case with the expectation that, should the project proceed, their investment would be recouped using private Australian capital. It’s fair to say that the Future Fund needs to contribute much more towards growing our national infrastructure. Snowy 2.0 is a salutary warning about what happens when the government takes a project through to the decision stage first and does the maths later and then rubs out the maths. The process behind Snowy 2.0 should never happen again, and both sides of parliament have been culpable.
The bill requires Infrastructure Australia to take account of government policy. It’s interesting to note some excellent amendments moved in the other place, the House of Representatives, designed to put commercial expertise into the bill while excluding conflicts of interest. Those amendments all failed. I have circulated a committee-stage amendment that Independent MP Dai Le originally moved to require the disclosure of conflicts of interest. Why wouldn’t anyone want that? How can a government do a bill like this, which may spend $100 billion over 10 years, and not be worried about conflicts of interest? I’ve spoken in the last few days about the negative influence of foreign investment funds on government policy. I can see nothing in this bill that would stop these predatory billionaire funds using this bill for their own interests.
Other amendments that were not and still would not be supported are as follows. The first is an amendment to introduce a cost-benefit analysis for any project over $100 million. Apparently, the government doesn’t want cost-benefit analysis on investment projects, no doubt because there isn’t a solar, wind or big battery project in the country that would pass the cost-benefit analysis—not one. David Littleproud MP asked for one of the commissioners to have substantial experience in rural and regional Australia. The Albanese government stopped that amendment from passing. The same happened to amendments improving transparency and reporting to parliament. They don’t want transparency and reporting to parliament. I know every opposition will talk about transparency before they get elected and then, upon election, make transparency worse, which is exactly what this government is doing. The Albanese government seems worse than most at breaking their election promises and killing transparency.
Senator Rice proposed an amendment to make infrastructure more social since we are all going to be stuck in our 15-minute cities—or ‘prisons’ to use a more accurate term. Not if One Nation can help it! I do thank Senator Rice for her amendment around continuity of existing projects. In this regard, the legislation is poorly worded. It’s true that some of the Infrastructure Australia projects which hold so much promise are lagging. Many Queensland projects, like the Urannah dam, have not advanced since April 2022. There’s no doubt that this is to prepare these projects for abolition. And rather than Minister King being blamed, the independent Infrastructure Australia will be blamed for implementing government policy—as this bill requires.
Infrastructure minister King has terminated the Hells Gates dam north of Charters Towers and the Saego dam at Hughenden. This is yet another clear indication of the Albanese government hollowing out the bush and delivering our best farmland to foreign multinational superannuation funds and merchant banks for the benefit of foreign interests and to the exclusion of everyday Australians. Minister Plibersek’s water policy changes introduced this week prove just how much this government hates the bush. The proposed measures will destroy rural communities. Country towns have a critical mass for population and services, below which a town is not viable. This government will wipe many Australian towns off the map and return that land to Gaia. The major banks know this already and they’re acting like rats leaving a sinking ship with their branch closures. In effect, this Labor government is hollowing out the bush and using that money to line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers in order to buy votes off the Teals and the Greens—city votes.
The east-west railway and multifunction corridor with associated steel parks have been progressed to the next stage at Infrastructure Australia following One Nation initiating a Senate inquiry. I look forward to the new board continuing those projects. Real infrastructure—dams, railroads, baseload power stations and ports—will never be built outside the capital cities because the government wants to hollow out the bush. It is hollowing out the bush. That’s why real infrastructure will not be built outside the capital cities. The only infrastructure the bush will get is unwanted infrastructure: wind turbines, solar panels and a spider’s web of high-voltage power lines growing like a cancer across rural Australia. And, like a cancer, these infernal things kill productive farmland, destroy native forest and destroy the native fauna that used to live there. They’re killing pristine creeks. No-one in the bush wants these kamikaze, parasitic misinvestments.
There’s support from city folks who are eager to feel like worthy climate warriors while driving their petrol cars and living in freestanding houses, taking overseas holidays and dialling their air-conditioning up to the max. It’s all justified because they support the campaign ‘saving the planet’ with solar and wind power—as long as they’re built in someone else’s backyard.
Infrastructure is supposed to make life easier, not harder. Infrastructure is designed to add to our productive capacity and to grow the pie for all Australians. We hear so often that workers don’t deserve pay rises because they’ve stopped working hard and productivity has declined. Let me ask: what happened to the government working harder? What happened to infrastructure that makes the internet faster, freight-forwarding faster, electricity cheaper and products like timber, cement and steel readily available and accessible? This is what makes workers more productive: better tools and better supplies. Make no mistake: under this Albanese government the lives of everyday Australians will be harder, pay packets will not go as far and opportunities for advancement will become harder and harder to find.
One Nation’s Queensland infrastructure program includes building the east-west railroad across the Top End, from Western Australia to North Queensland, to provide market access for the extraction and grazing industries. But that’s not all it will do. These industries frequently have Aboriginal owners or employ a high proportion of Aboriginal staff. And there’s tourism. One Nation will build a multipurpose corridor in the same footprint as that railway line to bring power, water, the internet and local train travel to Aboriginal and rural communities. We would build the steel parks and take more of the $2 trillion steel market for Australians, growing our economy with breadwinner jobs and solid foreign exchange earnings. We would build the Great Dividing Range project: a dam, hydro and irrigation project to deliver environmentally-friendly economic growth to North Queensland—G power will unleash North Queensland! One Nation will build the Emu Swamp Dam, the Urannah irrigation project, the Big Rocks Weir and the Hughenden Irrigation Project. One Nation will run the inland rail from Five Star into Queensland, along the Moonie Highway alignment and then across to Miles, then through Wandoan to Banana, to terminate at the port of Gladstone. We will connect the port of Gladstone to the east-west rail line to create a national rail route that will take hundreds of thousands of heavy truck movements of the roads while improving transit times. We will not build the Pioneer pumped hydro project, as this not only destroys the environment of the Pioneer Valley but is also a complete fraud on the part of Premier Palaszczuk. This project is a fake big idea to win votes in the city in the next election and take attention off the Mackay Base Hospital’s many problems that the government has caused. It will also waste millions in feasibility studies that will ultimately showed this is a really stupid idea—a dishonest idea.
To guarantee Australia’s power supply, we need only to build coal-fired power stations using new technology. This new technology shows the public the hypocrisy of their renewable lobby. They criticise coal as being dirty so that industry develops the technology that captures the carbon dioxide and turns it into useful projects—fertiliser, fuel and hydrogen. This new technology allows clean energy to meet our net zero targets providing reliable baseload power at a fraction of the cost of solar and wind, I don’t give a damn about UN net-zero targets, but if you want to meet them, here is a way of doing it productively. This should be supported across this parliament, yet these net zero vandals will not admit the transition is a disaster harming everyday Australians and will never deliver cheap, reliable energy. Why are you doing it? Why? What’s your agenda? I suggest it is to orchestrate a power shortage in transport and production in order to usher in a new era of Soviet-style control. You have already shown it—the complete subjugation of Australia, as has been occurring since the signing of the UN’s Lima declaration in 1975 by Prime Minister Whitlam under Labor, ratified the following year by Liberal Prime Minister Fraser.
Labor destroys; One Nation will build. One Nation will build so that people can build. Human progress and economic prosperity depend on human initiative, and that needs opportunity and support. Opportunity and support flourish on freedom and on infrastructure for businesses to grow. Small businesses rely on infrastructure and start growing. There are eight keys to human progress in my belief. The first is freedom—the freedom to come up with ideas, exchange ideas, implement ideas. The second is rule of law—we have seen that smashed in the last three years. The third is stable, solid, sustainable, continuing governance—a Constitution. We have that. We have one of the world’s best Constitutions. Number four is securing of property rights, which were stolen by the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National Party government from 1996 through to 2007. They stole farmers’ property rights, the key to human progress. The fifth thing is strong families—they are being destroyed by policies put in place by the United Nations since 1975 with the Family Law Act—the slaughterhouse of the nation.
Cheap energy is fundamental and the most significant factor for human progress—affordable, accessible, reliable, dependable, secure and stable. A taxation system that is efficient—not inefficient as the current system is. Lastly is honest money—we need to return to a people’s bank in this country. The Commonwealth Bank, when it was the people’s bank early last century, was responsible for human progress in this country—dramatic progress. We had only five million people, but the Commonwealth Bank took care of building our country into a big country. Australia 120 and 110 years ago had the highest per capita income in the world.
To build a nation, people need infrastructure. People build a nation. People need infrastructure to build a nation. Australia has done this—we rose to number one in the world. That is instead of what Labor is doing now, which is a complete subjugation of Australia. Labor destroys; One Nation will build. The people of Australia have already proven we can build, and they have done it many times.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/7HkDz_oFzvs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-13 17:31:042023-09-13 17:39:07Stop Hollowing Out the Bush
Following my questions to Minister Farrell regarding the constitutional legality of the wording on the ballot paper for The Voice, I explained the legal advice I had received on the matter and warned the government that they need to sort this out quickly.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/L1GUgPO7XC8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-11 18:28:292023-09-12 17:01:51Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 2
Senator Roberts: My question is to the Special Minister of State, Senator Farrell. The Constitution requires the proposed law to be submitted to the electors so electors can see what they are voting on in a referendum. Minister, do you agree that the proposed text to be included on the ballot paper is the full text of the proposed law change as contained in the enabling legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Voice 2023?
Senator Farrell (Minister for Trade and Tourism, Special Minister of State and Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for giving me the courtesy of some advance knowledge of this question.
Honorable senators interjecting—
Senator Farrell: Well, some people just like me! I hate to say it—I can’t help it! Some of them actually get a better answer if they give me a bit of advance notice. It’s hard to believe, I know.
I have been made aware that there are claims by one legal academic that the form of the proposed constitutional amendment and/or the ballot paper question do not satisfy the constitutional requirements for a referendum. But the referendum legal issues have been considered in detail by the Constitutional Expert Group, the Solicitor-General and the parliamentary inquiry. This gives me some assurance that the amendment and the question are legally sound, Senator Roberts.
Historically, all referendum ballot paper questions have either used the short title, until 1951, or the long title, after 1951, of the Constitution alteration that passed through the parliament. The question for the Voice uses the long title, consistent with the practice for over 70 years. The government is aware of a potential challenge to the ballot paper reform. This application has not yet been accepted by the High Court and is therefore not an active proceeding. At this point, I’m advised that it is probably inappropriate to comment further on that possible legal challenge.
The President: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary?
Senator Roberts: Section 128 of the Constitution makes no provision for a summary of the change to appear on the ballot paper. Section 128 requires the proposed law change to be submitted in full. Form B of the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984, which allows for a summary, is in breach of section 128 of the Constitution. Minister, will you ensure the Voice ballot paper is compliant with the constitutional provisions for a referendum?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his first supplementary question. Yes, Senator Roberts, I will ensure that the wording in the question on the referendum on 14 October is compliant with the Constitution. Can I reiterate my earlier answer, that all of the advice that I’ve got from the Constitutional Expert Group, from the Solicitor-General and from the parliamentary inquiry that examined this issue is that it does meet the existing constitutional requirements. I should say that my office has at all times tried to facilitate your ability to get advice directly from the AEC about any issues that you might have with the ballot paper. I invite you to— (Time expired)
The President: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator Roberts: A case could and will be made to the High Court that including a misleading feel-good summary on the referendum ballot paper rather than the actual details of the change is a breach of section 128 of the Constitution, which may have the effect of misleading voters and rendering the result void. Minister, are you or your government about to make a $364 million mistake?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his second supplementary question. No, I don’t believe so. I have seen some of the reports that you are referring to. Interestingly, one of the reports I think that you’re relying on was from Michael Detmold, who was my constitutional law lecturer in 1972 at Adelaide university. But that doesn’t mean, Senator Roberts, unfortunately, that everything he may or may not say is correct.
Senator Scarr: Did you pass?
Senator Farrell: You’ll be surprised, Senator Scarr—I did. I not only passed Constitutional Law 1, but I passed Constitutional Law 2. That was even more surprising! (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/l0NVA_JXejo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-09-11 16:45:112023-09-12 17:13:34Constitutional Questions Raised Over Referendum Ballot Paper | Part 1
International organisations can be granted immunity when operating in Australia against legal action resulting from good faith actions. This also includes protection of their records from inquiry. The Albanese Government has decided to extend this immunity to a wider range of international organisations, including those where Australia does not get a vote in how the organisation is run.
I asked the Minister what they were up to. The existing arrangements have worked fine for 30 years and I saw no reason to change them.
While the Minister’s reassurances were welcome, the point remains there is unlikely anything good going to come from this bill.
As a result, One Nation opposed the bill.
Transcript of Questions to the Minister
Senator Roberts: I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn’t get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public. Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what’s going on with this bill?
Senator McAllister: Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I’m advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included.
Senator Roberts: Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response?
Senator McAllister: This bill doesn’t change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization.
Senator Roberts: Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records?
Senator McAllister: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it’s reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn’t change those at all. It doesn’t seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act.
Senator Roberts: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they’re liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply?
Senator McAllister: The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I’ve already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It’s not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate.
Senator Roberts: Following on from Senator Rennick ‘s questions, I’m specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation?
Senator McAllister: The World Health Organization is an entity that’s comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised.
Senator Roberts: [Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that’s happened with the United Nations World Health Organization?
Senator McAllister: I’m uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn’t affect the Australian government’s capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all.
Senator Roberts: It wouldn’t stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of ‘international organisation’, so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia’s operations?
Senator McAllister: As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions.
Senator Roberts: I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers.
I’ve been asking for a Royal Commission into COVID for more than 2 years. I am told it’s too early.
It’s now been 4 years since COVID was first found in Wuhan and in Italy and sent the world insane. Lock-downs, business closures and job losses, civil rights violations, coerced vaccination contrary to the Nuremberg Code. Simply inhuman!
Now we have a “scary” new variant, Pirola. Medical evidence provided to me by qualified medical practitioners state that it’s extremely mild and isn’t cause for keeping the COVID scare alive.
I also share the latest research which shows the reason why the “vaccinated” are getting more sick, more often than the unvaccinated, and that this may continue to be an issue for quite some time to come.
Join me for the 4th COVID science update this year.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight, on the fourth anniversary of COVID-19, I ask the Senate to consider the latest scientific discoveries. I’ll then make a request.
The latest variant of COVID-19, called pirola, is now dominating the news cycle and leading to calls for a return of masks, lockdowns and injections, despite there being only 12 cases in five countries. Dr Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist who specialises in vaccines, has published work relevant to pirola, which I will now summarise here.
If pirola were a dangerous virus, it would be easily detected because the increase in suffering and death would prompt testing. With only 12 cases, pirola is not serious. Pirola contains more than 30 mutations on the spike protein, which is what helps the virus enter cells and cause an infection. An accumulation of mutations in the spike protein is exactly the expected result from the poor design of these COVID injections that we’ve been inflicted with; specifically, the targeting of a single spike protein. The approach of targeting a single spike protein encourages the virus to mutate until it finds a variant the shot does not protect against. In this case, vaccination causes mutation. Natural immunity, though, targets multiple components of COVID-19. A person with natural immunity will have both antibodies and T cells that can kill COVID-19 by virtue of recognising things other than the spike protein, so it will be more difficult for new variants to completely evade natural immunity. He continues that Australians with only vaccine induced immunity will be more susceptible to getting infected. That means no immunity. And he says—listen to this quote—they ‘will be prone to more severe illness than people with natural immunity’.
In our haste to force vaccination on every Australian we have weakened the immune systems of our nation and delivered weakened bodies into the hands of the medical establishment responsible for this crime in the first place. In the months ahead, as the medical establishment and their media mouthpieces scare the Australian public into more injections, masks and other manifestations of Soviet control, remember this: pirola is likely less dangerous than any other strain, especially for those with natural immunity. So far it looks like pirola might cause a typical wave of the common cold. It might spread to a lot of people, like most cold-causing viruses do, and for most it will cause mild, if any, disease. Of course, follow medical advice if you’re immunocompromised or unwell. Thank you, Dr Byram Bridle.
Next, David Dowdy, a professor of epidemiology at the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, commented:
We don’t want to be sounding alarm bells over a variant that is just as likely to die out as it is to become the next big thing. If we did that for every single variant we’d be sounding alarm bells every single day.
The professor seems to be missing the point that fear is the point, and from fear comes control. If you want to slow the emergence of new variants, like pirola, stop the shots—stop the COVID-19 injections.
While we’re at it, stop manufacturing viruses like COVID-19 in laboratories. Seriously, what else in these labs may escape one day? Surely a royal commission would have to ask that question. It’s now been four years since COVID-19 was discovered in the wild, when three junior researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology presented to a hospital in Wuhan with flu-like symptoms. It’s been four years since 14 September 2019, the date Italian medical staff detected what became known as COVID-19. In the years since, the world has gone insane, with lockdowns; business closures and job losses; civil rights violations; coerced vaccination, contrary to the Geneva convention and inhuman; and military on the streets acting on instructions from the Medical Countermeasures Consortium, a military-health joint venture that oversaw the development of COVID-19 as a medical countermeasure, along with the antidote—sorry, the vaccine—produced in case the virus ever occurred in the wild. That’s what medical countermeasures are. Was this unholy military-health alliance responsible for suppressing inquiry into the source of COVID-19 lest it call into the question the wisdom of gain-of-function research? That’s an important question.
The same research was conducted with funding from the US government and supported across USA vassal states, including ours, Australia. I’ve previously spoken about our CSIRO’s involvement in gain-of-function research. Injectables were produced with the claim they could do something a real vaccine can’t do: stop the spread. In the decade before COVID, mRNA vaccines were tested and rejected, repeatedly, for product failure and adverse health outcomes. Then along came a lab engineered virus and those failures were swept aside in what almost felt like a Palm Sunday Hosanna reception. The injections were said to be our salvation, rescuing us from restrictions that governments imposed in order to sell the damn injections—a masterful media manipulation worthy of a royal commission inquiry into the approval and response process that has proven deadly.
Meanwhile, the medical establishment has ignored the obvious signs of injection-induced injury and death. Our medical establishment has responded to each alarming new study and damning data with a routine the internet has dubbed ‘Dr Baffled’. The World Health Organization is currently investigating an unusual rise in severe myocarditis cases amongst newborns and infants in the United Kingdom, one of which resulted in the death of the infant. ‘Dr Baffled’ doesn’t know what’s behind the rise in paediatric myocarditis. He’s baffled! Yet, somehow, he does know for sure that it isn’t the injections, despite myocarditis being a known COVID injection side effect.
In a peer reviewed study published in the Cureus Journal of Medical Science on 20 July, researchers found a correlation between neonatal vaccine doses and infant mortality rates in developed countries. According to data collected from 2019 to 2021, there’s a positive correlation between mortality rates and the number of vaccinations administered to neonates aged from birth to five years. In short: higher vaccine rates were linked with higher infant mortality rates. ‘Dr Baffled’ refuses to even look at this and so many other similar findings. As a result, ‘ Dr Baffled’ remains baffled as to why these children are not thriving on a diet of injected chemicals and genetic material.
In groundbreaking research presented last month, statistician and Luzern University professor Dr Konstantin Beck said:
… miscarriages and stillbirth rates in 2022 corresponded directly to COVID-19 vaccination among pregnant women in Switzerland nine months earlier.
And, he said, vaccine makers and public health officials either knew or could have known this information at the time, if they cared to look.
If they looked, of course, they couldn’t continue to be baffled about the findings. That’s why they’re baffled: they won’t look.
A study of the 500 largest school districts in the USA found that children forced to wear masks in school are on average three times more likely to get sick than those in districts without a mask mandate. Masks amplify diseases found in the wild. A random sample of used children’s masks found pneumonia, meningitis, diphtheria, sepsis and staphylococcus in amplified levels. Schools without masks recorded higher COVID infection rates early in the year, then cases fell away quickly, proving that healthy children only need natural immunity. It’s the best immunity there is. ‘Dr Baffled’ has no comment on the data but assures everyone that masks are safe, contrary to the evidence.
A new paper from the University of Melbourne published in the journal Frontiers in Immunology made the stunning conclusion that the Pfizer vaccine, when given to children, reduces their immune system’s response to other viruses and bacteria, like the bacteria I just mentioned that were found on children’s masks. It reduces children’s health. New information last month shows that Novavax, touted as a protein-only vaccine, free of genetic material, did in fact contain genetic material and a transfectant, saponin, meaning Novavax is a gene-therapy product. Whoops! Another massive scandal the public have not yet been told about. If the media does not speak further on this, I will. The TGA never pulled apart the injectables in their own labs. The TGA relied on what the manufacturers told them was in it so they could maintain plausible deniability of what was in them. A royal commission should short out Professor Baffled and the TGA expert committees on what seems to be a textbook case of malfeasance in office.
Undeterred, the TGA is doubling down. They just announced the removal of pack inserts for all injected products. These inserts used to inform doctors of known side effects and adverse drug interactions. For that reason, printed inserts are a legal requirement, saving the doctor from a web search most would haven’t time to conduct. Typically, when the TGA sees a problem, it hides the problem. Without this information, Dr Baffled will be even more baffled as to why patients keep dying suddenly. On the issue of excess deaths, the latest Australia Bureau of Statistics data shows Australian excess mortality remains at 27 per cent—40,000 Australians are dead this year who should not be dead and nobody in this government gives a damn. No one gives a stuff. One Nation calls on the government to call a royal commission into COVID now and, until that inquiry happens, stop the COVID shots now.
