Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

State-Sanctioned Start-ups Proposal a Sham

Before the election Labor promised to give grants to students who want to start-up a new business.

They’ve broken that promise and will funnel money to universities to run undefined “start-up” courses which will only leave students in real debt. It’s a Labor plan to funnel more money to woke universities instead of helping students.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I now speak on the Education Legislation Amendment (Startup Year and Other Measures) Bill 2023. This bill does three things. Schedule 1 creates an entirely new form of HECS called STARTUP-HELP, or Startup Year help. Schedule 2 increases the funding cap in the Australian Research Council Act. And schedule 3 adds Avondale University as a provider under the Higher Education Support Act.

Schedules 2 and 3 are relatively uncontroversial and should be passed before the next financial year. Deceptively, though, Labor has tied those time-sensitive measures with the controversial program in schedule 1 so that it can be whisked through. Deceit—yet another example of government deceit. Let’s consider schedule 1. Let’s cut through the deceit!

This bill started off with the announcement of an initial consultation paper and a student survey to seek the views of current students and recent graduates on the proposed design. It sounds like a great start, and yet the government has not published the outcomes of the survey and it has not published the submissions to the consultation paper it started. We only know about some submissions—in fact, only those submissions whose submitters published them themselves! Of these, many expressed concern about the lack of detail around four things: the criteria for inclusion of eligible programs; how students would be selected; how the allocation of 2,000 places would be distributed; and what the funding could be spent on. Those are pretty critical things and the government wants to hide them.

Given these concerns, it would make sense to have an initial pilot program. Many submissions appeared to agree with this and it was even suggested in the consultation paper. Yet, no, the government has decided that it won’t do this, instead pushing straight ahead with the full implementation of an expensive and undefined, untested program, and the creation of an entirely new category of debt. The program doesn’t make sense. As even the Australian Technology Network group of universities suggested, if you want to encourage startups, give the money directly to students, not to universities.

That was the government’s election promise—to provide grants for startups. Instead we have this Startup Year program, where money will be going to universities. If someone has a startup idea, under this program the government won’t give that person money to invest in their idea, to develop research, to produce prototypes or to get market research. Instead, the government will give money to universities, and the student will get left with a HECS debt afterwards. Reading about this program, readers might think that the intention isn’t to actually support startup businesses. People might think the intention is to support universities with yet another new cash cow and to funnel extra money towards them through an entirely new type of debt.

Schedule 2 of the bill provides updated funding caps. The minister explained these new funding caps as innocent indexation adjustments. Looking at the table provided in the explanatory memorandum, we have to ask: what the hell is the basis for the indexation rate? It certainly doesn’t seem to be the CPI, the consumer price index. For 2022-23, the increase is two per cent. For 2023-24, the increase is 4.8 per cent. That is 1½ times higher. For 2024-25, the increase is—wait for it—7.5 per cent. For 2025-26, the increase is 2.46 per cent.

If these increases were in line with CPI indexation, we would expect the larger indexation to apply in 2022-23—but no. Instead, the 7.46 per cent indexation won’t come into effect until 2024-25 after two years of additional indexation has already been applied. So you’re compounding the interest. Anyone familiar with how compound interest works will recognise that pushing the larger increase further down the line actually results in a larger increase to the funding. These increases amount to a significant additional 17 per cent or $137 million of taxpayer money going into the Australian Research Council’s budget over the forward estimates. It’s hard to consider these amounts as innocent indexation adjustments given their size and the deceptive way they’ve been applied. There’s that word again; it shrouds this government—deceit.

I note that Senator Henderson intends to move amendments that in effect split the bill and set up a pilot program. Senator Henderson’s amendments would carve out the Startup Year program from the funding and Avondale University matters which must be dealt with before July. They would establish a proper pilot program. This is appropriate. Let’s deal with the time-sensitive matters now and then have a proper debate about this back-of-the-envelope idea from Labor for state sanctioned startups.

To properly encourage startups in this country, we need to fix the broken taxation system and make sure energy is as cheap as humanly possible. The government is crippling startups by making it difficult to start up.

Shovelling money instead towards universities and building a HECS debt will do nothing to encourage business in this country. It’s a transfer of wealth from students to universities.

We won’t let the Albanese government hold us to ransom, bundling up necessary amendments with radical programs. If not amended and if it remains dishonest and deceitful, One Nation will oppose this bill.

/1 Comment/by

Heads must roll in Defence leadership

Australia’s diggers are being let down by terrible leadership from bureaucrats, generals and Defence Ministers.

We want warriors in our Defence Force and it shouldn’t be any other way. If the Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell doesn’t understand that then he should resign.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia I speak in support of Senator Lambie’s motion of urgency addressing the appalling state of leadership in the Australian Defence Force. It’s important to note that this motion isn’t about our soldiers, our sailors and our aviators. They are among the world’s best and are often the most motivated and disciplined men and women our country has produced. Yet politicians and the Australian Defence Force’s higher leadership have repeatedly let down our Defence Force’s amazing work. Time and time again the generals, the brass, have failed to demonstrate real leadership.

Our current Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, wears the Distinguished Service Cross medal. He was awarded this medal supposedly for his command of troops in Afghanistan. There are questions over whether General Campbell was awarded this medal illegally. The criteria used to be that the recipient had to be in action, meaning in direct contact with the enemy. General Campbell spent most of his time in command sitting in an air-conditioned office in Dubai, thousands of kilometres from the battlefield.

Even if his medal was validly given, General Campbell is trying to strip the very same medal from people who were under his command and for whose behaviour he is responsible. It is a frightening exercise in double standards when General Campbell is awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his command of the same people who he is now trying to strip it from for alleged wrongdoing.

Leadership means taking responsibility for everything under one’s command. This isn’t an opinion; the Yamashita standard enshrines it in international law. When the Japanese Imperial Army committed untold atrocities, it was the overall commander General Yamashita who was charged with the war crimes that happened under his watch. General Campbell alleges war crimes were committed, including during his time in command. He spits on the idea of command accountability with his actions. When I suggested to General Campbell at Senate estimates that handing back his medals would be the moral thing to do, he responded, ‘That’s very interesting, Senator’—contemptuous. For General Campbell to demonstrate leadership he would hand back his medals and resign today.

On General Campbell’s allegations of war crimes it’s important to note that, eight years after a discredited sociologist first levelled allegations, not a single criminal charge has produced a guilty verdict—not one. Instead of affording soldiers of our elite Special Air Service Regiment procedural fairness, General Campbell may as well have declared them guilty when, at a press conference, he announced the allegations and said sanctions would be applied—not a criminal court, a press conference. It seems General Campbell intends to add ‘judge, jury and executioner’ to his resume.

It’s acquisitions department, the Australian Defence Force’s higher leadership, washed its hands of accountability. Almost every Defence program has failed to meet budget, time or delivery goals. Billions upon billions of dollars are wasted every year in foreseeable project delays, poor project planning and badly defined deliverable goals. Yet everyone involved seems to still be getting promotions. Is the motto on the wall, for the higher brass, at defence headquarters ‘Failing upwards’?

General Campbell even endorsed findings in the Brereton report complaining of a ‘warrior culture in the SASR’. If you don’t want warriors in the most elite fighting unit in this country and among the best special forces units in the world, where the hell do you want them? These issues are the reasons why defence recruitment is in crisis. Good soldiers are leaving because of the double standards flowing down from the top. It’s absolutely demoralising. The entire top brass needs to face a reckoning, for the state of the Australian Defence Force, and I stand in support of Senator Lambie’s calls for exactly that. We get so many calls from veterans and current service men and women asking us to do exactly that.

We say to our enlisted defence personnel: Australians know the good work you do and the effort and dedication you put into training to defend our country. Your job is applying state sanctioned violence, and no-one should shy away from this fact. It is a very difficult job. One Nation supports you all, and we will do everything we can to call for your poor leaders to face accountability for their actions and inactions.

/6 Comments/by

Labor Government copies Morrison Government’s Secrecy Tactics

The transparency and accountability systems that are meant to apply to government are broken.

Despite campaigning on honesty and transparency, this Labor Government is pulling out every trick in the book to keep Australians in the dark about how they’re spending money and what they’re doing.

Transcript

Former Senator Rex Patrick said to me that transparency is a word that’s only ever shouted from opposition benches. After years and years of virtue signalling from Labor while they were in opposition about the importance of transparency and accountability and the importance of Senate estimates hearings, now that they’re in government it’s an entirely different story. Before they were elected to government we heard endlessly from Labor that the government should be accountable and one of the ways they should be held accountable is an order for the production of documents. Labor has resisted, has voted against or refused to comply, with almost every order for the production of documents on which this Senate has voted. That same attitude is prolific, and they’ve show up again over two weeks of Senate estimates hearings.

I’ve got plenty of criticisms about the Labor Party, yet I’ve got to ask some of the senators from the Liberals: it’s a little rich, don’t you think? While you are in government, there were plenty of motions for the production of documents and evasiveness at Senate estimates. When it comes to accountability and transparency of government information, unfortunately, the Liberal and Labor parties are two wings of the same bird. As former Senator Rex Patrick said so accurately, ‘Transparency is a word that’s only shouted from the opposition benches.’ Once in government it’s all quiet.

Let’s have a look at just some of the transparency that Labor has blocked. Motion No. 124, an order for the production of documents to tell the Australian people how much extra Prime Minister Anthony Albanese cost them to call parliament back for a ridiculous one day of sitting to push his gas industry nationalisation through. It likely cost millions of dollars, just so Labor could pull a stunt and claim they were doing something on electricity prices. Six months later, it’s done nothing. Looking good, not doing good—that’s what matters to Labor.

What was Labor’s response to the Senate ordering them to tell Australia how much this exercise had cost? They may as well have just put a middle finger in the envelope. Not one dollar in costings such is the contempt they have for this Senate and for Australian taxpayers.

Let’s look at motion No. 176, an order to produce documents relating to millions of dollars being paid to political parties for ill-defined grants and programs. What was Labor’s answer? Contempt. Not a single document related to the funding was produced.

What about motion No. 200? Just yesterday, documents were requested in relation to the MRH-90 helicopter crash in Jervis Bay, documents that would uncover if we are putting our Defence personnel at risk of death flying in dodgy helicopters. The government refused to return a single document—not a single document.

Of course this culture of secrecy extended to Senate estimates. We saw witnesses tell outright lies to the Senate and the Labor ministers sit by idly. Ministers raised flimsy public interest immunity claims, if they bothered to raise them at all. In the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade hearings, Chief of Defence Force, General Campbell, simply flatly refused to answer questions from myself and from Senator Shoebridge. That’s not how Senate estimates works. If a witness does not want to answer a question, they are obliged to take it on notice and then it is up to the minister to raise a claim of public interest immunity—not the witness. General Campbell knew this. He’s attended many estimates sessions. The Labor minister at the table knew this, yet sat there in silence as the witness treated questions with outright contempt. Again, transparency is a word only shouted from the opposition benches.

Now, we’ve had two constituents, one from Queensland and one from New South Wales, telling us about specific instances that indicate a senior member of one of the departments lied. We’re chasing that up now with a question on notice following Senate estimates. Let’s not forget the unanswered questions on notice. Answers to questions on notice were flowing in while the next Senate estimates had already started. Make no mistake, many of these answers were no doubt available, yet they probably sat on the minister’s desk waiting for a final sign-off. That’s why many of the questions on notice don’t arrive in time: ministers are holding them up. So much for transparency. There is no reason a minister needs to sign off on answers anyway. The truth is the truth. The agency’s answer is their evidence; it’s not for the minister to change.

None of this will change until the Senate fulfils its duty to bring contempt charges against those who treat it with contempt. It is within our power to enforce accountability. A few contempt charges and a couple of witnesses in jail should send a message to the others.

/2 Comments/by

The takeover of Calvary Hospital is an attack on Christianity

The ACT Government has passed legislation to take over the Calvary Hospital, which is run by the Catholic Church and has provided healthcare to millions of Australians through their 14 hospitals around Australia.

This follows legislation in the ACT to provide free abortion on demand to anyone who is under 16 weeks pregnant. The ACT Government is also proposing legislation to allow euthanasia without “time to death”, which means anyone can ask for euthanasia at any time, even if they are not sick. That same proposal includes no age limit to deliberately allow children to be euthanised.

Calvary, through the Catholic Church, has gone on record to say they will not participate in either of these programs so the Canberra autocrats have seized the hospital so abortion and euthanasia cam occur.

When I spoke about this online the response from the left was to say “there is no place for religion in healthcare”. My response to this is simple – if you don’t want religious healthcare go to a state run hospital; if you don’t like religious aged care go to another aged care provider; and if you don’t like religion in schools go to a state school.

This is a power grab by Canberra autocrats who cannot tolerate dissenting opinion.

The Federal Government has authority over Canberra and must intervene to, at least, put this move to the people.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our wonderful Queensland community, I support this motion from Senator Cash, Senator Canavan and fellow senators to refer the takeover of Calvary hospital to a committee inquiry. This blatant attack on religion in health care has caused trouble for ‘PAN AM’—or Canberra, as some still call it.  

Legislation to seize the hospital from the Catholic Church has passed the Australian Capital Territory parliament—legislation developed over a long period of time, partly in secret. In fact, this is the second attempt ACT Health autocrats have made to force Calvary out of health care. The only God autocrats respect is the god of power—power used in pursuit of a genuinely evil agenda. The ACT has legislated abortion and euthanasia. The Catholic Church insists on putting humanity around those rules, which has inflamed ACT autocrats. Nobody is going to get in the way of the health autocrats’ agenda to murder babies and murder our elderly—and now considering murdering children and the severely handicapped. As an aside, the right to die, as we are seeing in Europe, will become an obligation to die.  

There are 14 Calvary hospitals in Australia delivering health services in a faith-based environment, healing of millions of Australians since their start in 1885. Churches around Australia provides hundreds of aged-care homes. Each of these must be looking over their shoulder at what Canberra Health autocrats are trying to do at Calvary.  

My public address to a pro-life rally in Rockhampton two weeks ago and a subsequent video on this topic has been met with an interesting response from the Left—the control side of politics. I will address that now. The common reply, repeated verbatim from a legion of social media bots and mindless zombies, is this: there is no place for religion in health care. It seems to me that this is a most hypocritical statement. When religious groups protested drag queens exposing themselves and reading adult sex stories to kids in libraries in ‘drag queen story time’, religious groups were told, “If you don’t like it, don’t go.” Well, let me direct your argument right back at you: if you don’t want religion in your health care, don’t go to a Christian managed hospital. While we are at it, if you don’t like religion in aged care, go to another aged-care facility and, if you don’t like religion in education, don’t send your kids to a religious school.  

See how it works? It’s freedom of choice. That’s what is irking the Canberra bureaucrats—freedom. We know how much autocrats have embraced utilitarian agendas and how COVID has normalised such behaviour. Clearly, these health bureaucrats have no intention of surrendering powers obtained dishonestly. I imagine they can’t wait to tear that cross off the front of the Calvary hospital. Calvary hospitals have treated millions of Australians who are happy to be treated in a religious hospital. Federal parliament has precedence over ACT law. This matter is rightly within the Senate’s purview, and I am strongly in support of Senator Cash and Senator Canavan’s motion. 

This is partly about property rights and partly about freedom of choice. Property rights are fundamental to human progress, fundamental to innovation, fundamental to freedom and fundamental to responsibility. Federal Labor, in this term of government, has nationalised the gas industry. The federal Liberal and National parties stole farmers’ property rights in the Howard-Anderson Liberal and National government. Now the ACT wants to steal churches’ property rights and nationalise religious values. 

We need a Senate inquiry. The federal Constitution has powers to deal with religion.

My message to Canberra health autocrats is simple: God decides who lives and dies, not you. 

/15 Comments/by

Why the racist “Voice” will tear Australia apart

Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream.

Who would have thought we would be again fighting for such a basic concept nearly 60 years later.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I expressed my view about this legislation, the Constitution Alteration (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice) 2023, and the brain-snapping folly that will occur if the Yes campaign wins the upcoming referendum. Martin Luther King’s dream was that his children would ‘not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character’. I share that dream. Although I doubt that he imagined we’d be discussing this same principle nearly 60 years later. 

The Voice would result in constitutionally enshrining deferential treatment based on skin colour and heritage. I cannot endorse racism, and I will not do so. It’s difficult to discuss the ‘no’ case in relation to the Voice and its operations without being labelled racist. This has been Mr Albanese’s deliberate policy. He’s hoping to mislead voters into thinking this is a modest proposal, merely a goodwill gesture that needs very little thinking and should be supported because it’s simply good manners and will not change much or anything at all. He’s taken a leaf out of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s playbook. Mr Albanese is telling us, ‘Don’t you worry about that’—the details—’Just do as I say.’ Mr Albanese is telling a great mistruth. 

The Voice, if established, will become a huge new institution with vast powers enshrined indefinitely into the Constitution based on race. It will change governance to Australia’s detriment. There’s no doubt that past governments failed to address Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people’s needs. This is despite billions of dollars successive governments have wasted lining the pockets of white and black bureaucrats, academics, activists, lawyers, consultants and all those whose incomes are based on the white and black Aboriginal gravy train siphoning off the money that rarely filters through to those who should benefit from assistance. 

The government is already seeking mass endorsement of the ‘yes’ campaign. It’s calling in support from those already dependent on government funding. Sports organisations, the arts and big business are all dependent on government funding grants and contracts. They aren’t exactly independent but bribed. We’ll hear from more of those organisations in the lead up to the referendum. 

While it’s interesting to look at the elites supporting the ‘yes’ case, we need to consider what real Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people want. I’ve travelled with my staff to Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory and across Queensland. I’ve visited every Cape York community twice and in some cases three times—and to Torres Strait communities. I’ve listened to residents, and one thing that has struck me is the fact that there is little knowledge or even interest in this Voice. There is little interest or respect for the so-called Closing the Gap. A counsellor in the Torres Strait community of Badu summed it up accurately, saying that many in the Aboriginal industry do not want to close the gap; they want to perpetuate the gap to keep milking taxpayer funds. 

There’s no common understanding as to what the Voice is or what it might offer residents in terms of improving people’s lives. Opinions differed from community to community. They differed from family group to family group. In fact, on most issues there’s little commonality of views. There’s no single Voice that could represent the differing views of each separate Aboriginal and islander community. I remain deeply concerned about the unworkability of what’s proposed. 

Mr Albanese, when deflecting questions recently on how the Voice would work in practice, has constantly directed questioners to read the lengthy Calma and Langton final report on the Voice. It’s not a policy, merely recommended. The report says there’d be a need for 24 full-time roving commissioners and a secretariat. With 35 districts, there’s a need for local Aboriginal Voice to Parliament groups and committees. On each issue, these committees would seek to develop one opinion. There would be the likely risk of people in Tasmania giving their view on an issue for Torres Strait Islanders. The report did not say all representatives would be elected democratically. Retired High Court judge Ian Callinan has been vocal in opposing the Voice, questioning how it might not be truly representative of Aboriginal Australians and run the risk that the Voice might be made up of a hand-picked Canberra cadre. He noted practical difficulties with drafting the constitutional amendments that would need High Court interpretations. This Voice push is not from the grassroots; it’s coming from city elites, academics and others on the white and black Aboriginal industry gravy train. The Voice faces the real risk of a noisy minority of activist groups hijacking and driving it. 

Across Australia are more than 3,000 Indigenous corporations and more than 12,700 registered charities with purposes including assisting Aboriginal Australians. Since 2018 more than 19,000 grants have been made, totalling more than $11.5 billion for Aboriginal purposes. All of this money has been directed towards the needs of a group representing less than four per cent of Australia’s population. For example, Noel Pearson’s Cape York Institute collected more than $50 million. He supports the Voice. The recent budget included $781 million for the National Indigenous Australians Agency, to be added to an already announced expenditure of $1.36 billion. Look around the communities. Where has this jaw-dropping amount of money gone? What has it done to lift the lives of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people? Previously, I raised in this Senate the sorry plight of Aboriginal people on Mornington Island, Australia’s third world disgrace. Has their life benefited from the jaw-dropping amount of wasted money? Clearly, no. 

A core issue for me is there is the historic suppression of Aboriginal Australians under governments that continue to patronise and reinforce a victim mentality through misplaced paternalistic care, so-called care—control masquerading as care. This remains a national disgrace. The solution is not creating a powerful unaccountable body to satisfy a small group of activists with vested interests in maintaining an ever growing white and black Aboriginal industry. 

There is not one word from the government on the cost of setting up the Voice. There is not one word from the government on the proposed annual costs. Why is this so, asked a famous and much loved and admired TV scientist. The Prime Minister does not want us to know the answer, as it would be a figure so large that no-one in their right mind would agree to such expenditure for yet another new bureaucracy, when many Australians are already wondering if they can afford to put a meal on the table for their family. Billions are already being spent. Billions more will be spent to run the Voice. Whoops, don’t tell the voters! A previous body created to assist and represent Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders’ needs was ATSIC, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission—and look how that experiment went. ATSIC’s abuse of Aboriginals and the related corrupt waste of taxpayer money led to ATSIC being abolished. It would be almost impossible to abolish the new version of ATSIC, which is the Voice, enshrined in the Constitution—how handy for the corrupt white and black Aboriginal industry, as the Voice, like ATSIC, would be a never-ending cash cow for those in the know, perpetuating bureaucrats, agency heads and board members living off taxpayer funds—parasites. 

Let’s not forget the bloodsucking white and black lawyers, activists and academics, who are dipping their snouts in a new public funds trough. Is the Voice really necessary? Is it needed? The government says it’s needed to give Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people an opportunity for input into government. Currently there are already 11 members of parliament of Aboriginal heritage. Are they not doing the job of raising issues on behalf of Aboriginal Australians? If not, what sort of job are they doing? What about the National Indigenous Australians Agency? Isn’t its job to highlight to government areas of need? Will the Voice replace this body? The Prime Minister suggested that governance of the Voice would come under the jurisdiction of the future National Anti-Corruption Commission. This has been challenged. Retired senior judge Anthony Whealy said that further legislation would be required to extend the commission’s jurisdiction to cover the Voice, as it would not be covered under the current legislation setting up the National Anti-Corruption Commission. 

This brings us to the issue of jurisdiction. The High Court would decide disputes about the Voice, because it would be created under an entirely new ninth chapter of the Constitution. The High Court is the only body having the role to interpret the Constitution—a whole ninth chapter added to the current eight chapters, with details in wording hidden. The High Court schedule could fill up rapidly with cases of this nature and slow down the judicial process. The Voice would be able to make representations to parliament and to the executive on matters relating to Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders. That’s almost everything. There’s little restriction on the sorts of issues that the Voice could raise, and the advisory role is not only to parliament; it’s to the executive government. That means that the potential for excessive involvement of the court system may necessitate expanding the High Court to consider Voice disputes and interpretation. 

This leads to another criticism of the proposed Voice. At what stage can the Voice advise the parliament or the executive? Must the government consult with the Voice on all proposed legislation or the development of policy? Is the onus on the Voice to make representations about an issue with the government or the executive? The Aboriginal industry says it is to advise both. The Prime Minister has been unwilling to answer any of these vital questions. Will activists rely on the Voice to slow down government processes to the extent of blocking legislation and holding the government to legal ransom unless demands are met? That seems to be the activists’ intent. The Prime Minister’s comments that the Voice would be subject to the parliament are clearly wrong. Any law that was designed to rein back Voice activities may fail, as the power of the Voice is so broad that it is nigh impossible to minimise such power. 

Any law that is passed related to the Voice must be subject to the Constitution. Surely that is a recipe for confusion and parliamentary disaster. The Voice does not practically solve any of the current issues facing remote Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders. These problems of people living in remote areas, Aboriginal or not, are already well known, yet solutions have not yet been offered. Allocation of vast sums of money, resources and programs have not worked. We’ve been told that the Voice is proposed to be advisory only, with no power to provide programs, resources or grants. How is that supposed to assist Aboriginals in need? The concept of native title was supposed to support Aboriginal Australians yet has failed miserably. Aboriginals living in a community are not able to own their own homes, are locked into rent cycles and unable to borrow to advance themselves, because they cannot use land under native title as security for a business or home loan or other loan. They’re locked into a system that keeps them from improving their lives and livelihoods or working towards buying their own home. 

Native title freezes Aboriginal people out of the economy and keeps them from advancing personally. No-one should be surprised that the native title legislation’s preamble is littered with references to the Voice’s roots, the globalist United Nations. The Voice will further entrench Aboriginal disadvantage, promote victim mentality and sow further division. 

One of the nastiest sides of this debate has been the coercive approach that ‘yes’ campaigners have taken, pitching any opposition to the ‘yes’ campaign as racist. Even within the Aboriginal community, where there are clear differences of levels of support, derogatory name calling and put-downs are the response from ‘yes’ campaign leaders such as Noel Pearson. He has derided Senator Nampijinpa Price and other leaders taking a strong ‘no’ stance. It’s interesting that in rural areas, where Aboriginals are most in need, the ‘no’ vote is way out front—much higher than the ‘yes’ vote. Aboriginals see little value for them in the ‘yes’ campaign. The ‘yes’ campaign support is in fact falling and remains strongest in cities, with support from the wealthy and the elites who have fallen for the cheap rhetoric of lies from government and lies from elite academia. Sadly, young people are being sold a pup, third hand, through a deceitful government media blitz providing huge sums to others to run a deceitful ‘yes’ campaign on behalf of the government.  

What I dislike most of all is the fundamental flaw in this government’s whole referendum push, and that is the out-and-out racism underpinning the whole Voice concept. It is the insertion of a whole new chapter into our Constitution, as the Australian Human Rights Commissioner, Ms Lorraine Finlay, recently highlighted by saying: 

It inserts race into the Australian Constitution in a way that undermines the foundational human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination … 

The proposed Voice will give Aboriginal people special rights. Only the members of the Voice will have a constitutional right to influence the parliament and the executive. No other Australian person or body would have that constitutional right to influence the parliament or executive based on race—not one. This is pure racism. If one goal of the Voice is to create harmony and reconciliation, this is doomed to failure, irrespective of the referendum outcome. This issue is so divisive that, whatever the result, a wedge will have been driven between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal members of our Australian society, a wedge based on race, thanks to the Labor government. Australians should all have the same rights. If this referendum succeeds, that will not be the case in Australia, because one group, Aboriginal Australians, will have additional constitutional rights that other Australians will not have. That is racist and it is wrong.  

We all share two identities. We are all human and we are all Australians. Our nation is the world’s only nation whose people voted for the national Constitution. Our Commonwealth Constitution is the people’s Constitution. Giving the government’s dishonest proposal an open slate—a blank slate—for changes made by politicians will degrade it to a politician’s Constitution. We have had enough of politicians in this country. In answering a question last week, the Prime Minister acknowledged the public has turned against the Voice. He then confirmed that if the people reject his racist Voice proposal he will legislate it. He will defy the will of the people.  

Lastly, what is the point of a voice when the problem is not Australians speaking up; the problem is politicians not listening. It is the arrogance, the deceit, the unwillingness to listen. I will vote no.  

/14 Comments/by

We bloody told you so!

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation has been warning of the impact of high migration on Australia for 25 years. We have been talking about the strain on health, housing, transport, crime and schools in particular.

All of those warnings have now come true. Australians can no longer afford housing, their mortgage or rental payments, or their electricity bills. Jobs are hard to find and breadwinner jobs are even harder to find.

All of this comes back to the rate of immigration over the last 25 years. It did not need to be this way.

Had the government listened to Pauline, we would have seen money going into schools, hospitals, police stations and housing to meet the demand from new Australians. This did not happen and now look at the problems we have.

One Nation will get the economy going again to create breadwinner jobs, get housing construction and infrastructure underway, and secure a future for all Australians.

Transcript

I want to turn my attention to another topic.

In 1996 Pauline Hanson named her new party ‘One Nation’ as an expression of her heartfelt belief that this beautiful nation must include all Australians, fairly and equally. She and I serve the people of Queensland and Australia. No single group should be favoured over another and no-one should be denied opportunity.

One Nation is committed to the belief that we must give all Australians the same opportunity to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour. And we must provide a safety net for those who can’t provide for themselves. Where one group in our community is trailing behind, then the solution is not arbitrary or forced inclusion. That didn’t work in the Soviet Union and it will not work in Prime Minister Albanese’s soviet republic of Australia. Why? Because it doesn’t actually solve the problem of why people have fallen behind in the first place. It does, though, let politicians and compliant community leaders off the hook. ‘See here,’ they go. ‘Look at this thing we are doing. Aren’t we wonderful, vote for us and you too can feel good.’ Not solve anything, just feel good, look good. Not do good, just paper over the problems and pretend to do good. 

One Nation stands for solutions not feelings. We will build the east-west corridor across the Top End, bringing power, water, rail transport and the internet to remote Aboriginal communities, opening up markets, expanding job opportunities, educational opportunities and tourism, which we know exposes the world to Aboriginal culture. And that’s a good thing. One Nation will build the Great Dividing Range project to bring environmentally responsible hydropower—cheap power—and water to North Queensland to drive agriculture and tertiary processing, adding tens of billions to our national wealth. One Nation will build the Hughenden Irrigation Project, the Urannah dam and hydro project, the Emu Swamp dam and the Big Buffalo dam in Victoria. All of these will make more productive use of land already in use for agriculture so as to grow more food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. This is the difference between One Nation and the parties of feelings. We offer Australians natural wholesome food and natural fibres, while the tired old parties in this place offer you bugs and used clothes. 

What I don’t understand is the black armband view of prosperity that permeates the policies of the old parties in this place. Abundance is not a dirty word. Abundance is not mutuality exclusive with environmental responsibility. The attack on the food and manufacturing sectors is one of ideology, not environmentalism. It’s about controlling us using deliberately created scarcities. Food scarcities and energy scarcity are deliberately created and can be easily corrected by a One Nation government. Soviet politics of oppression are not the Australian way. 

Australia is a place where a coalminer born in India can become a senator, where the daughter of a migrant from a war-torn country can come to Australia and find not only peace and prosperity but a place amongst the leaders of our beautiful country and where a refugee from the fall of Saigon can come to Australia stateless and take her place in the House of Representatives. There are so many examples just in this parliament of how Australia’s proud history of equality of opportunity has lifted up those who have chosen to embrace the opportunity given to them. Equality of opportunity though does not mean equality of outcome. I remember a story about a wise old Russian, just a regular citizen of the Soviet Union, and the Soviet approach to mandatory equality. The wise old Russian drew a series of stick figures of different heights on a piece of paper, and then he said, ‘In the Soviet Union everyone is equal,’ and proceeded to draw a line across the page to the height of the smallest figure. The heads of the successful were chopped off to bring everyone down to the height of the worst performing. That’s, indeed, how socialism works. That’s why the Soviet Union failed, and it’s why left-wing ideology permeating this government is failing and will fail. 

What people do with the opportunity they’re given is their own business. Governments cannot provide an equality of outcome, because governments cannot control how people handle the opportunity we are all given. As a government, we can only ensure every Australian has access to a breadwinner job, a home that suits their needs, a safe community, transport, education, health care and, of course, a safety net. The rest is up to the individual. But mark my words: depriving Australians of these core government functions, no matter the geography or the background, will not be tolerated. 

Sadly, deprivation is exactly what is happening not just in remote Australia but in our cities as well. After attending public forums across Queensland in the last few weeks, it’s obvious there is a failure to deliver basic government services by Premier Palaszczuk and by successive federal governments. Feelings will not fix failure—they just lead people into false security. Ideas, vision and hard work will fix Australia. One Nation is ready to take up the challenge. We have the policies, and Senator Hanson stands ready to lead. I must say the fire burns as strongly as ever in the heart of Australia’s favourite redhead. 

/7 Comments/by

The Population Apocalypse is Cancelled

The Club of Rome have led to call to reduce the world’s population for 40 years, based on their projection of the world population continuing to grow to as many as 15 billion people. Last month the Club of Rome updated their population projection for the first time in 40 years, and reduced the projection dramatically.

The new projection is as little as 8 billion people by 2050, which is less people than now.

The population apocalypse is the reason given for forcing bug and lab grown protein on the public, the entire net zero campaign is also based on a growing world population.

I hope the scaremongers can move on and let everyday Australians get on with enjoying this beautiful country without their destructive agendas.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people of our Queensland community, my comments tonight celebrate humanity. New data shows the world has been saved from the population apocalypse. Even more surprising, the data has come from the Club of Rome. Before I excite the chamber with the wonderful news that the Australia we know and some of us love is safe from green grinches, here’s some background. 

For many years the Club of Rome maintained the world population was out of control and would exceed nine billion, most likely 10 billion and possibly 15 billion. This was being used to justify onerous antihuman restrictions in how we live. The antihuman green lobby has decided that, because of population growth, everyday Australians should eat less, travel less, have fewer children, live in hive homes stacked on top of each other and leave nothing to their children. The antihuman green lobby decided private interests should not own and develop natural resources—or, as they prefer to call it, the commons. Instead, a Soviet style elite, who in practice would be the world’s richest individuals, should own all resources. Even homes, cars, refrigerators and brown goods would be rented, not owned. Aboriginal and native title would be over land they occupy yet continue to not own; in fact, no-one would own it. 

To make sure this happens, the antihuman green lobby will implement measures to force all physical goods to be repairable and recyclable, to include a very high percentage of recycled materials and to operate on such a low electricity rating that they may not work at all. This huge increase in cost would price household goods out of the reach of everyday Australians. This absurd wonder of Soviet central planning is called the circular economy, which is another way of saying everyday Australians will never own anything new. Wealthy investment funds and superannuation funds will own everything. 

I’m sure you’ve heard the campaign slogan: ‘You will own nothing and be happy.’ This is what the antihuman green grinches serve. The party of the trees has turned into the party of the tall poppies. Recently they voted against my motion to investigate in vitro lab meat because they know the countryside will be locked up and food will be mass produced as bug burgers or, worse, fake meat grown in bioreactors in the same way cancer cells are grown. 

Antihuman greens and teals openly promote this reduction in living standards. They say it’s necessary because there will be too many people in the world to sustain the old way of doing things. By ‘the old way’, I mean Australians having the freedom to work harder, accumulating wealth and assets, enjoying a comfortable retirement and then passing their wealth on to their children to give them a head start in life. There’s no room for that in the Soviet republic of Greensland! All this is based on a lie that the world’s population is expanding so rapidly that we must, today, start to destroy the wealth of everyday Australians and to lock up the sea and the countryside—which they call the commons—to save it from overproduction. We can now call off the population apocalypse. Here’s the good news for human beings the world over. Recently the Club of Rome released a follow-up to its infamous limits of growth study, which has caused 50 years of shivering bedwetting from the green lobby. This is a significant document as the first major review to the limits of growthin 50 years. Who conducted these new calculations? The Earth4All collective of leading environmental science and economic institutions, including the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the Stockholm Resilience Centre and the Norwegian Business School. 

The Club of Rome modelled two scenarios. If we do nothing, the world’s population will top out at 8.9 billion—it’s already eight billion—in 2050 before falling to 7.3 billion in 2100. Or, if we work hard on improving the living standards of developing nations, as One Nation supports, the world’s population will top out at 8.6 billion—remember it’s only eight billion now—in 2040 and then fall to just six billion in 2100. Six billion: that’s it! 

This clearly shows that we do not need to lock up the commons in order to protect it. Over time our natural environment will be used less, not more. We don’t need to reduce everyone’s share down to subsistence levels. The reduction in population will make current consumption easily sustainable. We do need to provide sensible stewardship of the natural environment and reuse, recycle and introduce new materials like hemp plastics, of course. This is wonderful news. 

What will the anti-human green grinches use now to generate fear, to generate their own bizarre brand of environmental self-flagellation? Soviet style? Without a doubt the answer is: they will do whatever it takes—whatever lie and whatever twisting of the data it takes to keep the fear campaign going. It’s time to take another look at the fundamental assumptions of the climate campaign. The emperor has no clothes. One Nation enjoys truth. One Nation shares the truth. 

/7 Comments/by

Australia turning into a spiderweb of high voltage transmission lines

,

It’s estimated that 28,000km of power lines will be required to help the government’s net-zero pipe dream.

In many places, these powerlines are being proposed over prime agricultural land with the owners having their property compulsorily resumed.

I spoke in support of a inquiry to give affected landowners a voice as the government bulldozes over them on their way off the wind and solar cliff.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to acknowledge the people in the gallery. My brothers and sisters in Queensland amongst the rural sector were at a property rights conference just last Friday. The stories about the so-called green power—wind and solar—are well and truly horrific.  

People are just starting to wake up to the blight that is coming upon this country. And it’s not just the city people paying for power; it’s rural landholders and farmers losing their land, losing their livelihoods and losing their health. The social, economic and moral impacts are enormous and devastating. And the anti-human Greens are responsible.  

I want to compliment the farmers who have come here today. Thank you so much, because what you’re showing is democracy in action. You’re putting pressure on the people down here in this chamber. We are paid by these people. We serve them.  

Recently I was in the wonderful Widgee community to listen to people about the Queensland government’s plan to destroy their national park and communities in order to build a high voltage powerline. Electricity transmission has become a controversial topic in recent years. The UN’s 2050 net zero—next to zero—needs a huge spend on wind turbines and solar panels, inevitably located in the bush and requiring tens of thousands of kilometres of transmission lines to bring the power all the way to the cities. 

Long transmission lines were not needed when coal power kept lights on and fridges running, lifting our beautiful country into a period of prosperity and stability. 

The woke Left—the socialist Left—are destroying what works and replacing it with a short-lived, unscientific exercise in feelings. Net zero will need $50 billion spent just on transmission lines, every cent of which will come out of the pockets of everyday Australians and electricity users, including manufacturers. Queensland Premier Palaszczuk’s plan for a big battery in the Pioneer Valley calls for peak generation of five million kilowatts of electricity to be delivered into a 275-kilovolt transmission line. It’s absolute insanity, deceit and arrogance. Premier, where’s the costing on the several thousand kilometres of additional lines necessary to carry that amount of power into the grid without melting the wires? Are you forgetting that melted wires is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that was less than one per cent of the Pioneer project? 

It’s a fact that Katherine Myers from Victoria addressed the Property Rights conference in Gympie on the weekend. She told us that 80 per cent of solar and wind in western Victoria is not connected to the grid. You guys have blown that money and now you’re wanting to tear up farms to get it to the cities. Once wind and solar wear out, which takes only 12 years—and that’s the reason they’re called renewables, by the way—and taxpayers become jack of this ruinous drain on public finances the bush will be left a wasteland of glass, toxic chemicals, rusted steel towers, concrete and fallen wind turbines full of oil and dangerous chemicals. Do you know why they’re called renewables? Because you have to renew the bloody things every 12 years. In the space of building one power station you need to build four generations of solar and wind. That’s why they’re renewables. 

Wires melting is exactly what happened when the Kennedy renewables project was connected to the grid, and that’s less than one per cent of the Pioneer project. Nothing stacks up—nothing. Their owners are Bahamian shelf companies and Chinese shelf companies, which have no intention of remediating this inevitable environmental disaster. Who will be left with this legacy of blown toxic panels and wind turbines? You will be. That’s why we need this inquiry to explore this issue. 

One Nation stands opposed to green vandalism underway in rural Australians’ backyards just so that wealthy, ignorant and uncaring inner-city anti-human Greens and teals can feel better about their inhuman energy consumption myths. Why do the Greens hate nature? Let’s look at their track record. They chop down trees to make way for steel and fibreglass monuments to the sky god of warming, who is celebrated with religious fervour by people who think themselves too clever for religion. Tens of thousands of hectares have been cleared and devastated for electricity interconnector easements. It’s a permanent scar across the landscape for no reason.  

The seabed is marked with two new interconnectors to get hydropower from Tasmania to energy deficient Victoria. Suicide is what’s going on with the Victorian government. They’re suiciding their state. Productive farmland and native grasses are covered in a carpet of glass and silicon reflectors. The sea is supposed to shine, not the countryside. Productive land is dug up as a graveyard for expired wind turbine blades. There’s strip mining of the seabed for rare earth minerals to make EVs and big batteries. Beautiful natural lakes in China are polluted with toxic chemical run-off from the processing of rare earths. The Greens look the other way with this environmental vandalism because ignoring environmental standards is essential to bring the price of solar down so that they can claim the price of solar is falling. 

This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull. So there’s China’s environmental standards and the health of the locals, but who cares about children being devastated? Our beautiful bird life is sliced and diced in wind turbines across the country. If oil were the culprit, they would never shut up about birds. But with wind turbines: ‘Shoosh. No-one mention the dead birds.’ 

I make this offer to the Greens: come camping with me. Let me show you the beauty of this amazing countryside and then perhaps then you will be less likely to chop it down; cover it in glass, steel and concrete; pollute it; and lock it away so nobody but a chosen few can appreciate the beauty. One Nation is now the party of the environment. 

/7 Comments/by

Albanese Government Housing Bill is a Sham

What is Albanese’s solution to the housing crisis? He won’t slow down the 400,000 new immigrants arriving this year. He won’t stop foreign investors snapping up property. He won’t stop short term rentals.

Instead, they will invest a maximum of $2.5 billion over five years into a property market in Australia that is worth over $10 trillion dollars. A drop in a bucket is bigger than the 0.025% this bill represents.

If we want to fix housing in this country we have to cut red tape and stop the 400,000 arrivals this year pushing up rental and house prices, not just create another layer of bureaucracy.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I say the Housing Australia Future Fund Bill 2023 and related bills introduce a seriously flawed concept—many flawed concepts. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill establishes the Housing Australia Future Fund to make funds available for Housing Australia to make grants and loans in relation to acute housing needs, social housing or affordable housing—more bureaucracy. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 renames the National Housing Finance and Investment Corporation to Housing Australia—more bureaucracy. This is a clear difference between the Liberal and Labor parties. The Liberal Party name their reckless, wasteful market interventions as corporations. The Labor Party give their reckless, wasteful market interventions grander names. ‘Housing Australia’ sounds so big, so comforting and so reassuring, yet it falsely implies the Prime Minister has the housing crisis sorted when he is way off target. He’s making it worse.

Prime Minister Albanese’s solution is not to slow down the obscene level of immigration pouring into cities without homes for people to occupy. His solution is not to address foreign investors buying and locking up new homes so they can be sold as brand-new in a few years time when values increase. His solution is not to address short-term rentals pushing the long-term rentals out of the housing market. No, his solution is an investment fund that will make no noticeable improvement to the housing crisis.

Here’s the data around that. The Australian Bureau of Statistics puts the number of Australian dwellings at 10 million. This bill pretends to add 30,000 new dwellings, or a 0.3 per cent increase. The total value of Australian dwellings is just under $10 trillion. We need as much as $1 trillion worth of new housing by 2030 to meet the needs of everyday Australians, including migrants. This government is offering $2.5 billion. That’s 0.025 per cent.

The government can’t build enough homes to fix this. Only private enterprise can meet Australia’s needs. What created this mess? Red tape, green tape and blue tape created this mess, and high interest rates from a flawed Reserve Bank strategy and inflation from bad government management created the mess. The only thing that will work is getting government out of the way and letting free enterprise fix this mess. Anything else is dishonesty—reckless dishonesty. The Housing Australia Future Fund Bill is dishonest. Not only does this bill not solve the housing problem for people who are already here; it does not solve the housing problems for the millions that will arrive by 2030. Either that Albanese government is deliberately misrepresenting the outcome of the bill or there is more here than the paperwork suggests.

Let’s see what else we have here. The Treasury Laws Amendment (Housing Measures No. 1) Bill 2023 streamlines the functions of Housing Australia—oddly, by making it bigger—establishes an annual review mechanism for the National Housing Infrastructure Facility and extends the Commonwealth guarantee of the liabilities of Housing Australia to apply to contracts entered into until 30 June 2028. This last one is interesting. In Queensland a number of construction companies have gone broke recently. The main reason is that, thanks to the government, we have high inflation and home builders use fixed-price contracts. The last thing you want in a fixed-price contract is high inflation taking the profit margin and pushing the builder into a loss on every home they build. Who is going to build the homes now that private enterprise can no longer shoulder their fair share of the burden? Well, the government, of course—so it says—or is it? I’m sure Anthony Albanese’s mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak.

The Acting Deputy President: Order, Senator Roberts! Remember to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.

Senator Roberts: Prime Minister Albanese’s mates in those big union superannuation funds are out there recruiting builders as we speak, ready to open their construction division to build and own Australian housing. If the project runs over budget, who cares? It’s taxpayer money. After all, the government is giving a liability guarantee, so just shovel that government money right in there.

The bill will distort the housing construction market. On one hand, suppliers are under pressure to hold costs down to make private-sector construction affordable for everyday Australians to build and own their homes. On the other hand, Housing Australia will be out there paying top dollar to get their materials and labour to deliver the homes to keep their jobs. What could go wrong with that? The Albanese government could have worked with the supply chain and with banks to put in place supply chain security to keep existing builders in business. Instead, it went the Soviet route again, pushed the private sector aside and let the government build it.

The third part of this package is the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023. That streamlining thing I mentioned earlier apparently extends to creating a whole new advisory body called the National Housing Supply and Affordability Council to advise the Commonwealth government on matters related to housing supply and affordability. It’s more bureaucracy. We already have the Productivity Commission and the Australian Bureau of Statistics to provide this economic statistical data. We have a federal department to advise the minister on housing. Now we have a whole new body as well—more bureaucrats. Where is the corresponding reduction in the department’s budget allocation, reflecting a substantially reduced workload? Bigger government is the Labor Party’s answer to everything. History would disagree.

The numbers on this bill do not add up. The Housing Australia Future Fund, HAFF, will receive $10 billion to fund the delivery of 30,000 social and affordable homes and allocate an additional $330 million to acute housing needs over the HAFF’s first five years. Oh, really? I noticed, though, that the budget line item for this bill is $15.2 billion. The explanatory memorandum states the Housing Australia Future Fund ‘would be credited with $10 billion as soon as practicable after establishment.’ Where’s the other $5 billion going? Once invested, the Housing Australia Future Fund would provide up to $500 million per year to support social and affordable housing. That’s a five per cent return on investment, which is nice if you can get it in the current investment market. The Future Fund can’t. Their return on funds invested in the 2022 calendar year was negative 3.7 per cent. The fund would be reduced and no houses built—borrowed money, interest costs, lost money, no homes built. Even at a five per cent return on investment, a $500 million dividend for five years—that’s $2½ billion—divided by the 30,000 homes is $83,300 per home. One may speculate that these are going to be really tiny homes, yet the truth is likely far worse than that.

What would a home built by this Labor government actually look like? Subdivisions will be of the modern design, with narrow streets, because cars are an environmental sin, and we will never have the generation capacity for everyday Australians to use electric cars. Those are for the city elites, in the nomenclature. Eliminating excavation for obsolete parking garages will save money. Residents will instead walk or ride children’s scooters. Shopping will be delivered by drone from BlackRock and Vanguard-owned businesses like Amazon, Coles and Woolworths. Cameras will keep you safe and inside your 15-minute allocated region. Are cameras coming out of the $83,000 for each house or are local governments paying for those?

Home units will be constructed to the four corners of each block, and the landscaping which used to soften these buildings will no longer be allowed, because pointless plants waste water. Canberra’s posh Red Hill suburb, where senior bureaucrats live, gets beauty while everyday Australians get utility. They get cell blocks, really. Ceilings will be lowered, walkways narrowed and walls made thinner to squeeze additional units into low-rise blocks without lifts, with a daily water allowance of 120 litres per person. I remember receiving a presentation on that target back in 2019. A standard bathtub holds 180 litres, so baths are every bit as much the environmental vandals as gas stoves. Don’t laugh, Senator Duniam. Toilets will be half flush only. I don’t get this one. Is there a little electric charge that zaps you if you flush twice? How does that save water? Smart water meters will police water limits and make home and balcony gardens impossible to keep watered. So purchasing food from corporate supermarkets and corporate takeaways will be the only way to eat. Smart electricity meters will police our daily energy allowance and remotely switch off unapproved appliances.

All of these things are the current ideology of modern urban design, stated in writing. Many of these are already evident in council building codes. Smart meters are being deployed as we speak. Once the reality of having to sell a home built to these standards is removed by government ownership, all of these measures will be standard. Even if you apply Hive home ideology, can the cost come down to $83,000 per house? I doubt it. But to use a yardstick of $400,000 or more is to ignore the real intent of the bill. It is a principle we are hearing a lot, lately: you will own nothing and be happy, or else.

After the bill passes, the minister will decide where and how the money will be spent. After the bill passes, we’ll get the details. Disbursements, including grants made under the scheme, will be a budget measure, meaning the Senate can’t disallow them. The legislation does not include the rules around who can and can’t get a grant or disbursement, so this bill is really a $2.5 billion blank cheque. Clause 49 would allow the future fund board to use derivatives for certain purposes. This could include using derivatives as a risk management tool or to achieve indirect exposure to assets that it could not otherwise achieve. That sounds terrifying. I look forward to the minister’s explaining the intention of this section in the committee stage. We have questions for you.

The National Housing Supply and Affordability Council Bill 2023 ‘establishes the council as an independent statutory advisory body to inform the Commonwealth’s approach to housing policy by delivering independent advice to the government on options to improve housing supply and affordability’. This is more bureaucracy. Does this suggest that the bureaucrats have been giving poor advice to the government? We already have a Commonwealth department of housing. What’s gone wrong with that department that we need this whole new additional body? Or is this just another opportunity for jobs for your mates among union bosses and among the union superannuation industry?

This bill should have been about getting people into their own homes. That requires making life easier for private-sector homebuilders and for private homeownership, which will take demand out of rental accommodation and free up homes at more-realistic prices for those who can only rent. Instead, Prime Minister Albanese is using government construction to push private homebuilders out of the market and entrench renting over owning. There is a lot of additional bureaucracy and a lot of economic and social harm for proportionally little benefit, for almost no benefit.

One Nation opposes this Soviet-style reckless, wasteful market intervention. One Nation proposes getting down to basics: cutting immigration until housing and infrastructure catch up; cutting red tape, green tape and blue UN tape; comprehensively reforming taxation to give Australians a fair go; shrinking government to fit the Constitution; and getting the government the hell out of people’s lives, enabling people to make choices that suit people’s and families’ needs. We do not need more bureaucrats and more waste; we need more houses, real houses. We need a return to basics. Let the tradies of Australia get on with the job.

/7 Comments/by

There are Jail cells underneath Parliament House, let’s use them

I’ve got a suggestion, if Labor wants to keep disobeying direct orders of the Senate we can show them why there are jail cells underneath Parliament House.

Transcript

I like Senator Farrell. He’s a good bloke. We don’t always agree. I accept that he’s overseas right now. Yet his repeated non-responses are not acceptable. His behaviour is not acceptable, because answering questions is important for accountability. The people that we serve deserve honesty and accountability. There’s only one word to describe this government’s attitude to Senate estimates, to questions on notice and to orders for the production of documents. That word is ‘contempt’. They continue to treat this chamber with contempt. Almost every order by this Senate to produce information is met with contempt from this government, and it is appropriate that we begin to treat appropriately the ministers who treat this Senate with contempt.

We have had explanation after explanation after explanation from ministers. Ministers are all too happy to come into this place and cop a lashing for an hour and continue to refuse to produce the information that this Senate has ordered. The explanations are not good enough. They are intentionally inadequate. It is not good enough that this Senate continues to accept them without any further action. It’s time for this Senate to use its constitutionally enshrined powers to hold ministers to account, and that must be through charges of contempt when they continue to disrespect this Senate’s orders.

I remind senators that it is this Senate, not the government-dominated privileges committee, that makes the final determination on matters of contempt. If this Senate is not happy with a minister’s disobedience of a direct order, then the Senate itself can vote on contempt, which we would do and which should happen. The time for meaningless, hollow blather, in explanation after explanation, is over. Start serving the people or face contempt motions. There are jail cells in the basement. It’s time for the executive government to be reminded why they’re there. That’s not a joke. That is fact. It’s time for the government to be reminded why there are jail cells in the basement.

/24 Comments/by