I stand in defence of a child’s right to innocence.
Children must be allowed to grow up without being exposed to sexual grooming.
The legal system and courts in this day and age are supposed to defend children’s rights. Yet today sometimes fall short.
What consenting adults choose to do is their own business, yet not in front of children.
Biblical texts serve to demonstrate humanity’s strong & long history of protecting childhood innocence.
The book of Matthew, in strong terms, warns those who would lead children astray.
The message is clear: Leave our kids alone!
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and of Australia and as a grandparent, I stand in defence of a child’s right to innocence. Intentionally misleading children hurts and corrupts children, and exposing children to messages that steal innocence hurts and corrupts children.
We live in a time when the World Health Organization has started a campaign to give our children sex education from birth; to show six-year-olds pornographic material and to give nine-year-olds practical sex education. We live in a world where men dressed as women can perform lewd acts or read lewd stories in front of children and, in so doing, achieve a measure of validation from impressionable children that society rightly withholds. And we live in an age when a boy can’t look at a doll without risking a diagnosis of gender dysphoria and, with it, a lifetime of prescription drugs. A tomboy hasn’t a chance in today’s education system.
There’s something inherently inconsistent with the fundamental construct of gender dysphoria based on there being only two genders and saying, ‘You, young child, were born the wrong one’. Matthew 18:5 to 6 offers this warning:
If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble … it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.
We have, rightly, replaced the age of millstones with the age of courts.
Quoting this passage is not an incitement to violence. Those attending ‘Leave Our Kids Alone’ protests have demonstrated that Christians do not make war, Christians make waves. The voices of all denominations must be as waves on the sand, synchronised and unrelenting. I welcome the attendance of the Muslim community in these protests. Both our holy books stand in strong defence of parental rights and childhood innocence.
Those who seek to destroy the family will certainly respond to my remarks with hostility. As a shield, let me offer Luke 6:26:
Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you!
Leave our kids alone!
The West’s child exploitation scandal: groomers and abusers by Malcolm Roberts | The Spectator Australia
Recent decisions to approve soft-porn and sexually explicit material follows a new social ideology that says children must be exposed to queer adult sexual behaviours – including kink – and those who oppose risk being labelled as hate-fuelled bigots.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/lNh5Kx-ka3Y/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-28 09:37:092023-06-28 09:37:13Let Children be Children!
On the one hand, Australia bans the use of its own natural gas, while on the other hand plans huge gas processing and export expansion for international bidders.
We’re sending our natural resources overseas to power the economic prosperity of China, India and other nations. Then we’re buying back unreliable wind and solar manufactured with our gas and coal.
Maybe the Greens will appreciate the irony when they’re sitting in the dark without cooking and heating. Gas should be our back-up to the energy shortfalls, not the bad guy.
This war on gas is a heist under the banner of UN ‘net-zero’. The only winners are the billionaires involved with the corrupt UN-WEF “sustainability” agenda.
Transcript
As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Pocock for his motion. I question why we need a dedicated export facility for the Beetaloo Basin’s natural gas. Australia has 10 natural gas export terminals—two in Darwin. Beetaloo output is expected to be huge, and much of it should be used here in Australia, not exported.
Australia’s parasitic mal-investments in wind and solar are destroying our energy generation capacity. Gas generation is essential to keeping the lights on, while commercial gas hot water and cooking are likewise essential. Everyday Australians will never accept the insane idea that Australia should stop using gas. This is despite the advertising spent on climate campaigns designed to do one thing—line the pockets of climate carpetbaggers, like those funding teal senator David Pocock’s campaign. Gas connections are being banned in new builds and existing lines will be ripped out because, at some point, we will need to recycle that copper, since world production will never be able to supply the copper needed for UN net zero.
My own building that I rent in Campbell, in Canberra, sent out a note to owners this week saying that the body corporate had been told they will need to remove the gas hot water system, rip out the pipes and remove all gas appliances by 2035. Homeowners will have to pay the bill—likely, over a million dollars all up. This is a brand-new building! What a waste.
On one hand, the green ideologues will require owners to spend tens of thousands of dollars per unit to pull out near-new hot water heating, gas lines and equipment and replace them with less efficient solutions. Then the ideologues will complain, ‘Rents have gone up!’ Of course rents are going up. Green ideology is forcing rents up by forcing landlords’ costs up. How are the climate lobby not connecting the dots here? How much more productive capacity are we going to rip out, to replace it with shiny new electric capacity that doesn’t do the job as well as gas? Never mind the environmental waste of tossing millions of stoves into landfill where they can rot beside broken and toxic solar panels and wind-turbine blades! And these people were worried about plastic straws! Please!
One gas provider proudly claims on their website that they’re banning gas to ‘save the planet’. No, you are depriving Australians of our own gas so you can sell it for a larger profit into an energy starved world market, a situation the government’s price cap on gas made worse because it made exports more profitable than domestic sales in a disrupted supply market.
Meanwhile, another energy retailer is advertising on their website—listen to this—that:
We all like to do our bit for the planet, so you’ll be happy to know you can reduce your household carbon emissions by switching from appliances running on grid electricity to natural gas.
It goes on to say that ‘gas is the perfect partner for solar’ and by connecting your home to natural gas you ‘can lower your carbon emissions by up to 77 per cent in Victoria compared to electric cooking and hot water appliances.’ Which is it? Is gas a perfect partner to solar or is it environmental vandalism?
Another energy provider’s website has a spiel about renewable gas, which turns out to be hydrogen. Hydrogen is not even a viable fuel yet as it takes huge amounts of energy to make it out of water and yet they have rebranded it already. That must be some sort of record! What a mess climate carpetbaggers have created through their green and teal shills in the Senate. What I have not heard in the gas debate at all is a major reason gas is better than electricity, and that is transmission loss. Electricity suffers transmission loss getting from the point of generation miles out in the countryside to homes in the city. Gas does not suffer a transmission loss. Factor that into energy calculations and electrification becomes an even worse idea.
We’re banning Australians from accessing our own natural resources while allowing our gas to be flogged off to international bidders at a premium just as our coal is shipped to China where it powers the solar panel and wind turbine export industry that the Greens and teal Senator David Pocock worship with no hint of irony. Meanwhile, a rapidly increasing global energy market values and prefers hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and gas. The West is deindustrialising while the rest of the world, including China, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, are industrialising using our gas and coal. The war on gas is a heist of our nation’s natural resources. We’re sacrificing economic prosperity and the opportunity for advancement for all the Australians in the name of a corrupt United Nations sustainability agenda that sustains nobody except the billionaires behind it all. It is wealth transfer from we the people to global billionaire elites and global predators like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street.
One Nation rejects the electrification of Australia’s gas supply and questions the Middle Arm project. Natural gas must stay as a choice for all— (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/JywjlZT9cDI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-23 16:43:352023-06-23 16:43:40How the West was Lost
One Nation attempted to refer “gender affirmation” treatment to a Senate inquiry to expose the harm that is being done to our children.
The gender cult is hell-bent on confusing our kids and leading them down the path of irreversible changes for no medical outcome. We must protect our children from these predators.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support Senator Hanson’s motion to refer the issue of treatment options for young people with gender dysphoria to an inquiry. It’s a simple fact that the model of gender affirmation is completely experimental, and that’s at best. More likely, it’s mutilation and debasement of children. Gender affirmation treatment is putting children who feel confusion about their gender at a young age on the pathway to life-altering hormone blockers and irreversible surgery. It’s butchery when children need something else.
People seem to have difficulty accepting this, but some feelings of confusion are completely normal as teenagers make their way through puberty and experience many new changes to their bodies. Left alone or dealt with by counselling and therapy—and love, in the severe cases—these feelings almost always resolve themselves. That is fact. Children need love, compassion, support and respect.
I have a relative who had gender dysphoria much of her life. She contemplated gender surgery. She decided to start the process. She made the decision, and, before doing so, she decided she would not adopt chemicals or surgery. She and her doctor wife came to accept her dysphoria. They are now proud parents of a lovely young child, and we accept and love her regardless of her decision. I have a friend who did change gender the opposite way, from male to female—another lovely person. These people need to be accepted, but children need support, counselling and love, not chemicals and scalpels.
As I said, the alternative to this gender affirmation is leaving kids to work through their issues lovingly, with support, counselling and therapy. The alternative is gender affirmation. Gender affirmation involves telling children that sex is just an arbitrary concept—that’s a lie—and that you can choose to be a boy or a girl whenever you want; with a click of the fingers, you can change teams with little to no consequence. Introducing this idea around the time of puberty and of other feelings of confusion is a dangerous, risky cocktail. Right at the time children are feeling most confused, they’re told that nothing is real and that everything will be fixed if they simply switch teams. The gender affirmation witchdoctors won’t tell children that fully committing to pretending to be a boy or a girl, if they weren’t born that way, simply isn’t simple. Basic biology gets in the way.
The only way to try and eventually effect this change is through a potent, permanent and dangerous cocktail of drugs, they are told, often prescribed off label in addition to permanent, irreversible surgery to lop off bits of people’s bodies. Gender affirmation advocates claim these treatments are reversible. That is a lie. Many children who were pressured into the gender affirmation pathway are coming to regret those choices as adults. De-transitioners are a growing community of adults who now find they will never fully embody their target gender yet are unable to return to the gender they were born due to the irreversible effects of gender affirmation drugs and surgeries. Instead, they’re left dependent on expensive cocktails of gender hormone drugs for the rest of their lives.
The real winner out of the gender affirmation pathway is big pharma, being delivered waves upon waves of medication-dependent consumers for life. It’s worth billions of dollars, despite the small number of people. The victims of the gender affirmation pathway, though, are left destitute, with no accountability for the outcomes that extremists in the gender cult pushed onto them from an adolescent age—extremists like senators in this chamber—for whatever reason.
It’s important to keep in mind the issue that’s trying to be fixed here: feelings of confusion or stress in children going through adolescence. There’s no longitudinal evidence that the gender affirmation pathway leading to gender reassignment fixes the core issue. There’s much evidence that it does not and that it does enormous harm. In fact, the transgender community is at the highest risk of suicide of nearly any community in the world. Why? Because so many young people come to regret their change and are trapped—trapped for life, in being unable to change back to their birth gender, which they’ve come to accept. They are trapped for life, unable to have children themselves, unable to live a normal life and regretting their decision for the rest of their life because they made their decision as an impressionable child. Whether they’re simply predisposed to psychological distress or that distress is created or compounded by the failed gender affirmation pathway is difficult to say. What can be said, however, is that if reassignment surgeries and drugs are meant to be a cure for psychological distress in children, they have absolutely and obviously failed. They’re failing many, many children.
The truth is that putting children on the gender affirmation pathway is a pathway to butchering people for no healthy clinical outcome. Many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns. I’ll say that again: many medical whistleblowers have raised these concerns, yet have been shouted down by the powerful big pharma and transgender cult that holds power at the moment. The United Kingdom has seen this problem and lived this problem. After whistleblowers blew the lid on medical abuse happening at Tavistock gender clinic, the entire clinic was shut down—the entire clinic that was once held up on a pillar and treated as a god. Now it’s facing class action suits and people are recognising the hideous crimes that they have committed.
At the very least, these issues need to be referred to a committee for inquiry. Those who support the gender affirmation pathway shouldn’t be afraid of the truth through an inquiry. What’s wrong with knowledge? If I’m wrong, then an inquiry will prove you right. Of what are you lot afraid? Greens use labels. Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the dishonest or the fearful. They support big pharma. Please stop demonising children with gender dysphoria and those who have a different view. I suspect the gender cult knows that the truth is not on their side and that’s why they’re running scared of looking underneath the hood on this issue—an issue affecting children.
One Nation will stand against sending children down a path of drug dependency and body mutilation to appease the gender cult. I’m never caught up in gender, race or national heritage. Every human, regardless of skin colour, for example, and regardless of heritage, has red blood running through their veins—every single human.
We are one. I am very, very pro-human.
Send this to an inquiry and get to the facts and find out what will actually help children. Until then, leave our kids alone.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Lpi3_fVYIS4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-22 11:38:422023-06-22 11:38:45Leave the children alone!
In order to be endorsed, an enterprise agreement must first pass the Fair Work Commission’s better off overall test (the BOOT). Simon Turner has always argued that in his case this test could not possibly have been satisfied. He’s right.
Evidence from the Fair Work Commission itself has recently emerged, proving this test was never applied to the enterprise agreement, stealing from Mr Turner and hundreds of casual coalminers employed at BHP’s Mount Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I now bring you up to date with the fraudulent behaviour that’s resulted in huge wage theft and the stripping of entitlements from Hunter Valley coalminers and from Central Queensland coalminers. You may recall from my many previous Senate speeches on this topic that on 14 April 2015 labour hire company Chandler Macleod Group, in collusion with the Hunter Valley CFMEU, submitted an enterprise agreement to the Fair Work Commission for approval. The Fair Work Commission went on to approve the enterprise agreement even though the agreement did not pass the BOOT assessment and contained false and misleading statutory declarations statements from the employer, Chandler Macleod, and the Hunter CFMEU’s Mr Shane Thompson.
The effect of the enterprise agreement was to strip protections of the Black Coal Mining Industry Award from the coalminers, pay them significantly less than the award, and remove entitlements including workers compensation and accident pay, annual leave, long service leave, superannuation, sick leave and holiday pay. The miners were not compensated with a loading to their pay rates, and they were much worse off under the enterprise agreement than under the award. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award did not authorise the use of casuals in the production side of coalmining. The enterprise agreement was contrary to this limitation under the award. The Fair Work Commission accepts—indeed, confirms—that an enterprise agreement cannot provide conditions less than the award, yet this enterprise agreement did exactly that.
At a meeting held on 13 April 2015, the Hunter CFMEU agreed with the employers, Chandler Macleod Group: ‘The CFMEU would agree to cease from any current and future actions and claims in its own right or on behalf of members directed towards ventilating and agitating its view that employees currently engaged by Chandler Macleod companies as casuals to perform black coalmining production work may be entitled to leave and other entitlements associated with permanent employment, or that Chandler Macleod is not paying employees their lawful terms and conditions.’ This letter, of which we hold a copy, is damning as to the sickening deal that the Hunter CFMEU made with Chandler Macleod Group to not represent the interest of the member miners, who were now to be dudded of their entitlements and protections and have their wages stolen.
Injured miner Mr Simon Turner has been fighting for his entitlements since he was injured in the mine almost nine years ago, smashing his back and being denied his rightful compensation. Simon was made totally and permanently disabled for life. It’s now very clear that the Hunter CFMEU, in cahoots with the employer, Chandler Macleod Group, and together with an incompetent or possibly dishonest Fair Work Commission, have denied the back payment of all black coal entitlements for all full-time employees and then doubled down on these actions in endorsing an enterprise agreement that removed the legal minimum statutory requirements.
In order to be endorsed, an enterprise agreement must first pass the Fair Work Commission’s better off overall test, or, as it’s known, the BOOT. Mr Turner has always argued that in his case this test could not possibly have been satisfied. He’s right. Evidence from the Fair Work Commission itself has recently emerged, proving this test was never applied to the enterprise agreement, stealing from Mr Turner and hundreds of casual coalminers employed at BHP’s Mount Arthur mine in the Hunter Valley.
In relation to a request for documents pertaining to the Chandler Macleod Northern District of NSW Black Coal Mining Agreement 2015 and the Chandler Macleod Gunnedah Basin Coal Mining Agreement 2014, a note from the Fair Work Commission says: ‘I have checked both matters and they do not contain the BOOT assessment. It appears the BOOT assessment was not undertaken for either matter. If one was undertaken, a copy of the assessment would be on file.’ The note’s author goes on: ‘has provided you with a complete copy of both files. There is no other documentation or further information we can provide you for these two matters.’ This is damning information. If the enterprise agreement was entered without a BOOT assessment, it could not possibly pass the BOOT and should be considered void. This whole exercise needs to be reviewed so Mr Turner and other coalminers can finally receive their lawful, moral and fair entitlements and compensation.
Despite obstruction and misrepresentations from Labor and LNP governments, we have persisted with this issue for four years. We will continue relentlessly until Simon Turner and his fellow Hunter Valley and Central Queensland coalminers obtain their entitlements and justice. We in One Nation support workers because like our party’s founder Pauline Hanson, we value honesty, fairness, justice and Australians’ values, including mateship and a fair go.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZyJw9YS8I54/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-22 09:56:562023-06-22 09:57:01Labor silent on dodgy union deal to rip off coal miners
For 25 years One Nation has been raising issues the major parties are too scared to talk about.
Whether it’s being labelled racist for wanting to treat every Australian equally regardless of race, or xenophobic for pointing out unsustainable rates of immigration, the mainstream media’s lies have never stopped us in our journey to put Australia first.
Transcript
In the months ahead One Nation will explain our vision for this beautiful country of ours. We will explain what we mean when we talk of one Queensland community and one nation with one flag that represents all Australians—those who were here first and those who have come since. We’ll cover the importance of treating each and every Australian fairly, offering equality of opportunity and assistance with dignity for those who cannot support themselves.
In the 25 years since Pauline Hanson founded One Nation to advance these principles her predictions have proven prescient. Remember when Pauline said Australia was going to be 25 per cent foreign-born within 25 years and the media piled on, calling that fear mongering, impossible and racist, for good measure. Well, Australia is now 29 per cent foreign-born and the number is rising. Where are the industries and jobs to support 28 million people by 2026? Where are the roads and railways? Where is the water and power generation? Where are the schools, hospitals and police stations? These are the policy time bombs that One Nation has been trying to get the public to discuss for 25 years. Now the day Pauline warned us about has arrived.
In the last few weeks I have travelled and listened to Queenslanders who are not safe in their own homes and can no longer afford their power bills, their grocery bills and their rent or their mortgages. Our national housing stock is short one million homes, and Prime Minister Albanese’s solution in today’s housing bill is to create a scheme that will help a few thousand people, not the million who need it. And that’s just those who are here now.
Warning of the impending population crisis has caused One Nation to be called racist and Nazi. These words no longer provide protection for the groups in our community they were designed to protect, so devalued have they become from their use as extreme expressions of misrepresentation, disagreement and hatred. These words tell me about our opponents, not about who I am. Everyday Australians now find their backs against the wall the government put there. Pauline saw this day coming. Why didn’t you?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/10e11gx2eXo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-20 11:29:312023-06-20 11:29:34One Nation: Right in 1997 and Right Again Today
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FnLVKAZRT5A/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-20 10:28:462023-06-20 10:44:02Heads must roll in Defence leadership
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ky44BvpR2Tc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-16 17:49:222023-06-16 17:49:27The takeover of Calvary Hospital is an attack on Christianity
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/oLNhOMkEMRs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-06-15 17:55:152023-06-15 17:55:33Why the racist “Voice” will tear Australia apart
