First it was the hole in the ozone layer, then global warming, then it was climate change, now it’s climate collapse.
Alarmists keep moving the goalposts because their claims are simply not true. I spoke to this in the Senate last week.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll discuss collapses already underway, and none of them involves a climate collapse—firstly, the economic collapse. In the name of unsubstantiated climate alarm, the Howard-Anderson Liberal-Nationals government, starting in 1996, colluded with the states to deceitfully bypass the Constitution to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN’s Kyoto protocol. It concocted Australia’s first major party emissions trading scheme, a carbon dioxide tax to comply with UN dictates. It introduced the Renewable Energy Target, which has grown to now cost Australians an additional $13 billion each year, every year in their electricity costs, again to comply with UN dictates. In the name of climate, our electricity prices have risen artificially from the world’s lowest to now be the world’s highest. Manufacturing has collapsed. We no longer make cars; we make fewer household appliances; and we make no manufacturing tools, which are crucial for our security. Agriculture is being hammered. The Liberal-National energy minister, Angus Taylor, openly states he has fears for electricity prices, reliability and grid stability. Under this budget’s dreamy forecast, bets on hydrogen and continued subsidisation of expensive unreliables like wind and solar, we’re enduring a manufacturing collapse and we face economic collapse.
The second collapse is the collapse of science. Here are some facts. Firstly, on Monday 26 September 2016 the CSIRO confirmed that it has never stated that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger and said it never will. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments enacted policies over 2½ decades for economic collapse? Secondly, on Wednesday 10 May 2017, in this building, the CSIRO admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. That means we didn’t cause the current mild cyclical warming that ended around 1995. So why did the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments for 2½ decades driven economic collapse? According to NASA satellites, global atmospheric temperatures have been essentially flat with no warming for more than a quarter of a century. Despite China, despite India, despite America, despite Europe and despite Russia producing record quantities of carbon dioxide, higher human production of carbon dioxide has not increased temperatures. So why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal-National and Labor governments driven for the last 2½ decades economic collapse?
Following the global financial crisis, most nations were in recession during 2009. In 2020, as a result of government COVID restrictions around the world, nations were again in recession. In both recession years, the use of hydrocarbon fuels fell and human carbon dioxide production fell, yet in both recession years atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continued increasing. Nature alone controls the carbon dioxide levels, so why do the Greens push policies for economic collapse? Why have Liberal, Nationals and Labor governments driven economic collapse for the last 2½ decades? The Bureau of Meteorology data on cyclones in Australia show no trend in cyclone frequency, severity or duration. There’s no climate catastrophe. The most severe drought in the last 120 years was the 1920s to 1940s drought. The next worst was the Federation drought in 1901. There is no climate catastrophe. Floods, bushfires, snowfall and every other climate factor show no change, just natural cyclical variation. There is no climate catastrophe. It’s been 601 days since my latest challenge to the Greens to present the data on which they base this nonsense and to debate me on the climate science and the corruption of climate science.
Finally, there’s no unprecedented global warming. There’s no climate change. There’s no climate catastrophe. There’s no climate collapse; instead, we have a collapse of science. The collapse of science led to an energy collapse that caused an economic collapse. Welcome to the Greens nightmare that is now the Liberals, Nationals and Labor nightmare. This is what happens when data is ignored and, instead, governance is based on unfounded opinions, personal and party political agendas, cronies, headlines, fear, emotions, UN policies, party donations and serving vested interests. And who pays for this atrocious governance and for these climate lies? We the people pay.
Where do you think our transgender kids will end up? Children who present with a felt sense of being born into the wrong body are given licence to make irreversible decisions that will affect their brain development and scar and mutilate their bodies.
When we start to accept that boys at 10½ can take puberty blockers, girls at 14 can have double mastectomies, and parents can be criticised and shamed when they attempt to counsel their children against these life-altering decisions, then lunacy, neglect and savagery are prevailing.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I raise a deeply troubling issue for all Australians. We know that feelings arise and pass, especially through adolescence. No feeling is final. Yet children who present with a felt sense of being born into the wrong body are given licence to make irreversible decisions that will affect their brain development and scar and mutilate their bodies. This is the life ahead for too many young people on the transgender highway.
There’s been an undeniable explosion of young females presenting with gender dysphoria. A hundred years of diagnostic history indicates this predominantly impacted males, yet in just 10 years we have witnessed a social contagion running rampant through our teenage girls—girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria. In the United States, females requesting gender surgery in 2016-17 quadrupled. In the UK, females presenting with gender dysphoria over the last decade has risen over 4,000 per cent. In Australia, the Royal Children’s Hospital in Melbourne has seen referrals rise from one in every two years to 104 in 2014.
In spite of the horrendous outcomes for many of these children—and I’ve met some—solid statistics are hard to come by. It seems this area of medical practice would prefer to keep their bad news under wraps. Gender dysphoria, as many eminent medical professionals will agree, overwhelming presents with pre-existing mental health conditions. In today’s highly politicised environment, when a child shares their distress around comfort with their gender, parents are challenged and even shamed if they attempt to take a comprehensive therapeutic approach to help their child. Instead, parents are labelled abusive and accused of harming their child when they refuse to consent to their child’s self-declared transgender identity.
Many of us may not remember our own teenage years, but those of us who have raised children through to adulthood will recall our own children going through adolescence. Parents walk a very fine line between nurturing their child’s emerging independence and supporting their child’s fragility. What we do know is that teens become super sensitive during this time. They hate people looking at them, they often loathe their newly emerging adult bodies or even feel revolted by them.
Everything is magnified, and they’re easily embarrassed. Being part of a tribe is powerful during this time, and that’s a perfect concoction for a social contagion. To make matters worse, the process of neural pruning during this time means their executive function is compromised, which is where we make our most effective decisions.
It’s irresponsible that we’re surrendering these life- and body-altering decisions to our children, putting them on a medical pathway of puberty blockers, sex hormones and irreversible surgery. An adult brain is required to balance the consequences of these life-changing decisions. We’re charging our children and, equally abhorrent, our courts with these enormous decisions. It’s our children, as young adults, that will left to face the horrendous consequences.
The medical pathway for children presenting with gender dysphoria is widely accepted as experimental. There’s no evidence that it’s safe. This is a call to all parents: your children are being used in an experiment where there’s no evidence it’s safe and plenty of evidence it’s not. Overnight, Sweden’s leading gender clinic stopped routine treatment of minors with hormone drugs due to safety concerns, citing cancer and infertility risks. There are concerns around bone density, memory, development of grey matter and cognitive impairment. These treatment are not proven safe, and yet our children can quite easily be prescribed puberty blockers and sex hormone treatment to then land on the operating table for irreversible surgery with grossly inadequate counselling. The counselling instead is left for the parents, for them to come to the terms with the loss of a child of one gender and welcome the emergence of another.
There’s another Sorry Day coming. That Sorry Day will be for all those vulnerable children that struggle through adolescence, as so many do, and we did nothing to protect them. When we start to accept that boys at 10½ can take puberty blockers, girls at 14 can have double mastectomies, and parents can be criticised and shamed when they attempt to counsel their children against these life-altering decisions, then lunacy, neglect and savagery are prevailing. These children will have every right as adults to turn to their parents, medical professionals, hospitals and the judicial system and demand compensation for our negligence because we lacked the courage, we lacked the will, to protect these children when they needed it the most.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/cVOarXzky6E/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-13 15:22:122021-05-13 15:22:22Will there be a sorry day for transgender kids?
The Liberal/National government has handed down a budget that the Labor party would be proud of. The Government is increasing borrowing to respond to a phoney climate emergency. Our ports and much of our power grid are in the hands of malicious foreign owners, and yet there is nothing in the budget to buy back these vital strategic assets.
Defence funding is being spent on wasteful white elephant programs like the attack class submarines instead of caring for our diggers and making sure they have the equipment they need. There is no vision or care for the future in this budget. Only One Nation has the vision to fix the country.
Transcript
As servant to the people of Queensland & Australia I remind the senate and all Australians that 24 years ago Pauline Hanson warned that Australia was heading to a place that we would not recognise as Australia.
The Media devoted much attention to the immigration aspects of her comments, and completely missed the substance.
Today we have arrived at the place Pauline warned us about.
Australians are living with restrictions on association, on speech, on movement, on protest and we even have mandatory face coverings.
Our federation has broken apart, we have seen border checkpoints between States.
The phrase ‘papers please’ which has defined tyrants throughout history, is now life for everyday Australians.
Our police are arresting law-abiding citizens in their own homes for the crime of organising a peaceful protest.
Our police are forcefully arresting a journalist for the crime of reporting that protest.
Dictators have been overthrown for less than this!
In the famous words traced to French, English and American philosophers Montaigne, Bacon and Thoreau, our leaders had “nothing to fear but fear itself”, and they chose fear!
The Premiers and the Prime Minster have surrendered power to ‘unelected bureaucrats with medical degrees’ who have shown themselves incapable of seeing the big picture.
While social media are calling the COVID restrictions on businesses a war on Capitalism, it’s much more sinister.
Corporate Australia have record sales, record profits and have paid themselves higher dividends and bonuses.
The Liberal National Government sent JobKeeper to these same companies who used the money to pay themselves yet more dividends and bonuses.
Now with this budget the Company Tax clawback has been extended to 2023/24. Companies making a loss in 23/24 can claim that loss against tax paid in 2018/18 and the Government will give a refund.
Let me explain the concept of taxation to the Treasurer. The Government is not supposed to take the tax paid by corporate Australia… and give it back to them.
This money was supposed to pay for the things that define Australia as a caring society – Medicare, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, childhood education and social security.
The Treasurer cannot give corporate tax back and then borrow the money to pay for recurring expenditure.
Yet that is exactly what this budget does.
Debt, debt and more debt to pay for profligate spending seemingly with no thought to the next generation that will be left to pay for it.
This is a budget of which Labor would be proud.
When I talk about the Lib Lab duopoly, even their budgets are looking the same.
As a result of coronavirus measures the world’s 400 richest people have increased their wealth by over 1 trillion dollars. We do not need to add to their wealth accumulation.
Much of this wealth is money that was once spent in local communities, in local hardware stores, community supermarkets, gift stores and greengrocers. Now many of those have been forced to close.
Online growth has gone to Amazon whose owner is the world’s richest man.
The real outcome from coronavirus measures has been the largest transference of wealth, from small business to the elites in Australian history.
We expect this sort of thing from the Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals.
But Labor has embraced the politics of fear and cronyism in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria.
Shame on you.
Only One Nation is committed to restoring a fair go for working Australians.
As our motion today on the National Curriculum and last sitting on de-gendered language shows, One Nation will continue to defend Australia as a faith-based nation committed to family and community.
One Nation continues to champion the natural environment. We continue to fight for clean air, for clean water, for clean food and for clean medicines.
We leave worshipping of the sky god of warming to Labor, the Greens and sadly now, in their final act of surrender, the Liberal-National Party with their policies contradicting science, common sense and nature.
With this budget the Government is borrowing money to increase funding for a fake climate emergency. There’s no climate emergency and a gutless pandering to the bed wetters on the left is not in the best interests of Australians.
This budget has a black armband view of Australia’s future. The projections for the contribution to GDP from agriculture are based on the assumption that lower rainfall will return and agricultural output and exports will decline.
According to the Government’s own research a drought like this last one has happened 10 times in the last 1000 years. It was not climate change 1000 years ago and it is not climate change now.
Cold weather has overtaken the northern hemisphere with widespread crop failures, reduced harvests and higher prices. This will not change over forward estimates.
Natural climate cycles have given our farmers a wonderful opportunity to grow our agricultural sector and exports.
Foreign influence and ownership in Australia has reached crisis levels and this budget has not done anything about it.
Our ports in Darwin, Melbourne and Newcastle and much of our power grid are now in the hands of a hostile foreign power. Those owners have publicly professed their loyalty not to Australia but to the Chinese Communist party.
This budget makes no provision for the cost of buying these contracts back so one can assume the Government does not intend to act to restore Australian sovereignty over our strategic assets.
Our armed forces are incapable of waging war against any serious challengers. Our subs are in pieces, only 1 sub is combat ready at this moment.
One.
The budget continues the new subs project despite the cost rising to an estimated $200 billion and delivery pushing out past 2030.
On the bright side Mr President, Australia is advancing our space capability.
Later this year an Australian designed and manufactured satellite will be launched into orbit from an Australian designed and manufactured rocket, using an Australian launch facility.
How amazing is that?
This is proof that it is time to get the government out of people’s lives and let free enterprise and Aussie ingenuity fix this mess.
Starting with withdrawing from the United Nations and their sovereignty-sapping, wealth-sucking, industry-killing conventions that make Australia less not more.
One Nation’s alternative budget will recover the freedoms, opportunities and living standards that Australians once enjoyed.
One Nation will cancel the submarine contract and purchase nuclear powered submarines off the shelf to expedite delivery and recover our defensive capability.
One Nation will terminate the clean energy fund and the Department of Climate change while honouring agreements already in place.
Every year Liberal-Labor-Nationals climate and energy policies cost Australians an ADDITIONAL $B13. The Liberal Energy Minister admits he is afraid for future electricity prices and terrified of losing reliability and stability.
Rightly so thanks to Liberal-Labor-Nationals policies starting with John Howard in 1996.
One Nation will abolish all energy subsidies for fossil fuel (except the diesel fuel rebate) and renewables so that free enterprise can build reliable, baseload power of whichever type they consider the most efficient.
This will restore our productive capacity by breathing life into our devastated industries.
One Nation will allow doctors to prescribe Australian medical cannabis to anyone with a medical need.
One Nation calls for a national taxation summit to reach agreement on how our taxation system is failing everyday Australians and destroying our country and to arrive at solutions based on proven principles.
This budget increases the number of public servants by 5000 over the next 12 months.
One Nation will freeze employment numbers in the Federal public service and re-allocate staff away from virtue signalling and pork barrelling projects into productive pursuits.
One Nation will reduce immigration such that our net population growth becomes zero. This will allow infrastructure like roads, hospitals, schools and housing to catch up with the avalanche of migrants that Labor/Greens and Liberal/Nationals have let in over the last 20 years.
A net zero population policy will actually allow around 80,000 migrants to still come in each year to replace the 80,000 who leave each year. We would expect 10,000 of those will be refugees.
This contrasts with a peak arrival rate of 275,000 new migrants annually pre COVID – 3 & ½ times our stable number.
The reduction in demand will take the heat out of the housing market and allow everyday Australians some relief from the extreme inflation we are seeing in housing, education, aged care, child care and medical expenses.
One Nation is preparing a plan that will turn Northern Australia into a growth engine for the whole country, offering a new future for Australia based on agriculture, mining, value adding.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/NKEe7zHcN1c/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-12 14:12:022021-05-12 17:10:23Budget: Government has abandoned the next generation
In North Queensland I met local visionaries with commitment, competence and dedication to a better North. But that was matched, sadly, on the other side of the scale by the incompetence of state and federal governments.
The North is simply waiting for good governance, I hope they get it before it is too late.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to relate my travels through the Flinders catchment area, which is the fourth biggest river flow in Queensland. There is rich soil, vast grassy plains with no trees and water: abundant water, regular water yet untapped. The potential is being wasted. I felt excited, supported, encouraged and inspired by the people I met in North Queensland, but I also felt worried and disappointed because of the atrocious state and federal governments that are cruelling that area. My needs in the people were met entirely: commitment, competence, dedication. But that was matched, sadly, on the other side of the scale by the inability of the state and federal governments to meet their needs for support and good governance.
We went to look firstly at the Bradfield Scheme, to do our due diligence. We’ve done it at the Murray-Darling Basin; now we’ve done it in the Flinders. The Bradfield Scheme is a visionary scheme to turn the waters that are flowing to the east and being wasted to the west and into the Thomson. We wanted to look at the Murray-Darling Basin catchment, which we have, and also at the Flinders, and this was a chance to see the Bradfield Scheme source and then to go across the Flinders. What we saw flying up the coast was naturally wet area in the tropics, the coast, Ingham and Tully. We then swung west over the Tully midstream and all the way down the Burdekin River to the Burdekin Falls Dam. We then turned west and went back across the Flinders catchment area, through Charters Towers, Hughenden, Richmond, Julia Creek, Cloncurry. We touched down in Cloncurry to fuel and then went north to Normanton, where there are huge vast plains, and then back south-west to Townsville where we started.
We then spent a week driving on the ground, listening to people, getting the lay of the land and the lay of the people. What impressed us were the locals with vision, real vision, complemented by their energy, their knowledge, their competence and their practicality. It was very inspiring, as I’ve already said. And there was plenty of water. They all said: ‘We don’t need the Bradfield Scheme water here. Let it go to the Thomson, as the original visionary plan from Bradfield suggested.’
In particular, I was impressed with the Richmond council; John Wharton, who is I think Queensland’s longest serving mayor—25 years if my memory is correct; and his very young but very competent CEO, Peter Bennett. They have a plan and a project that the locals are onboard with, called the Richmond agricultural project. It’s very simple: no dams, just divert water to 8,000 hectares of irrigable and rich, fertile soil. With agricultural production comes people and with people come services. Instead of Richmond bobbing around at 900 people, we can get it back up to 3,000, maybe even 8,000, people. It could be a really vibrant area in the north.
We also visited Hughenden, where the same recipe is being followed: water captured not in a dam but in weirs and diverted into storage areas or underground water. We saw Jane McNamara leading her team there; and Daryl Buckingham, who’s had experience in the Murray-Darling Basin and who’s transferring it to the north. We also visited HIPCo, Hughenden Irrigation Project Corporation, with Shane McCarthy. The council sponsored projects there, as I said, follow the same recipe.
We then went to Julia Creek on the ground, and we went to Etta Plains where we saw a very dynamic young Lucas Findley from Findley farms escaping the Murray-Darling Basin and the devastation of the regulations, the bureaucracy and the poor governance in the south. And we saw something fresh.
I could go on, but time will catch me here. What they’re all waiting for is good governance, which the state government and the federal government are not providing. The state government won’t allocate water allocations. They can’t do anything without that.
Ironically, the state government talks about capturing carbon dioxide, which the evidence shows is not necessary, but crops absorb carbon dioxide, and dams create crops that will absorb carbon dioxide. If they were fair dinkum, they’d do it. Ironically, the challenges up north are land tenure, water and energy. While they’re looking for it up north and have it in abundance, they can’t use it, because the same policies are destroying governance in the south.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/kOgk4q2TyKM/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-05-12 11:15:452021-05-12 11:15:53Northern Australia left behind by terrible government
The Government’s IR omnibus was gutted last week before it passed the Senate. I was disappointed to see that the wage theft and enforcement measures were not passed. The insertion of a detailed definition of casual worker is good for certainty.
The inclusion of a right to get conversion from a casual position to a permanent position was also a welcome addition. Industrial Relations must return to the fundamental relationship between the employer and employee. The complexity of the Fair Work Act is the cause of many of our problems in IR. It must be simplified if we are going to have a productive country.
Transcript
Last Thursday’s industrial relations changes are a win for employees and for employers. I was disappointed though to not see more, especially the wage theft and enforcement measures in Schedule 5. I’ve been very vocal and active working for casual miners and workers, and want to share what last Thursday’s changes mean.
Firstly though, the government agreed to my demand for a comprehensive review into the employment of casuals in the Hunter Valley. The government committed to the Fair Work Ombudsman doing a thorough review. Secondly, after almost two years supporting injured casual coal miners, it’s time to look for a broad and complete solution.
I invite the key stakeholders to join me at a round-table to discuss solutions for the problems that I have identified facing many workers in the Hunter and throughout Australia. I will be inviting key stakeholders including unions, employer groups, and government to come together to work cooperatively and then report back on the results.
It’s time the facts came out and are addressed. Thirdly, the IR Club, class-action lawyers, and political parties with vested interests have driven a dishonest misinformation campaign protecting their easy profits and their power over workers.
So now, here are the industrial relations changes and what they mean:
Casual workers now have a pathway for conversion to secure permanent work. There are 2.5 million casuals in Australia. In some industries casuals want to stay as casuals for the loading or for the lifestyle. 830,000 casuals are employed in small business, our country’s largest employer and largest provider of jobs.
Most awards already include casuals. The Black Coal Mining Industry Award though, did not have provision for casuals on production, and only in staff jobs and the unions refused to fix that. Despite that prohibition on casuals, the Hunter Valley CFMEU negotiated and signed enterprise agreements that allowed abuse of casuals.
It did that without casual conversion and that had locked many miners into being casuals forever. Some enterprise agreements that the CFMEU had agreed to were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements. I tried many ways to overcome this, yet once I realised that union bosses had signed these enterprise agreements with lower pay, I knew that the workers were then legally bound by that deal.
It’s important to know that some workers value casual employment as a way of getting into the coal industry or as a way of getting more money quickly and then leaving the industry. Workers and employers have a definition of casual employment now that provides clarity to protect all businesses, small and large, and gives workers a fair go.
The definition is complex yet detailed and comprehensive. We negotiated a 12-month review of the new law to identify and rectify any unintended consequences, it’s one of our amendments to protect workers. Employers will be protected from paying twice for casual workers’ entitlements as that could have driven businesses, especially small businesses, insolvent.
And workers can still get their entitlements, and will get their entitlements. Permanent workers will get their entitlements while casuals will continue to be paid a casual loading in lieu of the entitlement, it just means people won’t be paid twice.
This protects small business from double-dipping where workers are paid a casual loading in lieu of entitlements, and then paid for those same entitlements in addition. Now following my commitments and my comments opposing double-dipping, I should have been no surprise that I voted for this Offset clause.
The class-action lawyers and some union bosses who profit from signing the abusive enterprise agreements and then taking employers to court are worried about the changes. Employees in small businesses will have the option to ask for conversion to permanent instead of adding to busy small business employers’ paperwork having to track people.
This will ease small business red tape, and that’s an amendment we added. Preserving all workers’ entitlements and rights means that workers will still be able to file claims for wage theft or to vary enterprise agreements made incorrectly, we made sure of that. Now some enterprise agreements were for substantially lower pay rates than mine owner enterprise agreements on the same site.
Again, it’s the union bosses that signed those agreements and made them law, we can’t do anything about them. Workers have greater flexibility now in seeking to convert to permanent work when it suits them, while the many who want to stay casual can now have that option too.
Having worked at the underground coalface for three years, I proudly admit to having a soft spot for miners. Yet while taking care of miners, I have a responsibility as a national Senator to our whole country, including small business, Australia’s largest employer. Out of the hundreds of awards in place across Australia, only 12 don’t have clauses for casuals.
This law now covers all awards, including coal mining and small business, and miners now have a casual conversion option at last. Though we are also asking the Fair Work Commission to ensure that the awards align with the legislation. When this legislation was first introduced into parliament last year, we immediately wrote to more than 80 stakeholder groups, and invited feedback.
The CFMEU construction division said it was the only invitation they received from a politician. In total, we listened to around 100 groups, some more than once, including the ACTU who had three meetings with me. The big problem for casual coal miners were the cracks they fell through because union bosses were happy to sign agreements knowing there was no definition for a casual coal production worker, and this disadvantaged casual coal miners.
The union didn’t care about that for years. The lack of a definition of casual coal mine worker that the union bosses, the Fair Work Commission, and the Fair Work Ombudsman, and the Government ignored for years until now has caused huge problems for workers. Now we have a definition, and this should only be better for workers.
Groups representing small business as well as individual business owners have been very positive about the changes that One Nation advocated for economic recovery.
These include: the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia, COSBOA,
the Small Business Association of Australia,
the Australian Retailers Association,
the Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman,
the Australian Hotels Association, taking care of pubs,
the Australian Industry Group,
the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry,
and the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry.
Opponents of these reforms have been treated harshly by employers and employees alike. For example, the ACTU reportedly copped it from small business employees. Simply saying it’s bad for workers, it’s not enough to describe this legislation, that’s nonsense.
Some workers are taking time to understand the changes, yet small business employees and employers have been quick to see the benefits. The main negatives we faced have been from class-action lawyers and the Industrial Relations Club, so we must be doing something right for workers.
The negotiation process has confirmed some core truths: Firstly, the Fair Work Act is the real culprit. It’s six bloody inches thick. How can any worker or small business know their entitlements, rights, and protections? They can’t. And that’s why workers have lost entitlements and unions have lost members.
The Fair Work Act is the root cause of the complexity and problems, and we must do something about that. And we had success during negotiations with unions and employer groups agreeing to my invitation to them to discuss what employers and employees need in order to restore Australia’s productive capacity, and to give workers a fair go.
The Rudd-Gillard-Shorten Fair Work Act has led to a drop in union membership and a deterioration of management and executives right across our country. People are going around the laws. Workers and employers are both losing and hurting. Employers could not afford the complex system or the cost, and nor can the workers.
We need to restore the primary workplace relationship between employees and employers to make work safer and more satisfying for our workers and employers, and make it more productive for our country’s future.
Too often, we are seeing ideas silenced and censored at our universities. University is a place where the exchange of conflicting and opposing ideas should thrive and be encouraged. Thanks to One Nation lobbying, this bill ensures that the definition of academic freedom to do that is put into law.
We only need to look at examples such as Peter Ridd to see why we need to protect academic freedom. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’.
Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I want to start my contribution to the debate on the Higher Education Support Amendment (Freedom of Speech) Bill 2020 with the statement that central to scientific endeavour is an environment that gives permission for the work of talented people to challenge the status quo, to develop ideas and to deepen our knowledge and understanding. This work demands a creative and innovative spirit, courage and objectivity, and a deep respect for the scientific method. Universities had, and should once again have, a central role to play in advancing thought and finding better ways of doing things. Therefore, their scientific staff must work in an environment that supports academic freedom. The Dalai Lama said:
In order to exercise creativity, freedom of thought is essential.
One Nation introduced these concepts and requested action from the then education minister, Dan Tehan, and I commend Senator Stoker for commenting that the government supports this initiative. Mr Tehan took these concepts from One Nation, particularly from Senator Hanson. He made sure that the now education minister, his replacement, Minister Tudge, continues to champion true freedom of speech in academia.
Therefore, One Nation wholeheartedly supports the new and expanded definition of academic freedom and hopes that no-one will ever need to endure what Professor Peter Ridd is still going through to fight for these fundamental academic freedoms. Professor Ridd was an employee of James Cook University for nearly 30 years. He describes his experience of standing for academic freedom against that university as feeling ‘hunted’. Peter’s so-called crime was to question the quality assurance of research outcomes related to reef science. But it is his duty, as a scientist, to question, to be rigorous and to protect the integrity of science. Every scientist’s first duty is to be a sceptic and to challenge what he or she is being told.
Quality assurance is a concept that many corporate organisations are familiar with. They do not invest money, time, energy and effort without that quality assurance. Yet it seems that some of our universities have strayed away from the discipline of the scientific method so much that they don’t feel the need to justify research outcomes or to deal with challenges to quality and assurance. Considering that billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money is funnelled into policy development based on so-called research, it is not negotiable that these research outcomes must be above reproach. When we consider that the opportunity costs and the consequent costs for some policy based on so-called science are in the trillions of dollars for our whole nation, it is essential that science is challenged.
I have listened firsthand to many canefarmers and industry bodies from North Queensland and Central Queensland who attended the hearings into water quality in the Great Barrier Reef. These farmers and community members are exasperated, with one saying:
They trusted reef scientists to get the science right, … that trust has been destroyed. Instead cane farmers are being publicly demonised …
They also said that the reef regulations reflect a systematic abuse of science, based on assumptions and not evidence.
Communities are being gutted. Apart from the destruction of so many livelihoods, think of the cost to our society, to Queensland, to communities and to our nation when policies are knowingly based on poor science—which, by definition, is not science. Energy policies, climate policies and renewable energy policies based on so-called science are costing $13 billion in addition to the normal costs of electricity. That’s an average of $1,300 per household across Australia in addition to the cost of electricity. For every so-called green job created, 2.2 jobs in the real economy are destroyed. The Murray-Darling Basin act—the Water Act 2007—is now destroying communities across the Murray-Darling Basin, our No. 1 food bowl, and it’s based on rubbish that contradicts the empirical evidence.
Any scientist worth their professional reputation should have the freedom to stand against poor scientific outcomes and the lack of appropriate peer reviewing. I’ll go beyond that: it is the duty of every scientist to do so. The professional integrity of scientists should compel them to defend spending billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on policies that do not have a robust scientific basis and which are destroying people’s livelihoods.
Professor Peter Ridd has over 100 scientific publications and he has co-invented a worthy list of instrumentation, including an instrument for monitoring the effect of sediment on the reef, which is technology now used around the world; a water current meter, which is marketed by James Cook University worldwide; an optical system for measuring pipeware, which is used in mines Australia wide; and a system for managing agricultural weeds, which is marketed through AutoWeed. This is an impressive list of achievements. After three decades of work, such a scientist ought to be held in high esteem. If a scientist of this academic calibre and such commercial achievements and practical nous can still feel hunted down by a university for challenging the quality of research results in other departments—and hunted to his emotional and financial detriment—how the hell can we ever expect our upcoming brilliant minds, with far fewer runs on the board, to ever have the courage to do the same? We can’t. The simple answer is that these newcomers will not challenge, because they do not have the safety of freedom of speech and can’t risk their careers crashing and burning before they’ve started. Instead, these upcoming brilliant minds will fall into line and continue to expand the increasing pool of homogenous groupthink. And there is the death of creativity and the narrowing of truly great solutions to tomorrow’s problems.
In recent decades we’ve seen our society, our country, being decimated by policy driven science—and that is not science. It’s costing us trillions. We need to return to science driven policy—policy that is driven by science, true science that passes quality assurance tests and questions from sceptics. Professor Ridd has become the modern-day Galileo, for daring to challenge the common myth that farming methods in the Great Barrier Reef catchment areas are damaging the reef. Professor Ridd’s research shows that commonly held myth to be incorrect, to be a lie. James Cook University didn’t like it, maybe because there is no doubt, in their view, that there would be a gaping hole in James Cook University’s funding for Great Barrier Reef research if water quality was indeed just fine, as Professor Peter Ridd’s work and the work of others confirms and suggests.
I acknowledge that universities are required to enshrine in their policy statement clear messages around freedom of speech and academic freedom. While we cannot intrude upon the enterprise agreements between universities and their employees, the amendment I will put forward today in the committee stage requests that higher education providers must take reasonable steps to ensure that enterprise agreements include provisions to uphold the freedom of speech and academic freedom. This commitment to academic freedom needs, wherever possible, to move beyond a policy statement that sits on the shelf and to enter the enterprise agreements, since that is where the cultural change will be brought about.
We cannot afford to be timid and ordinary when it comes to scientific endeavours. One Nation supports this bill, because we must give our scientific staff the academic freedoms they need to be at their creative best. Universities, businesses and governments all need to be prepared to update their outdated views when our brilliant minds in academia show us a better way. I’ll finish with the words of the late Steve Jobs, talking about his company Apple, one of the leaders in the world in new technology:
It doesn’t make sense to hire smart people and tell them what to do; we hire smart people so they can tell us what to do.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/25TTss0JE2I/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-16 14:38:202021-03-16 14:40:30Protecting scientists like Peter Ridd: Academic Freedom is essential to University
It is currently illegal to purchase any e-liquids or e-cigarettes containing nicotine in Australia. It shouldn’t be. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. I support e-cigarettes being available given the evidence that is available.
Transcript
One Nation opposes this motion. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’ll explain why. Vapes and e-cigarettes are as safe as the vaping solution’s contents. E-cigs should be available in Australia using the established Therapeutic Goods Administration procedure for schedule 3 pharmacy-only medications. This would allow local producers to submit their products to the TGA for testing and approval. Those approved devices and solutions would then be made using good manufacturing process right here in Australia. This would offer complete assurance to Australian consumers that the product they’re using is safe. The approval process is quick and cheap, as compared to potential sales revenue. Distribution should be limited to pharmacists.
Our policy follows a review of both academic research and empirical data from around the world. Thousands of pages of science and data support the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as an aid to quit smoking. Public health England has found the available evidence suggests that e-cigs are likely to be considerably less harmful than cigarettes. A peer-reviewed article published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Drug Policy found there was no support for the argument that vaping is a gateway to smoking, no support. The article produced empirical evidence that clearly shows e-cigarettes have accompanied a reduction in smoking rates in countries where quit rates had previously stagnated.
What is wrong with paying attention to the science and the reality? It’s debates like this debate around e-cigarettes and vaping that leads One Nation to call for an office of scientific integrity. These matters are far too important to be decided by a selective quoting of reports so as to support any pre-conceived position. Good government requires the truth—not duelling reports, not fear, not ideology, not vested interests, not uninformed opinion, not emotions—facts and data. An office of scientific integrity and quality assurance would allow independent scientists and advocates to test these important issues and from that process the truth would have the best chance of emerging.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/6i74v0QAt1E/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-08 10:41:272022-01-14 10:50:34Legalise Vaping in Australia
Australia used to have one of the highest household incomes in the world. What has happened since then?
Decades of weak leadership under Liberal and Labor governments, and it doesn’t look like it will get better anytime soon.
Transcript
The government at the moment is proposing industrial relations reform. It is tinkering. That’s all it is. What I want to do is discuss the bigger picture that we need to consider. First, let’s look at the decline of our country. Look at the decline since 1944, with the stealing of property rights from 1996 onwards and with the destruction of the electricity sector, the guts of our manufacturing sector and our agriculture sector. And yet, at a time when other countries have been reducing their electricity prices, Australian electricity prices have doubled or even tripled. We’ve got a taxation system that’s counterproductive, and there’s the neglect of our water infrastructure. Overregulation is decimating our manufacturing sector and, in fact, all sectors, especially small business—our biggest employers. Now let’s look at the recent devastation from the COVID restrictions, or rather government restrictions imposed as a result of COVID. They’re capricious, unsafe and devastating on small business and employees. If you look at Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia, COVID is managing us. Pretty soon JobKeeper ends—in fact, it ends at the end of next month—and then what will happen?
Let’s come back to what we need. We will work with the government to fix a bad bill—that is, its latest proposal. We will work with them in an attempt to do that. The three aims guiding us are: protecting honest workers, protecting small business and restoring Australia’s productive capacity. But not just to recover back to where we were last February before the COVID restrictions from government but to recover back to where we were when we were at the top of the world. We were literally number one for per capita gross domestic product. If I had a wish list, these are the things that would be on it—at least some of them.
I would want an inquiry into local government corruption in Queensland. Right across the state the waste of federal funding runs into the billions, with the fraud, the extortion, the corruption, the threats and the intimidation. We want to end that.
I would wish for a Commonwealth integrity commission, especially now that, during the last week, we’ve learnt what happened in this building. We need a proper corruption-ending system in this parliament and in this building. We need to restore integrity. We also need proper industrial relations reform—not the tinkering, the increased complexity nor the abandonment of small business. We need proper reform that looks after all employers and employees. We need proper reform that enables, first of all, employers and employees to restore their primary relationship without the IR club dipping into their pockets and putting handcuffs on them. We need to restore primary workplace relationships. We need to make it easier for people to work. We need to remove the complexity and remove the lawyers and the vultures.
We need to reform taxation. We need proper taxation reform—not tinkering and not adding more complexity to tax. We need to make it simpler for companies and small businesses to employ people. We need to make it easier for employees, honest workers, to keep more of their pay for their families.
We need reform of the family law system. We need reform of water. We need to do much, much better with our water. We need to return environmental water management to the states. We need to introduce a water register—it’s 14 years overdue. We need to introduce a weirs-for-life program and turn around drains in the south-east. We have a comprehensive plan we’re going to release soon about what we would do with the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and water right across the country.
We need to restore farmers’ property rights that were stolen in 1996 by the John Howard-John Anderson government. We need to make sure we have lower energy prices. We need to restore coal-fired power stations in this country—build a new one at Collinsville and build a new one in the Hunter Valley. We need to address the PFAS problems that are gutting so many areas. We need to look at infrastructure—the national rail circuit, Inland Rail, the Bradfield Scheme—and do it properly. Above all, we need a government with vision that provides real leadership, not tinkering. Get back to basics.
Electric vehicles might be okay for suburb hopping in big cities, but I doubt there is a farm in Australia that would be able to run without any petrol or diesel. The Greens’ calls to ‘rapidly transition to electric vehicles‘ for their net zero economy by 2035 shows they have no clue of the energy requirements in transport, industry and agriculture.
Transcript
Let’s have a bit of fun with some facts. Neither H2O, water, nor CO2, carbon dioxide, is a pollutant. Neither water nor carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The two products from burning hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil, natural gas—are water and carbon dioxide. We have carbon in every cell of our bodies. The term ‘organic’ refers to something that contains carbon. Earth: the thing that makes our planet so livable, the thing that makes our planet so unique, is the fact that we have more carbon concentrated on our planet than is the case across the universe.
Carbon is essential for life, but the Greens don’t understand that carbon is not carbon dioxide. They tell us that we need to cut our carbon dioxide from the use of coal, oil and natural gas, but then they talk about carbon. Carbon dioxide is a gas. Carbon is a solid in every cell of your body.
So let’s deal with some facts. Let’s have a bit of fun. Carbon dioxide is just 0.04 per cent of Earth’s air. That is 4/100ths of a per cent. Carbon dioxide is scientifically classified as a trace gas, because there’s so little of it. There’s barely a trace of it. Now, some people are going to say, ‘Oh, but cyanide can kill you with just a trace.’ That’s true. That’s a chemical effect. But the claimed effect of carbon dioxide from the Greens of global warming, climate catastrophe and the greatest existential threat that we now face is a physical effect. A trace gas has no physical effect that can be recorded, as I’ll show you in a minute.
Next point: carbon dioxide is non-toxic and not noxious. It’s highly beneficial to and essential for all plants on this planet. Everything green that’s natural relies upon carbon dioxide, and it benefits when carbon dioxide levels are far higher than now. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless and tasteless. Nature produces—and this is from the United Nations climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. That means that nature produces 32 times more than the entire human production of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide does not discolour the air. Carbon dioxide does not impair the quality of water or soil. None of what I’m talking about is new. I’ve compiled it, but none of it’s new. Carbon dioxide does not create light, create heat, create noise or create radioactivity. It doesn’t distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment, nor impair its usefulness, nor render our environment offensive.
Carbon dioxide doesn’t harm ecosystems and, in fact, is essential for all ecosystems. Carbon dioxide does not harm plants and animals, nor humans. In fact, we put it in our kids’ soft drink. We put it in our champagne. We put it in our beer. We put it in soda water—we carbonate it by putting carbon dioxide in there. It’s essential for all plants and animals. Carbon dioxide does not cause discomfort, instability, wooziness or disorders of any kind. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It’s essential for nature and life on this planet. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it into plants, animal tissue, the oceans and natural accumulations. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes of carbon dioxide from some volcanos and even then it’s only locally and briefly under rare natural conditions when in concentrations and amounts are far higher than anything humans can produce.
Carbon dioxide is not a foreign substance. In the past, on this planet, under the current atmosphere, there have been times when carbon dioxide levels were 130 times higher than the concentration in the earth today. In fact, in the last 200 years, scientists have measured carbon dioxide levels up to 40 per cent higher than they are today. But the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, from the UN ignores those measurements, which were taken, in some cases, by Nobel Prize winners—science prize winners. All they do instead is take one reading from one place over the last 70 years.
As you can see from the list I’ve just read, carbon dioxide is not pollution. The Greens are talking about doing an inquiry into carbon, yet they say it’s the carbon dioxide that’s causing this climate change that’s supposedly going on. Let’s look at something else then, as carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.
Let’s have a look at this climate change crisis that the Greens are talking about. I’m unique in this Senate for holding the CSIRO accountable. All of the other senators have not done their jobs. Former Senator Ian Macdonald, from the Senate in 2016, pointed that out to me. He pointed out that no-one in this parliament ever debated the science until I arrived. We still haven’t had the debate, because I’ve challenged the Greens and they have gone without responding to my challenge for a debate more than 125 days. Senator Waters has gone more than 10¼ years without responding to my challenge for a debate. They won’t debate me, because they haven’t got the science. Let’s listen to the people that the Greens rely on for their science.
I have cross-examined the CSIRO. I’ve had three presentations and several sessions at Senate estimates. In their first presentation under my cross-examination the CSIRO admitted that they had never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a threat or a danger. Never. That means we don’t need any of these policies. Let’s go to the next session we had with the CSIRO. Each of these sessions were 2½ to three hours long. The CSIRO said that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented—that’s referring to the blip that ended back in 1995. We have had stasis of temperatures since then—no warming in the last 26 years. The current temperatures are not unprecedented.
My third point is that the CSIRO admitted that they and other bodies around the world rely, for their predictions, on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. That says two things. Firstly, the models are wrong. They’re erroneous and invalidated, yet they’re using them to make projections. Secondly, it confirms they don’t have the evidence. If they had the evidence, they would have presented it. Instead, they’ve come up with some lame models, which have already failed.
The fourth thing that I will mention about the so-called science is that, when they failed to provide me with the empirical evidence proving that carbon dioxide from human activity affects the climate and needs to be cut, I gave them a very simple test. I asked them to show me anything unprecedented in the earth’s climate in the last 10,000 years. They failed that. I then gave them the absolutely simplest goal of providing me with empirical scientific evidence showing that there has been a statistically significant change to any factor in earth’s climate. They failed that. They can’t even point to a change in climate, because we all know that climate varies quite naturally, most of it cyclically, but sometimes a combination of cycles makes it look like it’s highly random. That’s the point. Not only that, there are scientists whom I’ve communicated with directly, including members who are lead authors for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, such as Dr John Christy. He was a lead author until he left the United Nations climate body because of the corruption. He was disgusted and sickened by it. These and many other scientists have confirmed to me that nowhere in the world has anyone ever presented any empirical scientific evidence showing that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate and needs to be cut—not NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, not the UK Met Office, not the Bureau of Meteorology, not the CSIRO, not any university, not any academic, not any science paper and not any journal. Check for yourself and tell me if I’m wrong.
The third thing I want to say is that the Greens lunatic policies are not based on science. You’ll notice that Senator Rice, in her comments, never once mentioned any proof of causation. Instead, as substitutes for science, they use emotion, stories, fantasies, dreams and promises. That’s all they have. Policy needs to be based on specific, quantified cause and effect—this much carbon dioxide is growing because of humans, and this much is the impact. That has never been presented anywhere in the world. The CSIRO’s failed three times with me, and it has never been done by anyone. Once we have that measured effect, which no-one has produced so far, then and only then can we shape a policy. Then and only then can we measure the progress along the road of implementing that policy. Without that, it’s fundamentally flawed. Then, if we had the connection, specified and quantified, we can cost it to see the benefits of Senator Rice’s dreams and fantasies versus the impact on our human species of this climate madness that people are going on with. As a result of this madness, both the Liberal-National government and the Labor Party have driven our electricity prices from being the lowest in the world to the highest in the world, all on unicorn farts and rainbows, and nothing else—nothing substantial; claims of carbon pollution.
Then we have this telling factor. The No. 1 factor that drove the rapid improvement in human’s standard of living over the last 170 years was the relentless decrease in the price of energy from 1850 until the mid-nineties. Since then, in Australia, we have gone the other way. We’ve started to increase prices. We’ve now doubled and tripled prices for electricity in some areas and nothing has changed. Coal-fired power stations have become more efficient. Yet we have an increase in price because of the artificial regulations and the artificial impediments on the most productive and efficient source of electricity generation and the subsidies for the dreams of solar and wind, which are inherently high and will never catch up with coal, hydro or nuclear.
We had a relentless decrease in the price of electricity over 170 years until 25 years ago. That relentless decrease in the price of electricity and energy meant an increase in productivity and an increase in wealth. That’s what has led to humans now living lives that are longer, safer, easier, more comfortable and more healthy and having far more choices than anyone could ever have imagined. This Greens lunacy, calling carbon dioxide a ‘carbon’—calling a gas a solid—is driving a decarbonisation that is, in effect, deindustrialisation. Look around us. What will disappear is all the material benefits we’ve had over the last 150 years.
Opinion and emotion are not science. There is no need to have this reference to the committee, because there is no science underpinning the Greens’ call for this reference. We need to get back to the facts, get back to straight logic, stop dreaming, think about the many people who benefit from the wonderful hydrocarbon fuels—natural gas, coal and oil—and look after the people of this planet.
Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.
Transcript
In serving the people of Queensland and Australia, I note that Labor is fixated on the problems not the solution. The facts are that the government listened to One Nation’s legitimate concerns for employers and employees and it booted out the BOOT. One Nation achieved that. One Nation is doing more for Western Australian workers and employers than Labor. That is, in part, thanks to our Western Australian team, Robin Scott, an ex-Freo sparky who works hard for the people of the mining and pastoral region in WA, and Colin Tincknell, the One Nation WA state leader who proudly represents the South West region. Workers should be concerned that Labor and some union bosses have abandoned them. Casual workers are being abused and the needs of small business—Australia’s largest employer of workers—have been all but ignored by everyone except One Nation.
I have stood up to put a stop to these abuses for casual workers that the unions, the Labor Party and politicians like Joel Fitzgibbon knowingly ignored for years. Recently, the CFMEU mining division agreed with me that their union has ignored casuals for many years. I applaud that person in the CFMEU for having the courage to do that, and lawyers for the ETU and CFMEU confirmed that, in their opinion—and I agree with them—the IR system needs to be free from lawyers. For Labor to say that it’s going to be easier for employers to cut wages and conditions is not enough. Labor need to step up and show everyday Australians what Australia’s IR problems are and what they would do better. Labor, like Joel Fitzgibbon, are all talk and no action.
One Nation wants genuine industrial relations reform for the benefit of employees and employers, especially for small business and their employees, and the best way to do that is to listen and contribute to a better system. We have been listening widely and hearing the concerns from industry, union bosses, employer and employee groups, welfare groups, casual and injured workers, and small business. I care and I will fight to protect workers’ legal and moral entitlements, just as I am doing in Queensland and I am doing in the Hunter Valley, even though it is not in my state. One Nation stands for the workers that Labor and Joel Fitzgibbon continue to ignore.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/zNzLHEPw3to/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-02-25 16:59:002021-02-25 13:30:56One Nation doing more for workers than Labor
