Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Visa Violations and Deportation of Criminal Offenders

,

During Question Time, I asked Senator Watt about the number of criminals on visas who have been deported for violating their visa conditions, particularly those convicted of forcing young women and children into arranged marriages without their consent—a crime under Australian law.  I also inquired why so few visa holders convicted of crimes in Australia have been deported. 

Transcript | Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Watt. Last week the Australian Federal Police publicised the case of a father who was convicted of attempting to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages. For clarity: my question relates only to arranged marriages where either party is not given a choice. To respect the privacy of the children involved, my question goes to policy. Is human trafficking a 15-year-old girl into marriage sufficient grounds for deportation? If not, why not? 

Senator WATT: Thank you for the question. I don’t have details as to the specific case that you’re referring to, but certainly what I can say is that a breach of character grounds on any basis would be the basis for cancelling someone’s visa and deporting them from Australia. If it is the case that a crime has been committed in this case or that character grounds in general were found not to be satisfied, then of course the outcome of that would be that a visa would be cancelled. As I said, I don’t have enough details about the particular case involved, and you yourself said you didn’t want to go to the details of that case and wanted to talk more generally, but that is the general position when it comes to visas. If there’s any further information I can provide, I would be happy to do so. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the forced marriage of a child carries a nine-year prison penalty and 25 years if a child is sent oversee for the marriage. Australia Federal Police commander Kate Ferry described the offence as ‘human trafficking’, as does the Attorney-General’s website. Your answer downplayed a serious issue of women’s rights and contradicts your own website. Minister, with 91 cases of forced marriage reported to the AFP in the year to June, when will you start deporting the offenders, including the clergy involved? 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have the details of the 91 cases, and I’m not certain that they all involve people who are in Australia on visas. I want to fact-check that before accepting that that is the case.  

But, as I said, when it comes to visas that are granted to people to visit Australia, they come on conditions. Of course, any visa holder has responsibilities to the people of Australia while they’re present in Australia. Ordinarily what would occur is that if someone is convicted of an offence—and I don’t know whether any of these individuals have been convicted of offences. But if that were to occur then they would ordinarily serve their sentence in an Australian prison and, once they’ve served their sentence, that would be the time at which they would be deported, that their visa would be cancelled. Ordinarily, as I understand it, we don’t cancel people’s visas before we put them in jail, if they’ve committed an offence. They would serve out their sentence in a jail and then, on release, that would be the time that their visa would be cancelled. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how many arrivals on permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? For clarity, I don’t want visa overstays or deportations on technical grounds. My question goes specifically to a reluctance to deport for a serious criminal offence. 

Senator WATT: Again, I don’t have that level of detail with me, representing the Attorney-General, but if there’s information that I can provide to answer your question I’d be happy to provide that. What I can say is that, obviously, it’s a matter for police if there is an allegation of a crime. As I said, I’m not across the details of this particular report that you’re referring to. I’m not aware of whether the person has been charged or convicted, but it’s a matter for police— 

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

Senator ROBERTS: Standing order 72(3)(c) says that answers shall be directly relevant to each question. I’m not after the details on this question. I’ve got them. What we want to know is: how many arrivals and permanent visas were deported for criminal activity in calendar 2023, or later if you have the data? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you simply needed to have stood and said ‘relevance’. The minister was relevant. He indicated in the first part of his answer that if he could get more detail he would, and he is entitled to continue his answer. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: As I said, Senator Roberts, I’m happy to provide any further details in addition to anything that I do have here. What I am aware of is that significantly more visa cancellations have occurred under this government than ever occurred while Mr Dutton was the home affairs minister. That’s something I can tell you. But I’m happy to come back to you with additional details once they come to hand. 

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and the Minister representing the Attorney-General (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today relating to grounds for visa cancellations. 

The Australian Federal Police prosecuted the case—concerning the failure to deport a recent arrival who attempted to force his 15-year-old and 17-year-old daughters into arranged marriages—resulting in conviction and imprisonment. Well done to the Australian Federal Police. The number of human-trafficking complaints to the AFP has increased, with the AFP receiving 382 reports including 91 forced marriage allegations across the 2023-24 financial year. A forced marriage involves the absence of free will. That’s why the Attorney-General’s website compares forced marriage to child labour and slavery. 

I thank the minister for informing the Senate that deporting criminals in cases of forced marriage is an option. The media, in part, reported this case using the term ‘arranged marriage’—it’s no such thing. Nonnas and yayas have been arranging marriages for centuries, and they’re still at it, so they must be getting something right. In this case, though, the father knew forced marriage is illegal in Australia, and his daughters refused to be trafficked. 

I would’ve thought that one benefit to this government bringing in 2.4 million new arrivals is the opportunity for us to keep the best and send the rest home. In the last week, we’ve seen thousands of new arrivals marching through the streets of our capital cities calling for death to other Australian citizens. Inciting violence is breaking the law. We’ve seen illegal terrorist symbols in full display. They have been breaking the laws of our country—to which these people have chosen to come—breaking and flaunting our laws. I shared the video from the Opera House of these same people chanting ‘death to the Jews’. The audio is perfectly clear.  

We’re letting in people who hate our culture and wish to replace it with their own past culture, which they abandoned and left behind. When faced with such a threat, One Nation believes an immediate outcome should be the deportation of criminals. 

Question agreed to. 


/2 Comments/by

The Impact Net Zero is Having on Everyday Australians

,

Everyday Australians have gone backwards by 8.2% since the Albanese Government came to power. The largest reason for this is the net zero madness, which has driven up the price of electricity across the entire supply chain, from the farm gate to supermarkets. While subsidies on household electricity provide temporary relief while in place, businesses don’t get the same assistance and must pass their increased costs onto you.

The solution is simple: end the net zero madness!

Transcript

Under this Albanese Labor government, the buying power of wages in Australia is now eight per cent less than when Labor took office, the develop world’s worst result. Consequently, the Prime Minister’s approval rating has gone from positive 27 to negative six per cent in the latest Newspoll, and down 13 per cent as preferred Prime Minister. The conversation on social media and in person simply won’t move away from just how expensive it is now to live under Labor. 

Fixing this mess is simple: end the net zero madness and destruction of Australia’s productive capacity. Net zero is increasing costs right through the supply chain and forcing up supermarket prices. One Nation would restore competition to sectors like supermarkets, which are oligopolies with foreign wealth funds manipulating prices for their own benefit and then taking those profits overseas, permanently reducing Australian wealth. Residents in some Brisbane suburbs have been hit with obscene rises in insurance of up to 10 times their previous premium. Insurance rose after Brisbane City Council produced a flood map reflecting climate change hysteria—fraud rather than actual historical flood data. Suncorp recently sold their bank because their insurance business is more profitable. How is that even possible in the free market? The Roy Morgan Research consumer confidence index has been below 85 for a record 82 successive weeks. One hundred is neutral; 85 is bad. Only one in 12 Australians expect good times ahead. Aren’t governments are supposed to make things better, not worse? 

Into this environment of despair, the government has introduced its misinformation and disinformation bill. The government wants to talk about anything except housing and the cost of living under Labor. One Nation will remain focused on offering policies to encourage enterprise and hard work to encourage and support families. Its time all Australians can once again enjoy the riches our beautiful country has to offer. 

/2 Comments/by

New Data Shows COVID mRNA Injections Causes Harm and Death

, ,

Three years ago, I promised to hound down those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history — COVID — and I will continue to do so.

I have addressed the Senate five times now to explain the latest data that shows the harm being caused to everyday Australians from our COVID response, including the mRNA injections.

This is my sixth update on COVID science, using new, peer-reviewed published papers, referenced by the lead author. (References detailed on my website).

The shocking data shows that COVID mRNA injections have negative efficacy and harms more people than they protect. Even more concerning, the latest report shows that children who were injected with mRNA “vaccines” not only all contracted COVID but are now more likely to develop cancer over their lifetimes.

It’s time to call for a Royal Commission!

I will return to this crime of the century in December during my third COVID inquiry, titled “COVID on Trial”, featuring leading Australian and international doctors and lawyers, and presented before cross-party Members of Parliament.

Transcript

Three years ago I promised to hound those who perpetrated the greatest crime in Australian history, and I will continue to do so. Here’s the latest evidence of COVID-19 being the crime of the century, taken from new, peer-reviewed, published papers referenced to the lead author. In the Polish Annals of Medicine publication, FIRN conducts a limited literature review of the progression and reporting of COVID-19 vaccine severe adverse events, or SAE, in scientific journals, finding: ‘The literature has gone from claiming there are absolutely no SAEs from mRNA based vaccines in 2021 to an acknowledgement of a significant number of various SAEs by 2024. These adverse events include neurological complications, myocarditis, pericarditis and thrombosis.’ FIRN said, ‘This warns that science should be completely objective when evaluating health risk, because social and economic considerations often influence.’ 

Why has it taken three years for the medical community to find its voice? Firstly, it takes time to do the work to produce a peer-reviewed study, especially one critical of its pharmaceutical industry masters. Secondly, money talks. All the big pharma research money, grants, fake conferences and lavish destinations are a hard influence to overcome. Big pharma money is now going in so many different directions. Like the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke, cracks are finally appearing. That’s why the misinformation and disinformation bill has been advanced: to get rid of these embarrassing truths in time for the next pharmaceutical industry fundraiser. 

Only in the last year have scientists been able to publish articles that acknowledge a high number of serious adverse events, or SAEs, linked to the mRNA based vaccines. There’s so much in recent published science that most people are unaware of because of pharmaceutical industry control. Here are the recent top 10 reasons to lock the bastards up. There is the Thacker study. Speed may have come at the cost of data integrity and patient safety, finding FISA falsified and misrepresented data. There is the Facsova study. A study of 99 million doses found clear proof of myocarditis, pericarditis and cerebral thrombosis, and the study extend only for 42 days after each dose, yet we know people are dropping dead suddenly years after they took one in the arm for big pharma. The Fraiman study found the excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest was higher than the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalisation relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials, yet they never said more people would get seriously ill from the injections. The Benn study found no statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 deaths in the mRNA vaccine trials, while there was actually a small increase in total deaths. Doshi and Lataster’s study highlighted counting window failures—that is, how long after injection before an adverse event was counted. Pfizer and their cronies did not count adverse events in the first week after injection, which is when many occurred, and stopped counting after six weeks. This likely led to exaggerated effectiveness and misleading safety pronouncements, including serious adverse events being apportioned to unvaccinated people. The Raethke study noted a rate of serious adverse vaccine reactions of approximately one per 400 people—astonishing! 

Mostert’s study drew attention to the baffling problem of people dying suddenly years after injection, suggesting it may be the thing they were injected with that caused it. Lataster’s study from the University of Sydney, who provided input to this speech, demonstrated there are correlations between COVID-19 vaccination and European excess deaths and found that COVID injections increased the chance of COVID-19 infection and even the chance of COVID-19 death. The Furst study provided evidence that a healthy vaccine participant bias is at play. They only studied healthy people. That further implies that the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines is being exaggerated, beyond the effects of counting window issues and other data manipulations. 

This brings us to the latest peer reviewed and published paper from Robin Kobbe and others. It studied children five to 11 years old one year after they had taken Pfizer mRNA vaccines, showing an elevated risk of developing cancer during their entire lives. Published on 30 July 2024 in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, this report studied German children who had two Pfizer injections. This was a longitudinal study following healthy kids through two doses of vaccinations, with the resulting damage clearly attributed to the mRNA injections. 

I’ll return to this crime of the century in December when I conduct by third COVID inquiry called ‘COVID under trial’ with leading Australian and international doctors, lawyers and politicians, which will be held before cross-party members of parliament. I promise to hound down this crime’s perpetrators, and I will do exactly that. 

References

https://okaythennews.substack.com/p/covid-vaccine-science-catching-up

https://doi.org/10.29089/paom/193801

/8 Comments/by

One Nation Defends Free Speech

,

In the past three weeks, the Prime Minister has been subject to five community notes on X (formerly known as Twitter). Five times, Prime Minister Albanese has been called out by the X community for spreading misinformation. This is made possible by Elon Musk’s Community Notes system, which allows the public to moderate each other and agree collectively on what is true and what is not. It’s clear to see why disgruntled former Twitter executive and our eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, detests X and Elon Musk so much. Using “safety” as a pretext to censor the truth is now being threatened.

One Nation stands firm in opposing the Misinformation and Disinformation Bill, now known as the MAD Bill, and supports free speech for all Australians, provided it does not call for violence.

Transcript

In the last three weeks the Prime Minister has been subjected to five community notes on X, formerly Twitter. The X community has called out Prime Minister Albanese five times for spreading misinformation. We know this because Elon Musk’s system of community notes allows the public to moderate each other and agree among them what’s true and what’s not. I can see why disgruntled former Twitter executive and e-safety commissar Julie Inman Grant detests X and detests Elon Musk. As the infamous Hillary Clinton admitted last week in a CNN interview, social media platforms like X need to censor content because, if they don’t, ‘we lost total control’—her words. Maintaining total control is the purpose of the United Nations pact for the future, which is really a pact for their future, not ours. Hillary Clinton’s unusual honesty exposed the real motivation for introducing the m-a-d—mad—bill: misinformation and disinformation. 

Control means censoring the truth. There’s no better evidence of this than the treatment dealt to two of the world’s most respected medical professionals. I proudly welcome in the gallery one of the UK’s leading oncologists, Professor Angus Dalgleish, from St. George’s, University of London, and Dr Paul Marik, a leading American physician persecuted for challenging the pharmaceutical corporate narrative. Both these amazing medical professionals are on an Australian speaking tour with the Australian Medical Professionals’ Society, a union One Nation proudly and strongly supports. Its highly qualified and respected health professionals, like our guests in the gallery, have suffered the consequences of the war on truth that drives the Liberal-Labor uniparty’s misinformation and disinformation bill, appropriately abbreviated to m-a-d—mad. I urge everyone to come along and listen to the real COVID story, not the government’s lie, while we still can and to join us in our ongoing, four-year campaign to protect free speech. 

/1 Comment/by

Defence Deflects and Distracts from Royal Commission Results

,

Just days after the Defence and Veteran Suicide Royal Commission published it’s final report, the Government announced it would be stripping medals from soldiers in Afghanistan. Instead of promising to implement the findings of the Royal Commission, the government doubled down on the kind of hypocrisy that is killing people. While some are stripped of medals, the previous Chief of Defence Force, Angus Campbell, still has his medal for commanding those soldiers. One standard should apply to everyone.

To implement the findings of the Royal Commission, we need a complete clean out of the senior people in Defence who let the problem get this bad.

Transcript

Let’s listen to words to my Senate office team today from a brave ADF veteran with a distinguished record of serving our country and now serving veterans across the country. He opens with a quote from British judge Sturgess: ‘Justice is open to everyone in the same way as the Ritz hotel.’ Announcing this cart-before-the-horse decision today, just three days after the release of the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide and a day after the 23rd anniversary of the 9/11 attacks—a day that forever changed the lives of these men and women—and on R U Okay Day in Australia is nothing short of cruel. 

Still, the motives are clear: to divert attention from the failures of Defence Force leadership and from the government and once again shift the blame onto a few men from the SASR who were in action. The timing is no coincidence. It’s a calculated move to protect those at the top while scapegoating those who served on the front lines. If medals are to be revoked from those at the tactical and operational levels for their soldiers’ alleged war crimes from allegations from over a decade ago, ultimate responsibility must rest with the commanders in charge at the time. Accountability should start at the top, with those who approved the missions and made the strategic decisions. Without holding senior leadership accountable, this action becomes nothing more than scapegoating those on the ground. Accountability must start at the top. 

Let’s keep going with the ADF veteran’s words: ‘Accountability in the military is paramount. Yet what we have witnessed is the pre-emptive punishment of a few and a violation of due process. The chain of command ensures accountability at every level, meaning that responsibility for success and failure is shared.’ 

Just my own comment: in business and in sport, accountability is the fundamental quality. Going back to the ADF veteran: ‘Therefore, generals who commanded during these periods, these men, are set to lose their honours and awards. From the commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force, officers who for the most part did not see action but wear medals suggesting they did should face the same pre-emptive punishment. Stripping medals from senior officers reinforces command responsibility and ensures leadership is held accountable for their decisions in command. It upholds fairness and integrity, demonstrating that no-one is above accountability.’ He goes on: ‘Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) establishes the principle of command responsibility, holding military commanders criminally liable for crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or should have known, and failed to prevent or punish them. The statute places a clear duty on commanders to control their forces, and failure to do so makes them legally responsible for their subordinates’ actions. In light of this, if soldiers are to be held accountable for alleged war crimes, the same standard must apply to the commanders in charge at the time—from the Commander of Joint Task Force 633 to the Chief of the Defence Force. Command responsibility dictates that leadership cannot be insulated from the consequences of their decisions. Yet, after 10 years, the fact remains: no-one has been convicted of war crimes. 

‘This tone-deaf statement and its timing send a clear message from the top of the Defence Force and government. It shows they’ve learned nothing from the declining recruitment and retention rates, the public’s outrage over ADF’s bloated staff ranks and their untouchable status, or the findings of the royal commission into veteran suicide. Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ 

That’s the end of the quote from that distinguished ADF veteran. He still feels intense loyalty to the defence forces, despite what’s happened. His finished there with: ‘Watch as recruitment and retention in the enlisted ranks continue to plummet.’ Why should he care—he is out? I’ll tell you why he cares. It is because he cares about this country, as well as about the ADF, the veterans and those still serving. That’s why this is so important. 

This affects culture, which is our ADF’s secret weapon. It is its most powerful strategic weapon. I’m not going to talk at length about that; I’ve talked about it before. Think about the culture in the Defence Force now. We’ve learned, apparently, that the royal commission didn’t expect Defence to stonewall vital information and keep it from the royal commission. Why? Surely, it’s better to be open and lance the boil? No, they stonewalled. 

But, then again, we’ve now learned that three months ago a coordination officer from Defence was awarded the Conspicuous Service Cross for outstanding outcomes in working with the royal commission. That begs the question: in Defence’s eyes, what are ‘outstanding outcomes’? Here are some questions I asked in question time of Senator Wong—for whom I have a lot of regard—representing the Minister for Defence, Richard Marles. I began by saying: 

Minister, on the recommendation of the then Chief of the Defence Force General Angus Campbell, the government will strip distinguished service medals from soldiers for allegations of war crimes that have not been proven in a criminal court, yet the government will not strip the Distinguished Service Cross medal off General Campbell. 

Then I asked her: 

Minister, why do soldiers under General Campbell ‘s command lose medals while he keeps his medal for commanding them? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory response. Then, as a second question, I began with: 

Minister, the Brereton report specifically excluded any findings on command accountability. 

The minister disagreed with me on that, to be fair. I continued with: 

The implementation oversight panel, though, provided independent advice to government that the Brereton report, in doing this, was inappropriate and that senior command accountability must be examined. 

That was the implementation oversight report. So I asked the minister: 

Why are Defence’s most senior leaders being let off scot-free on allegations in the Brereton report and why is your government ignoring the oversight panel’s advice? 

I didn’t get a satisfactory answer. My final question began: 

Minister, the criterion for the Distinguished Service Cross at the time General Campbell was nominated required him to be ‘in action’, meaning in direct contact with an enemy— 

Facing the enemy, being fired upon by the enemy, having actual engagement— 

yet there are no records of General Campbell being in action. 

I asked her: 

Why does your government refuse to have the honours and awards appeals tribunal examine his award? 

Why indeed! I’ve asked that question before in Senate estimates and got nowhere. We will continue. 

We see that Labor is now moving an amendment to Senator Lambie’s motion. My brief reading of it is that the government is watering down Senator Lambie’s fine motion, which calls on the government to ‘urgently publish’ a comprehensive timeline. The government now wants to water that down with an amendment that calls on the government to ‘urgently work towards’ this. There is no commitment. So I want to thank Senator Lambie for this motion. I want to thank her for her work and for speaking strongly for veterans and enlisted people. I want to thank Senator Shoebridge, who has left the chamber, but nonetheless I thank him for his work as well. 

I’ll finish by saying that our most powerful strategic weapon is the Australian Defence Force culture. That includes mateship and accountability—very, very strong. I’ve heard about it from many sailors, airmen and soldiers. They respect it and they understand the power of it. I’ve heard it from officers. I’ve heard it from veterans. I’ve heard it from enlisted ranks. We’ve been watching it unravel for years, listening to soldiers, airmen, sailors, officers, enlisted men and women and veterans. It’s unravelling, yet it’s the key to our defence forces. This is a prize that must be guarded with reverence, yet at Senate estimates I’m disappointed to see that the senior brass don’t seem to understand it. 

Implementation of the recommendations of this royal commission must be sincere, meaningful and informed to restore accountability and to restore culture in the Australian defence forces. We will be watching, as I’m sure Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and others will be. This is the house of review. As representatives of the people we serve, we will be watching and holding the government accountable. We also serve veterans and current forces because they have served us and our country with distinction. We serve all the people of Australia, and that’s why we will be watching to see their implementation of this royal commission. 

/by

Malcolm Roberts Addresses CPAC on Why the Liberals are Losing

,

At CPAC in 2022 I explained the Liberals refused to fight for conservative principles and that is why they lost the election. Here’s my full “controversial” speech. It’s only controversial to Liberals that are still in denial. Until they fight for conservative principles, the Liberals will not be re-elected.

Transcript

Thank you. What is a conservative? This is the first and most vital question at a Conservative Political Action Conference. I wanna thank Andrew Cooper, Warren Mundine, and all their many volunteers and observers and supporters who’ve come from a long, long way to help. And I want to thank you because this is what it’s all about. It’s not about two men, Warren and Andrew. It’s about conservatives, good citizens. We’re among real people today and we’re among real humans. In this room, we have people who think, who appreciate, and who want to contribute to restoring our country. So, now, I prepared some comments, but after comments yesterday, I want to reinforce what Nigel Farage said and also Warren Mundine and Ross Cameron.

So I’m going to, I’ve changed my speech considerably, so I’m gonna read from notes. For me, a conservative is someone who thinks critically and has the awareness of our world’s core realities and who thinks critically and has the awareness of our own species’ reality, an understanding, appreciation, and celebration of reality. Someone standing up and protecting reality as our natural state that best enables and delivers human progress and security. Yet we live in a world where even conservatives, known for our optimism and positivity, are feeling confused, dismayed, frustrated, fearful, concerned, angry, and sometimes hopeless.

Thomas Sowell said it best, “Ours may become the first civilization destroyed, not by the power of our enemies, but by the ignorance of our teachers and the dangerous nonsense they are teaching our children. In an age of artificial intelligence, they are creating artificial stupidity.” Today, many conservatives search for understanding, clarity, engagement, and being heard, because today, governments do not listen. Instead, they seek to control. When we see, hear, and feel the absurdity all around us in the West, we realise we’re engaged in a war for the heart, the soul, the mind, and existence of our society, our nation, civilization, basic human rights, lifestyle, and even our species. Yes, even our species.

How can we replace our concern, our fear, with constructive feelings like hope, like calm confidence, like positive openness, reassured vigour and excitement, possibilities for a better world and for restoring our Australian lifestyle? As conservatives, how do we support each other? How do we work together to restore freedom, express ideas, encourage and support each other, revive hope? We need to work across the spectrum, not as parties, but as unified forces for the conservative side of politics, to restore our country so we can get back to doing what humans do so well and naturally: improving society and progressing as a species, as a civilization, as families, and as individuals.

So I was going to invite you to step back at this point and examine our society, but what I wanna do is talk about something that we need to be on guard from within. We’re not being attacked just from outside, and we are certainly being attacked from outside. We need to be on guard from something coming from within. I wanna make two points. CPAC can only thrive as a people’s movement. Not as a Cooper movement, a Schlapp movement, a Farage movement, only as a people’s movement. And in that unity is crucial. I am a conservative and I want conservatives to thrive. I support CPAC and am loyal to the many people coming up to thank me for my stance, and that’s much appreciated. But that’s not my job.

My job is to help Warren achieve his aims for CPAC that he so clearly said this morning. And that requires putting parties and politicians under the spotlight, setting them aside, not papering over the cracks in parties. I wholeheartedly endorse Ross Cameron’s viewpoint. Yesterday, we saw difference of view, differences of views rearing their heads, and I welcome that. Nigel Farage’s call for the people to be energised regardless of party, to be energised, a people’s movement. Whereas Nick Cater said we all need to go back to the two old parties. So I must address that issue. So I’ve made a new speech and then I invite you to decide.

And I’m encouraged by Dan Tehan, National Party member, I think, in Victoria, who had the courage, so rare in politics, to admit his mistake in withdrawing from and allowing the abuses that occurred under the Morrison government driving the states to do what they did for the last two and a half years. Dan Tehan, thank you for your guts. I have great pride in celebrating Gerard Rennick, Pauline Hanson, Alex Antic, George Christensen, and Craig Kelly. I will now speak with them in mind and in my heart. If there’s time, I’ll get back to the speech I was intending to deliver. I noticed my time’s been cut. So let me start with the review of some of the information presented this weekend.

While Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Katherine Deves are awesome and I love them dearly and I respect them and admire them, they are not Australia’s bravest women. Nampijinpa Price wholeheartedly needs and deserves that award of freedom yesterday. But the title of bravest woman in Australia has gone to Pauline Hanson for 25 years. Pauline has fought the battles we have all talked about this weekend: family, community, Christianity, border protection, the Indigenous industry, our flag, our veterans, freedom, our lifestyle, our very way of life, our exports, our industry, our agriculture. It is ironic that the omnipresent party in this event is the same party that sent Pauline to jail to shut her up, the Liberal Party.

After being released and exonerated, Pauline put aside her time as Australia’s first political prisoner to lead One Nation in the fight for conservative values. This should never be forgotten, always remembered, especially with the release of a new national anti-corruption body lacking in checks and balances that One Nation expected to be there. In this last election, Australia’s COVID response asked many questions of our elected leaders, particularly federal.

Questions like: What happened to my body, my choice? What happened to the vaccine approval process? What happened to freedom of movement and freedom of association? What happened to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship, the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship? What happened to free speech? And how could a virus infect you in a small business but not in a big business? Finally, where were the bloody Liberals and Nationals for the last two and a half years? I can tell you where they were: calling me names for standing up for the very values they now embrace at this conference.

One Nation went to this last election, One Nation went to this last election defending conservative values and fighting for your freedom, our freedom. Senator Ralph Babet, who’s in the audience, and the United Australia Party were there defending your freedom. The Liberal Democrats were there defending freedom and standing up against the genuinely evil Dan Andrews regime. And as I said, Senator Rennick was there, Alex Antic was there. And good on Topher Field for his courage, and I urge everyone to buy his movie, “Battleground Melbourne” available in the foyer.

It brought me to tears. It is just such a stark, stark, horrific portrayal, but an accurate portrayal. In this last election, the Liberal Party and the National Party chose to preference the Labor Party ahead of One Nation in many races. In the end, delivering the Senate to the ALP and neutering the Liberal Party. So what the hell is going on? Like many people here, I do hope the Liberals rediscover their roots in true liberalism, true conservatism. It would, however, be unbelievable if the Liberals achieved that in a single weekend-long pep rally.

Where is Peter Dutton, can I ask? Seriously, I thought I was coming to, I thought I was coming to CPAC. It feels more like LPAC, Liberal Political Action Conference. I must say, CPAC is back from their three-year COVID hiatus with a very short memory. Returning to their conservative roots will take fundamental changes in the power structure of a party that quite simply sold Australia out. The best way to help the Liberal Party, for those who wanna help the Liberal Party, is to expose the cracks, not paper them over.

And not just during COVID, but going back to the days of John Howard and his implementation of the 1997 UN Kyoto Protocol that stripped property rights from farmers to meet targets imposed by the UN without compensation and going around the constitution to do so.

[Audience Member] Terrible.

That has never been set right. And we need to set it right. If the Liberals want to embrace conservatism, setting that right might be a good place to start. Who was it that locked Western Sydney residents into their homes and put troops to the streets to keep them there? Who was that?

[Audience Member] Liberals.

Gladys Berejiklian’s Liberal government. Who closed their state off to the rest of Australia, imposed business closures, restricted movement, and forced medical mandates on their citizens? That was the Liberal Marshall South Australian government. Who changed the rules to allow emergency health orders under the Biosecurity Act and then tore up the vaccine approval rule book while sharing your vaccine status with anyone who wanted to see it? Always remember that. That was the Liberal Morrison government. If the Liberal Party want their supporters to hold the line, as we heard yesterday, then they need to change their leadership, change their policies, apologise for their failures, and start again truthfully and honestly. And they need to call a Royal Commission into COVID. Although, maybe under Albanese, it might be better if the they just let the senators get on with having a Senate Select inquiry into it because we can ask the questions that need to be asked. Liberal Premier Perrottet could do that right now. He could have an inquiry. I also heard a speaker in favour of retaining the two-party system, Nick Cater. I disagree completely. Nigel Farage said, “Go and elect the best people you can regardless of party, and if the conservatives have governed as liberal democrats, social democrats rather, get rid of them.” It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives a victory in Italy. That was a multi-party coalition. It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives to government in Sweden. That was a multi-party coalition. While Brexit did deliver the first black eye to the globalists, as another speaker mentioned, the conservatives didn’t do that. It was one man who built up an army in the people, and that’s what we need here. Nigel Farage did that.

Woo! Working outside the establishment parties. And it was not the Republicans that won the presidency in 2016. It was Donald Trump. The Republicans tried to scuttle him.

[Audience Member] Woo!

[Audience Member] Well done.

It will not be the Republicans that regain Congress in a month. It will be Donald Trump and his Make America Great Again movement. And they will retake Congress over the dead body of the establishment Republicans. Can a unified conservative movement achieve more than a disunited movement? Well, of course it can. That’s why we’re here, isn’t it? We are people from all parties united in the desire to defend conservative values.

And we can win this fight. Just as victory in two world wars was not any nations alone. Rather, nations came together allied in a single cause to defend against evil and restore freedom and prosperity. Once again, after a long period of peace and prosperity, we find ourselves in a fight for freedom, for Christian and conservative values, in a war against neopaganism masquerading as wokism. In many ways, this is a new world war. It is a war that does not need to be fought with one party.

It is a war that must be fought with one community. One community. It is not time for a single conservative party. It is a time for all allies to unite and fight side by side with a clarity of mind and purpose. And so I implore everyone here, now is the time, because as Shakespeare said so eloquently, “Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more.” Let me now resume scheduled programming. See how long I’ve got. That’s the end of time. So one thing I wanna say is government…

Well, I wanna say that in response to the globalist New World Order and Great Reset, we must, as conservatives, apply the great resist.

Hear, hear.

And the great restoration, and the great restoration of nation. While government is necessary, good government is necessarily limited.

Hear, hear.

Yes.

Fundamental rights of individuals are above the rights of government.

[Audience Member] Yes.

I am, and I hope we all in this room, are proud to be conservative. We should be proud. To succeed in our great resist, we must be proud. We must get off our knees, stand up straight, and get off our ass, together united around not parties, but around conservative values. We have one flag, we are one community, we have one nation, and we’ve got one planet. Let’s make this global.

[Audience Member] Yes.

/6 Comments/by

Government Needs to Focus on Australians

,

I informed the Senate that it had lost its way by focussing way too much on international conflicts and spending over a billion dollars on Ukraine while neglecting to fund essential healthcare and hospitals in Queensland and other parts of Australia.

This obsession in providing international aid is misplaced when our own homeless and vulnerable citizens are struggling to access the basic necessities needed for survival.

Australian families are living in tents, children are going hungry and those in power are failing to protect them. Charity should always begin at home.  Politicians must prioritise the needs of Australians before considering assistance to anyone else. We have a national housing crisis and are already in a per capita recession.

It’s time to put Australians first.

Transcript

It’s time for politicians to focus on fixing the problems here in Australia before getting involved in foreign conflict. Last night, yet another motion appeared in the nightly Senate notices from some senators calling for stronger measures to support Ukraine. This Senate only just dealt with a matter relating to Taiwan. The Israel-Palestine war continues to feature in our Senate processes, along with the Uighurs in China and the Rohingya in Bangladesh. Among Greens senators, there seem to be more supporters for terrorist Hamas than for Australia—and that’s my point.

We live in a time when small businesses are closing at record rates—the hopes and dreams of those hard-working Australians broken in a vice of rising costs and falling sales. It’s a disaster arising from deliberate government policy. Supermarkets, traditionally the least profitable of businesses because of the social contract to not rip people off on the necessities of life, no longer honour their social contract.

Parents in Queensland are travelling up to 800 kilometres to access specialist maternity care because parliament has found a billion dollars for Ukraine yet cannot find a cent for Yeppoon, Bowen and the 33 other Queensland towns that have lost their maternity wards. Hospitals in many Queensland rural centres are still called hospitals, yet only offer the services of a GP clinic.

Australian families are living in the tent cities appearing right across our beautiful country. I’ve visited many of these in Queensland, and the sense of betrayal is palpable—and people should feel betrayed. The Senate, as the house of review, has betrayed the very people who trusted us with their vote and who trusted us to have their best interests at heart. Although our Senate does have foreign affairs powers, convention dictates the Senate stays out of foreign affairs and concentrates on domestic matters. It’s time to make that convention great again. Let’s spend our time driving the government to do better to look after Australians. Let’s look after all Australians— all who are here—first.

/by

The Greens’ War on Coal

,

The Greens’ war on coal is fuelled by misinformation. Modern coal is particulate free, and gas recovery technology on new coal fired power plants captures and converts steam stack gas into essential products like fertilizer, AdBlue, ethanol and even explosives, resulting in zero gasses being released into the atmosphere.

Coal mines are remediated to return the land to its original state.  Many Australian mines have already transformed into productive pastures.  In the long term, coal mines do not damage the country; rather, it’s industrial wind and solar that do. Blasting the tops off mountains to install industrial wind turbines is permanent environmental destruction.

Coal is essential for the health of our grid, for providing breadwinner jobs and to ensure prosperity of rural communities.

Transcript

The Greens misinformation on coal has gone on long enough. Fifty thousand Australians rely directly on the coal industry for their livelihood. Given the services to coalmines, add another 50,000 people that coal keeps afloat in mining communities—actually, it’s much, much more than an additional 50,000, with a reported multiplier across Australia of six times the number of jobs directly from mines. They’re communities that, if this unscientific rubbish from the Greens goes on much longer, the Greens will decimate. 

Modern coal plants are free from particulates and noxious gases. The only thing that leaves their steam stacks is water vapour and carbon dioxide: nature’s fertilisers. Australian and international firms now offer a process to capture those gases and convert them to productive things like fertiliser, AdBlue and ethanol—some things that the Greens will need so they can keep blasting the tops off mountains for wind turbines; that’s explosives. With this new capture and conversion technology, coal uses fewer resources and has a smaller environmental footprint than any nature-dependent power the Greens can advocate. 

Coal is not damaging to the environment. To those who post photos online of coalmines, alleging environmental vandalism and that the planet is boiling, please tell the whole story and please tell the truth. Coalmines are rehabilitated after use. A few moments ago I posted a link to the New Hope Group’s website, showing the remediation of their coalmines that I’ve personally inspected. It’s beautiful green countryside supporting thousands of cattle and in turn supporting rural communities. Mines remediate; that is fact. And damage from wind turbines and their access road construction is permanent; that is fact. 

Under current legislation, mining must pay into a bond fund to pay for remediation. No such provision exists for the net zero madness. Once this orgy of taxpayer and electricity-user subsidies is exhausted, these solar and wind companies will sell their installations into a shell company and scoot on back to whatever foreign tax haven in which they’re based. On humanitarian and environmental grounds, One Nation opposes this reckless, destructive Greens motion. Taxpayers will be left to clean up the mess. Communities will be destroyed, and it will cost electricity users and taxpayers tens of billions of dollars more to clean up after this insane green nightmare. 

/by

A Bill to Correct Gender Definitions and Protect Women is Rejected!

,

I support Pauline’s Bill to correct the definitions of men and women under the Sex Discrimination Act. I highlighted that sometimes the law can be absurd, asserting that if someone identifies as female, they are legally recognised as such, regardless of physical evidence to the contrary.

I used my own height as an example: just because I claim to be 6 feet tall (when I’m actually 5 feet 4 inches) doesn’t make it true. This law is delusional.

I also raised concerns about men who identify as women invading spaces meant for biological females, such as public restrooms, as well as biological men competing against women in sports, like boxing, which leads to disgracefully, unfair matches. I want to clarify that my criticism isn’t directed at diverse lifestyles or same-sex relationships; rather, it’s about the infringement on women’s rights by those who misidentify their biological reality.

Transcript

This bill, the Sex Discrimination Amendment (Acknowledging Biological Reality) Bill 2024, needs to be sent to committee to ensure that sensible and reasonable discussion can address the inherent error that exists in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. It’s been said that sometimes the law is an ass—or an arse, some say! What this means is that sometimes a law is made, validly through parliament, that contains a blatant, obvious, overt, logically impossible, glaring factual error. There are many examples. The error in this case is that a mistaken concept from simply saying something, perhaps based on a mistaken belief, becomes a fact, but it’ll never become a fact because it is not the truth. 

The mistake made in the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 is that if a person identifies as a particular gender such as female, despite biological evidence to the contrary, they should at law be considered female. This law is insane and delusional, and only normalises those persons with the illness called gender dysphoria when they should be receiving psychiatric care, support and loving compassion. I’m not talking about people who have a preference to partner with a person of the same gender, or those who prefer to dress in the style of a person of the opposite gender to which they were born. I’m not talking about those persons who are born with both male and female genitalia—true hermaphrodites, who are very few in number but nonetheless exist. For me to identify as being two metres tall does not make me that tall; that’s the way it is. Thinking it or saying it does not make it true. The Australian basketball team, the Boomers, is not going to select me to join the team. Passing a law that says I am two metres tall does not make it true. That’s the stupidity and falsehood of the effect of the current Sex Discrimination Act 1984—a true example of what George Orwell predicted could happen in a future chaotic world. 

The women’s rights movement took a massive leap backwards when Julia Gillard’s changes to discrimination law started. It made possible the extreme examples where definitions of what constitutes male and female became blurred. We’re now confronted with issues where a female enters a female-only space such as a public toilet and confronts a person claiming to be female who is visibly and biologically male. He is invading her space. She may well be fearful of her personal safety and privacy. That’s very important to consider. 

Women have fought hard for equal rights only to have pseudo-women, not biological women, attack women’s rights, wanting to access the privileges of women-only spaces and opportunities. The encroachment of pseudo-women into women’s sports events became a debacle at the recent Olympic Games, when a biological male claiming to be female battered women into submission to win a boxing gold medal. Battering women into submission is now a recognised sport because the International Olympic Committee is afraid to confront the truth. At the hands of the Greens and Labor, this insanity that defies and contradicts biology and defies science is overriding women’s rights. The biologically male boxer used his strength and physical male advantage to defeat all the true women opponents in the lead-up events. This has led to the world condemnation of the Olympic committee, and I note the International Boxing Federation bans biological males from competing against biological females, as do an increasing number of international sporting bodies. These are all real issues that this bill would address and would do so simply by reasserting biological definitions of what constitutes a male and a female. 

I support the amendment to move this bill to the committee for inquiry. The people of Australia need to have a say. Julia Gillard’s bill did not give the people a say. This Senate can rectify this. Let’s listen to the people. Let’s engage in honest inquiry, and I must point out Senator Hanson is a woman. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I do remind you, when referring to former prime ministers, to use the correct title. The question is that Senator Hanson’s amendment to Senator Gallagher’s amendment to the Selection of Bills Committee report be agreed to. 

The Senate divided. [11:40] 

(The President—Senator Lines) 

/by

Net-Zero Advocates Confronted with Reality

,

For years, net-zero campaigners have refused to admit that wind and solar cannot keep the lights on during the evening and morning peaks. Climate realists using the phrase “when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow” have been mocked for years. 

That ridicule has now gone down the memory hole and net-zero advocates are now acknowledging the truth of that statement by introducing a policy called “firming.” This involves the process of storing electricity generated during the day for use during peak demand in the evening and morning—exactly what I’ve been saying for 15 years. 

The issue here is the cost: batteries and pumped hydro costs a fortune and batteries only last 10 to 15 years before needing replacement. There’s also an energy loss to consider—batteries lose about 10% of the energy put into them and another 10% on the way out, while pumped hydro uses more electricity to pump water uphill than it generates on the way down. 

I asked the Minister about the cost of “firming,” and her answer was quite embarrassing — she didn’t know. It’s likely to exceed $100 billion. 

Transcript | Question Time

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister. Minister, during evening and morning peak hours, electricity generation from industrial solar and wind averages just 10 per cent of rated capacity, because solar doesn’t work in the dark, and wind goes quiet at night. Big batteries can transfer electricity from daytime to the evening peak. Minister, how much battery capacity is your government planning to build to maintain electricity supply between sunset and sunrise?

Senator McAllister: I thank Senator Roberts for the question. The senator is right to point to the fact that Australia’s electricity system is changing. We have, as I think most senators understand, a fleet of ageing coal-fired power stations that require replacement. I can tell you: they are not getting any more reliable. In fact, over the last year, I don’t think there’s been a day when we haven’t had a circumstance where at least one of the coal-fired power generators in the national electricity market has been offline for one kind of maintenance or another. Of course, this arises because we went through nearly a decade when the coalition, while in government, did not land an energy policy. They had 22 policies; none of them landed. Our task as government—

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

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order. Standing order 70 (3) (c) says, ‘Answers shall be directly relevant to each question.’ I asked about how much battery capacity your government is planning to build to maintain electricity supply between sunset and sunrise.

The PRESIDENT: I will draw the minister to your question.

Senator McAllister: Of course, our task is actually to restore some measure of order to the energy system so that the investors who build the generation capacity that is necessary to power homes and businesses have the confidence to invest. And that is what the Capacity Investment Scheme has been designed to do. We have just been through a round of the Capacity Investment Scheme where we received very significant commitment to underwriting very significant battery capacity. We do understand the significance of this technology. What the experts tell us is the most cost-effective way to establish a national energy market that can meet the energy requirements of Australian homes and businesses is a combination of wind, of solar, of batteries and of gas, and that is the policy setting that we— (Time expired)

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, you couldn’t tell me the battery capacity your government is planning to build, so you may not be able to answer this question. But let’s just say ‘yes’ or ‘no’, please. What is the capital cost of that battery backup, and how much of that bill will taxpayers pay? Simple.

The PRESIDENT: I will just wait for silence, particularly on my left. This is Senator Roberts’s question.

Senator McAllister: As I have indicated previously to questions asked by Senator Roberts in this chamber, the cost of the transition is regularly estimated out to 2050 by AEMO, and it is included in the Integrated System Plan, which is regularly published and updated. Different states have different arrangements in terms of the ownership and investment in generation, and so the investment that will take place will look different depending on the ownership arrangements that are in place across the national electricity market. However, we understand that there is a measure of support required from the Commonwealth government, and it is why we have put in place the Capacity Investment Scheme which aims to provide support for those who are seeking to invest in new capacity, whether it is in batteries or other forms of generation in the national electricity market.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: So the minister cannot tell us the battery capacity required, nor the capital cost of that battery backup. So, Minister, AEMO is working off a figure of 60 gigawatt hours of storage at around $1 billion an hour, which is $60 billion. How much will electricity prices and supermarket prices rise as a result of having to spend that staggering amount of money?

Senator McAllister: Well, the one thing I can say is that we will take advice from the experts about the optimal investment that’s necessary to build out the national electricity market. It’s a different approach to the one taken by those opposite, because right now we have a coalition government whose plan is to invest taxpayers’ money in the most expensive form—

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat.

Senator McKenzie: You can’t tell us how expensive yours will be!

The PRESIDENT: I’m waiting, Senator McKenzie! Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance. I didn’t ask about the coalition government, as you said. I asked about the Labor government now.

The PRESIDENT: I will draw the minister to your question, Senator Roberts. And while I have the attention of the chamber, I will ask senators, particularly those on my left, to listen in respectful silence. Minister McAllister.

Senator Thorpe: You lefties need to listen!

The PRESIDENT: Senator Thorpe, that includes you! Order! Minister, please continue.

Senator McAllister: Thanks very much, President. The senator asked about our plans. The Capacity Investment Scheme will deliver 32 gigawatts of renewable and clean dispatchable capacity to fill emerging
reliability gaps. The truth is that will put downward pressure on prices, because one of the consequences of the failed policies of those opposite is that we do have capacity capabilities that need to be filled because energy capacity is leaving the market and it has not been replaced. We are taking steps necessary to replace it. (Time expired)

Transcript | Take Note of Questions

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer from the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator McAllister, to a question without notice I asked today relating to energy. 

My question was quite simple: how much is the government’s net zero policy going to cost just for firming? Firming is the provision of what used to be called stable, synchronised baseload power to keep the lights on when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining. Firming wasn’t needed when we had coal power because coal plants provide stable, synchronised baseload power day and night. Solar and wind don’t. 

AEMO estimates Australia will need 65 gigawatt hours of firming to guarantee grid stability. Depending on the time of year, that storage will need to be refilled each day to get the grid through the next night, including most of the evening and morning peak hours. Australia’s energy consumption in 2023-24 shows that, in summer, for the morning peak hours we needed 36 gigawatt hours of power and for the evening peak hours 28 gigawatt hours. So AEMO’s figure of 65 gigawatt hours of firming is about right. The $64 billion expense—billion dollar expense—will be added to every Australian’s power bill, or it will go onto your taxes. Either way, under the Albanese government you will pay. 

The $64 billion cost is just for one night. These batteries need to be refilled the next day with power from the grid. That means that every day we need a huge amount of solar and wind just to charge the batteries. One wet day preventing large-scale generation from solar and wind means the batteries will not be recharged, resulting in blackouts and energy management that I’ll discuss tomorrow. It’s clear that 65 gigawatts of capacity at $64 billion is not enough to avoid blackouts. We’ll probably need twice that, as well as having to build extra solar and wind just to charge the batteries. 

Everyday Australians are up for hundreds of billions of dollars just for firming. That’s in addition to the electricity needed on any day. This is an insane impost on every Australian struggling with paying for their groceries and insurance and with the cost of living under Labor. End the net zero mandates now. 

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by