Posts

Labor and the Greens have decided you have too much stuff

This week the Safeguard Mechanism Bill will pass after a dodgy Labor deal with the Greens and David Pocock.

More than 200 of the largest companies in this country will have to cut their production. There’ll be less electricity, less essential goods and they’ll all be more expensive.

Just remember, you are the carbon they want to reduce.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Australia and particularly Queensland, I speak on the Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting Amendment) Bill 2023. Here we go again! Once more, the Labor government is putting a Liberal-National climate policy on steroids in a race to see how quickly both of them can destroy our beloved country to appease their globalist masters.

Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese are building, in this bill, on the safeguard mechanism that Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt introduced in 2015. This bill establishes a new form of carbon credits—or, more correctly, carbon dioxide credits, or, more correctly, a carbon dioxide tax—naming them safeguard mechanism credit units, or SMCs. You might ask: what is a safeguard mechanism credit unit defined as? Is it nine cow farts worth? Ten burps? The entire concept of counting carbon dioxide emissions is a scam; it’s a fraud. While we can poke fun at the scam, the lack of detail in this bill is incredibly serious. Do not let the title fool anyone. The definition of a safeguard mechanism credit is not in the bill. If the parliament passes this bill, we’ll just have to trust the minister or some bureaucrat to tell us later.

The biggest producers of goods in this country will be told to cut their production of carbon dioxide, with the amount not defined in the bill. It may be 4.9 per cent a year. If they don’t, they’ll be forced to buy undefined carbon dioxide credits—an undefined carbon dioxide tax. I use the word ‘producers’ deliberately because this bill will apply to companies in this country that actually make something—or what’s left of them. Because they’ve been forced to buy carbon dioxide credits, these companies will be forced to make less of the things they make and be forced to make them more expensive. It doesn’t matter what fancy scheme the government wants to dress this up as; it is a carbon dioxide tax. It’s a tax on production, and we all know that whenever we tax something we get less of it.

Take a look around at everything you have right now—your phone, your house, your car. If you want a new one in the future, or more things for your children, too bad; the Labor government has decided Australians have too much already and what’s left will only be for the rich, who can afford it. The Greens will smear and label me again for simply telling the truth, yet I believe we should come to parliament to make Australia prosper—not force unnecessary scarcity to appease the sun gods and the climate carpetbaggers. That’s the general rule that should be followed for a prosperous Australia: do what’s in the national interest.

Let’s look at the globalists. This legislation is not in Australia’s interest. Gutless politicians are doing it all to satisfy unelected and unaccountable foreign organisations. All of Australia’s climate legislation has abundant references to satisfying our international commitments, including the UN’s Kyoto protocol, the UN’s Paris Agreement, the UN Agenda 21, UN 2050 net zero and so on and on, with the UN World Economic Forum alliance. The creators of these international agreements are unelected and unaccountable. These foreign bureaucrats believe the prosperity of Australians should come second to their desire to transfer wealth from our people into the hands of predatory billionaires. Don’t be fooled. While this supposedly green pipedream dresses itself as virtuous, the billionaires of the world have untold amounts invested in wind, solar, batteries, green hydrogen and other scams in which they demand a return. Having predictably failed in the free market, they must now hijack international organisations to pressure governments into the forced uptake of their failed investments. With such large amounts of money at stake, the billionaires can afford to buy guns for hire at many different levels.

The teal Independents—Monique Ryan, Allegra Spender, Zoe Daniel, Kylea Tink, Sophie Scamps and Zali Steggall—all peculiarly made submissions to the consultation paper for this bill, arguing it should go even further. Did they declare their clear conflicts of interest? Collectively, the teals received millions of dollars from Climate 200 for their election campaign. Climate 200’s principal donor, Simon Holmes a Court, has massive investments in wind, solar, battery and hydrogen scams. He, along with many other climate billionaires, will benefit hugely from this bill’s passage. It seems the teals’ calls for transparency don’t apply to them and donations aren’t dirty if they come from ‘sugar daddy and carpetbagger’ Holmes a Court. Equally, in this debate I hope Senator David Pocock declares the same conflict of interest that arises from Climate 200’s donations to his campaign, making him a teal. This bill allows the climate billionaires to harvest taxpayer money through their scams like carbon capture, locking up productive farms and other cons. What schemes will be entitled to harvest taxpayer money? What will be the criteria for being accepted? What integrity checks will be in place? Nothing.

Some years ago, Euro poll stated ’95 per cent of Europe’s carbon dioxide trading is tainted with corruption’. Nothing in this bill has the answers. We just have to wait for a minister or a bureaucrat to tell us later, after the Senate has passed the bill, giving them incredible power. We do know that the safeguard mechanism credits will be defined as ‘eligible international emissions units’, meaning they will be able to be traded overseas, globally. As even the Australian Financial Markets Association noted during consultation: ‘There is no good reason for making the credits internationally trade-able’—other than perhaps helping the globalist billionaires suck the country dry.

Let’s look at the carbon dioxide credits whitewash. There are too many problems with this bill to fully address in just 15 minutes. We can’t let that time pass, though, without acknowledging one of the greatest exercises in political whitewashing this parliament has seen—the Chubb carbon dioxide credits review. Australian National University environmental law professor and expert, Professor Andrew Macintosh, said Australia’s carbon market is a fraud on the environment, suffers from a distinct lack of integrity and is potentially wasting billions of dollars in taxpayer’s money. In response to this scathing criticism of the integrity of the carbon dioxide credit system, energy minister Chris Bowen rushed to appoint a panel to review the integrity of carbon dioxide credits, an independent panel, supposedly, but how independent can a government-appointed panel really be?

People will be shocked. The government appointed a somehow independent panel and claimed there was nothing to see here. It made a few superficial recommendations and gave the carbon dioxide credit industry a great big fat tick. As Macintosh responded on January 2023: ‘The review panel acknowledge the scientific evidence criticising the carbon credits scheme,’ but says, ‘It was also provided with evidence to the contrary yet it did not disclose what that evidence was or what it relates to. The public is simply expected to trust that the evidence exists.’ That is an environmental professor seeing right through this. What are they hiding? The Chubb review was a complete sham, designed to give a scam-filled industry a green tick of health to pave the way for this bill. With Ian Chubb’s whitewash review conveniently in place, Labor has given itself permission to rush this bill through, while the scientists who originally raised the integrity issues scream that none of the protests have been addressed. Chubb has repeatedly taken money from Liberal-National and Labor-Greens federal governments to peddle unfounded, false and scary claims. He is a paid gun for hire to push the government line.

Next let us consider the fact, the fact, that we are already at net zero. Why do we need a carbon dioxide credit scheme anyway? As I explained to this chamber in September last year, Australia is already at net zero. Where is the confetti, the streamers, the champagne, the celebrations? Taken directly from clause 4 of the Paris agreement, and as Assistant Minister McAllister in the debate of the climate change bill said:

Net zero is a balance between human production of emissions and removal of those emissions by environmental sinks.

Our country has so many forests that Australia already sequesters or sinks three times more carbon dioxide than we produce. Then when you consider the fact that we are entirely surrounded by oceans, it is even more so. Even to people foolishly believing Australia needs to carry out the net zero kamikaze mission, on net zero we are already the world’s heroes without doing a damn thing.

Let us look at the delegated powers. While the entire concept on which this bill is based is flawed, the way it operates seems to be even worse. The Safeguard Mechanism (Crediting) Amendment Bill 2022 is a shell containing little detail about how the largest producers, manufacturers and resource companies will be regulated. Instead, the bill places huge power in the minister, with out-of-touch federal bureaucrats in the Canberra bubble left to later fill in the detail.

To my colleagues in this chamber: I urge you to please think carefully about the process this bill implements. This is not a vote on some companies cutting production by five per cent—4.9 per cent, five per cent; that number is not even in this bill. It is another ministerial power to decide. This is a bill to give the minister a blank cheque for who this policy will apply to, how much they will be forced to cut, how quickly they will be forced to do it and much, much more.

While some people may consider the current proposal reasonable and proportionate, this nearly unlimited power will almost certainly be abused in the future. Almost all of this policy will be made via legislative instrument, an executive dictate from the minister. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Senate granting this wide-open power over some of the most significant changes to our economy is unconscionable. The design of this bill to minimise parliamentary scrutiny—the deliberate design of this bill to minimise parliamentary scrutiny—spits in the face of the parliament, spits in the face of democracy and spits in the face of the Australian people who you are meant to serve in this chamber.

Let’s think about the consultation. Predictably, we can assume that Labor will—wrongly—assure us that they have consulted widely on this bill. Just like we saw the Treasurer wanting to ‘start a conversation’ about tearing down the economic fabric of our country, Labor’s consultation process is a sham designed to give them cover for doing whatever they please. To consult means actually listening. Labor has no intention of listening. Numerous stakeholders noted the staggered release of the draft bill, the legislative instruments and the Chubb review. Combined, these steps limited the ability to consider the implications of the proposed reforms. How can Labor claim to have consulted, when many of the detailed operational elements of this entire policy are contained in legislative instruments which do not yet exist? How could anyone be consulted on those legislative means? That’s not unusual for Labor.

The bill is unfounded. It is damaging for Australia—it is suicidal—and it is we the people who will pay. One Nation opposes this bill and, if passed, will work to unwind it and tear down the global climate scam that drives this bill.

I want to make a couple more comments—basic questions. Why are China and India not doing what this Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock coalition government is doing? Why is Russia not doing it? Why are we punishing Australian families, employers and workers? Why can the other countries have the benefit of our high-quality coal and gas, hydrocarbon fuels, yet we cannot? Think about the primacy of energy; it’s in everything. We’re killing our productive capacity and our children’s future.

Secondly, the costs of the Labor-Greens-teal-Pocock bill are extraordinarily high. Why are we punishing Australian employers and families? Remember that primacy of energy. That will see prices skyrocketing continually.

Thirdly, there’s no justification in science for cutting carbon dioxide from human activity—no empirical scientific data, no logical scientific points to back this up. I’ve asked them, and they’ve repeatedly run. There’s no specific quantified effect of carbon dioxide from human activity, none at all. There’s conclusive evidence from two global experiments that overwhelmingly prove that cutting carbon dioxide from human activity has no effect. In 2009 and 2020 we had global recessions, almost depressions, and the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued to increase, despite dramatic cuts in carbon dioxide from human activity. It’s pointless. Nature alone determines the level of carbon dioxide. Humans have no effect.

Let’s ask the fourth question. Why are we following in the footsteps of crooks? The father of global warming was senior UN bureaucrat and oil billionaire Maurice Strong. He morphed it into climate change, climate apocalypse and climate breakdown. He was involved in the UN food-for-oil scandal. He was involved in corruption in the water systems of the western United States. He exiled himself in China, running away from the American police. He formed the UN’s climate body that is really a political body. He was the director and founder of the Chicago Climate Exchange, aiming to make billions of dollars trading carbon dioxide credits, like Al Gore’s company, Generation Investment Management. The whole thing is a scam to make billionaires richer, and you in Labor and you in the Greens are following in the footsteps of a crook, Maurice Strong.

/23 Comments/by

The “Climate Crisis” was started by a criminal!

The “Climate Crisis” are the greatest fraud ever perpetuated on Australians. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was started by a criminal yet this is who governments point to for justification of country destroying climate policies.

The question is, are the people who go along with the scam fools, or complicit?

Transcript

One Nation will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders. The real question is something that lies beneath this suspension order request, and that is: are the Greens patsies and fools, or are they complicit in fraud? They’re claiming an escalating climate emergency—a climate breakdown. Here we go again, with no data to back it up. We know that the Greens have never provided any empirical scientific evidence or logical scientific points to back up their assertion of an escalating climate emergency. 

I challenged Senator Waters to a debate in public in 2010—13 years ago—and she still will not debate me. She jumped to her feet and said, ‘I will not debate you.’ I’ve challenged her again, almost daily and weekly since 9 September. 

Senator Waters: Leave me alone! 

Senator Roberts: Now we hear calls of: ‘Leave me alone. I haven’t got the data.’ No. There is no evidence the Greens have that backs up their claim. 

Secondly— 

Senator Cox: Read the report. 

Senator Roberts: I will get to the report in a minute. The second thing is (a)(ii) of the motion, the statement by the United Nations Secretary-General. Did we know that Greta Thunberg, who did not finish high school, was yesterday given an honorary doctorate in theology by the University of Helsinki? It’s a religion, this climate stuff, and the great god is the United Nations. Did you elect the United Nations Secretary-General to run our country? No. I didn’t. They’ve never been elected. 

Let’s have a look at the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports. The first, in 1990, was built on fraud, but even that showed that the medieval warming period was warmer than today’s temperatures. That was quickly whipped out of the United Nations next report, in 1995. The scientists gathered under the UN banner said there was no evidence of warming due to human production of carbon dioxide. Yet Ben Santer, one of the scientists, went in and changed that report and presented it in 1995 based on a fraud.

In 2001, 2007, 2013 and 2020 there were reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Let’s look at chapter 12. In each of those reports there was only one sole chapter claiming warming and attributing it to carbon dioxide from human activity. In 2001 it was chapter 12. In 2007 it was chapter 9. In 2013 it was chapter 10. Not one of those reports’ sole chapters claiming warming and attributing it to human carbon dioxide contains any evidence for that claim. It’s the same in 2020. 

The Deputy President: Senator Whish-Wilson, do you have a point of order? 

Senator Whish-Wilson: I can put up a lot in this chamber, but having Senator Roberts directly yell at me from five feet away is very difficult to take. Could you ask him to address the chair, as he should according to parliamentary rules? 

The Deputy President: He was going through me, but it’s a lesson to us all to speak through the chair. 

Senator Roberts: We always see that when someone has no evidence they rely upon slurs, innuendo and misrepresentation. Thank you for not being able to challenge my argument. 

Let’s have a look at the basis of this United Nations report. Maurice Strong was a crook. He died in 2015 after returning from self-imposed exile in China.

Maurice Strong started the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a political tool to get his way for his objectives globally. Maurice Strong started the Chicago Climate Exchange. He was a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange. He sought to make billions of dollars of profit from the Chicago Climate Exchange. He was then pursued for the oil-for-food scandal in the United Nations—complicit; another scandal in the United Nations. He was also wanted by American law-enforcement agencies for serious crimes in the United States, including one very big crime in western United States. He fled in exile. He’s a crook!

That’s what the Greens are basing their policies on. That’s what the Labor Party is basing its policies on. That’s what the Liberals and Nationals, with a few exceptions—I note Senator Rennick—are basing their policies on. These policies that are destroying everyday Australians’ lives economically, socially, mentally and morally are based upon a crook, and you’ve fallen for it. What’s more, you’re now getting the people of Australia to pay for it. That is inhuman, it’s irresponsible and it’s dishonest. Are the Greens guilty of fraud or are they simply patsies and fools? 

I note that China produces 4.5 billion tonnes of coal and gets more of our coal, while we’re not allowed to use the 500 million tonnes that we produce in this country. They produce nine times as much and yet they have got no agreement for 2050 net zero.

This is fraud, and this is why we will not support this suspension. 

/48 Comments/by

Bills go up $1,150 a month under Labor

No you’re not going crazy, life is getting far too expensive.

It’s not going to get any better. Albanese is pouring fuel on the fire, putting more of your taxes into green projects that will make your electricity bill more expensive.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people across Queensland who make up our amazing Queensland community, I’m speaking to Senator Canavan’s matter of public importance motion. This MPI quite fairly criticises the Albanese Labor government for their record of promises already broken, including a promise not to raise taxation and a promise not to change superannuation.

The Prime Minister is now raising tax on unrealised earnings of large superannuation funds. Way to go! Labor are running a two-for-one sale on broken promises, just in time for the New South Wales state election, where 5½ million voters are going to ask themselves: ‘Do I trust Labor with government? Will they keep their promises?’ 

To be fair, the Albanese government has not resorted to dividing promises into core and non-core promises—yet. But wait; it’s early days. Their promise to bring down the cost of living is already broken. Today, Brisbane’s Courier Mail newspaper reported that an average household in Queensland now has to spend an additional $1,150 a month to pay their bills and keep a roof over their head. That is a hell of a lot of money for everyday Australians to find every month.

The Labor government is wrongly trying to blame international pressures for gas price rises. Gas was already increasing rapidly before the Ukraine conflict. The gas price rise has nothing to do with war between countries and everything to do with the war on coal. As the government closes down energy-intensive coal power and introduces more weather dependent solar and wind power, the grid needs more and more gas to firm the supply and maintain reliable power. 

Household gas is costing more as large electricity generators bid in the market for the gas they need to keep the electricity grid functioning. Increasing gas prices are demand inflation. Housing price rises are demand inflation. Four hundred thousand new Australians arrived in the last 12 months—$400,000—all needing houses in which to live. Of course the price was going to rise. No wonder the Albanese government changed their election promise from ‘cheaper power’ to ‘power going up less quickly’.  

Every coolroom in every farm and dairy, and every Coles store and every other supermarket is now more expensive to run. Every bakery, restaurant, butcher, store and shopping centre is passing on huge increases in power prices. Mortgage repayments are rising because the previous government’s money printing caused increasing interest rates. Labor went right along with those measures and is equally to blame for the inflation that that’s now caused.

Last week, Treasurer Jim Chalmers recklessly, wrongly, uncaringly, claimed the worst of inflation is over. Really? On what basis? New South Wales voters should not believe that for a moment. Inflation is a direct result of this government’s core energy and spending policies.

And this government is not going away until 2025.  

/2 Comments/by

Labor rams through communist style control over the gas industry

, ,
In an abuse of Parliamentary process and at great expense to the taxpayer, Anthony Albanese has called everyone back to Canberra for one day to pass his thought bubble that will not bring electricity prices down.

While capping gas prices might sound good in the short term, in the long term it will mean less supply and more expensive power prices when the cap runs out in 12 months.

Instead, we need to remove all of the wind and solar subsidies. Let coal do its job as a reliable baseload power and remove the roadblocks for nuclear energy.

Wind and solar caused this energy crisis, capping gas prices won’t fix it.

Transcript

President, as a servant to the many varied and hard-working people in our QLD community, I’m happy to travel back to Canberra for this session while recognising that due to yet another Labor-Greens-Teal rushed bill many senators cannot.

I’ve submitted a document discovery today to find out exactly how much taxpayers’ money was wasted on this disgusting spectacle.

It would have been wise for the Government to work out what we were returning for prior to recalling the Senate, instead of this chaos to get a bill ready at 9.30pm the night before.

With no Committee oversight, no public scrutiny, no industry scrutiny, a shocking bill rammed through courtesy of the ALP, Greens and Teals Senator Pocock in a single day, in return for quid pro quos next year.

There’s a point where the process this Government uses to get Greens’ and Teal Senator Pocock’s support moves past what is proper into very questionable territory.

Under this bill, the gas industry is being murdered for the financial benefit of rival industries – wind and solar, who are financial supporters of the Greens and Teal Senator Pocock.

It should be clear by now the Albanese Labor Party are not the ones running the country. In the senate, the Greens-Teal Pocock alliance run government.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022, has I’sure been met with popping champagne corks from comrades on the labour left.

Soviet-level powers right there, in the Government’s grasp.

The Government regulation will decree what gas can be sold, to whom it can be sold, for how much it can be sold, who can be refused permission to buy or sell and who can be forced to buy and sell.

The Greens and Teals can’t wait to write those regulations.

A frightening power grab from a desperate government without a clue how to solve the energy crisis it helped create and now worsen.

What industry will be next?

Don’t be fooled with this talk about temporary price caps. This legislation includes a code of conduct with permanent price controls built in.

How much will that ongoing cap be?

This is done through Legislative Instrument, so whatever the cap is, the Commissar, Minister can change it at the stroke of a pen with no appeal mechanism.

Make no mistake if this bill is passed those regulations will escalate in lockstep with the Government’s desperation to control runaway energy inflation caused from escalating power shortages.

Under the Liberal/National government, tens of billions of dollars in direct subsidies have been poured into unreliable wind and solar.

These are incapable of supplying baseload power at an affordable price.

Because the market has not closed hydrocarbon power down as fast as climate bed-wetters want, coal-fired power stations are now being threatened with closure using State Government powers.

This is what is known in finance as political risk.

As the supply of electricity becomes less reliable, afternoon price spikes are becoming common place and everyone’s power bills go up.

There’s a lesson here. Intervening in energy markets to push a political ideology has unintended consequences.

With this legislation Australia is preparing to take our place alongside the Weimar republic, Yugoslavia, Hungary and Venezuela on the list of Governments who ignored history and as a result destroyed their economies.

Venezuela should be a lesson for Australia. Socialist President Maduro spent his first term in 2012 spending every cent the Government earned from oil exports.

Windfall revenue was spent on programs that sounded good on social media, yet proved unsustainable.

Australia is spending every cent we earn from coal, gas and mineral exports just like Venezuela.

When the oil boom ended, Maduro started printing money to keep wasteful government spending going.

Australia over the last three years printed $500bn using electronic journal entries.

Maduro’s print and spend caused prices to double each week, and Maduro responded with price controls.

Australia’s inflation rate is at a 30-year high, nothing like Venezuela’s, and yet we have price controls being introduced with this bill.

Price controls cover up the problem. They never solve it. They make it worse.

To take such an authoritarian measure is an indication that something has this Government and the Premiers spooked – likely the REAL inflation rate that will result from net zero measures?

Time will tell.

The way in which a western country like Venezuela lost control of their economy should be a warning to Australia.

For three years ’print & spend’ measures have been waived through on Liberal, National, Greens and Labor uni-party voices.

Labor did not inherit Scott Morrison’s mess, Labor in the states were part of Scott Morrison’s mess.

Whether our inflation rate from this point forward moves up or down is squarely in the Government’s hands.

A small number of people in the government think they are smarter than the free market.

The same free market has for generations successfully combined hundreds of thousands of workers with hundreds of billions of dollars of capital equipment, in order to successfully manage trillions of dollars in mineral resources for the lowest cost to the consumer.

Now though, our Federal and State Labor Governments, together with the fake Christian, fake Conservative NSW Government of Matt Kean and Dom Perrottet, think this piece of legislation will fix what they broke.

So much hubris combined with so little knowledge of history & economics will be the downfall of our beautiful country.

Veneztralia here we come.

In six months the Albanese government has steered Australia from ‘welfare liberalism’ to socialism.

Next port of call will be ‘statism’ before Labor reach their ultimate destination – communism.

I notice some commentators have been calling for the Government to penalty tax the very high profits being experienced in the minerals industry in recent years.

Instead of making money for taxpayers the Prime Minister decided instead to just destroy those profits, so the shareholders don’t get them, the tax man doesn’t get them, nobody gets them AND the taxpayers are paying $1.5bn a year in subsidies from our debt-financed budget.

$1.5bn over two years is only one percent of the household and small business electricity market, this measure is more public relations than realistic assistance.

One Nation will not be wedged on this payment. Borrowing money from Australians to give back to Australians is a pointless exercise. It literally transfers money from children to their parents.

Responsible parents do not fall for this.

It is a sugar hit that takes attention away from why electricity prices are so high.

Rising electricity prices come from several different aspects of the government’s net zero transition, which, for clarity is a transition away from cheap and reliable, coal baseload power to fairy tale, nature-dependent solar and wind power.

Treasury are projecting electricity prices will rise 36% next year. If passed this bill will reduce that rise 6.5%, and if the States cap the coal price this will save another 6.5%.

In any event electricity is still going up next year. Households can expect a rise of $420 using the Government’s own sums. A rise of 23%. Almost a quarter higher.

When these measures fail, and they will, the rise will be $650.

Today I submitted a motion for a document discovery on the modelling claiming the increase will be 23% not 36%. Including the element of any electricity price rise caused as a result of the Ukraine war.

I look forward to seeing this ‘modelling’

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Energy Price Relief Plan) Bill 2022 deals with gas only. The Albanese Government has dumped the coal price ceiling on to the states to avoid having to pay compensation.

John Howard’s government pulled that same bypass around the Constitution when he took property rights away from farmers to meet UN Kyoto targets without paying a cent in compensation to farmers.

The Albanese Government has joined John Howard’s government in destroying trust in Government, with the result Government must apply more and more coercive measures to govern.

Australia’s gas price has been a problem since the end of 2020. The government’s Australian Energy Regulator confirms the rise in gas prices started a full year before Russia invaded Ukraine.

Treasury and the Government spin doctors blaming Russia for electricity price rises is dishonest. Deceit.

Gas and coal price rises have resulted from the need to back up unreliable wind and solar with gas, combined with colder temperatures and a wind drought across Western Europe.

At the same time the idiots in power in Western Europe closed their coal and nuclear plants.

Gas became the only thing keeping their lights on.

Dishonestly blaming Russia instead of the correct cause – net zero energy deficits, will lead Australia down the same dishonest, inhuman path as Europe.

This bill quite simply fixes the wrong problem.

The war on coal has meant Australia cannot meet the world demand for coal and as a result prices are high, and market demand has switched to gas, those prices are now going up.

Australia has a coal and gas supply problem, not a price problem.

Australia must take the jackboot off the coal and gas industries and allow more production.

Rather than imposing old soviet-style controls on the gas industry under this bill, the Federal Government could have gone with a much simpler and less onerous option.

Western Australia has had a domestic gas reservation since 2006. This requires Gas extractors to reserve 15% of production for Australian domestic use.

This scheme has produced a gas price around $5 a gigajoule, which is production cost plus a fair profit.

Prime Minister Albanese could have used this system on a national level. He chose not to.

Instead, the Prime Minister has gone with old soviet-style legislation that will cost Australians twice as much for gas than a reservation system would have cost.

Why would they do that unless the reason for the legislation is not the price cap and is instead this bill’s industry control powers?

In two or three years’ time the public will be marching on Parliament House to protest electricity bills that are so out of control power that companies will be disconnecting people left right and centre.

Once the serious protests start this Government will reach for the permanent price controls in this bill to force coal and gas extractors to sell to electricity generators at next to nothing, just to save themselves.

There is a showdown coming in this place.

This morning Adam Bandt confirmed that the Greens and Teals are committed to eliminating the gas industry.

Hydrocarbons have lifted Australians and the world out of poverty. The Greens will cast our beautiful nation back to the dark ages.

Gas is essential to firming solar and wind, which means gas and coal are the only things keeping our lights on, our fridges running and industry functioning.

And electric vehicles running.

Without gas and coal the economy will be entirely reliant on nature dependent solar and wind power and battery backups that carry a price tag above $100bn and require renewal every 10 years.

Green energy is no energy. Eliminating gas and coal is insanity.

The Albanese Government’s proposal for a coal price cap will not reduce electricity bills and most likely, will increase them.

Coal plants buy their coal on long term supply contracts. The cost they are paying is not the spot price, it is much less.

The cap of $125 a tonne is above the contract supply price currently being paid at coal power stations, of $80 to $100 a tonne.

It is most likely that suppliers will increase their supply price of coal to $125, knowing that’s the safe limit.

A coal price rise is the most likely outcome from these measures.

A 6.5% fall is technically impossible. For the sake of argument let’s assume the price of coal in 2023 would have been $175 and is now $125 as a result of the cap.

Let’s have a quick look at the effect of that $50 a tonne reduction.

The energy density of coal is 6.7kw/h per kilo, which means one tonne of coal produces 6.7MW/h of electricity.

That’s enough to run 1600 homes in Queensland for a day.

So a $50 saving divided by 1600 homes….at the most simple level of analysis, this measure will save householders .3c a day on their electricity bills.

Not 6.5%, which is $110 a year, $11 a year.

Because coal fuel costs are a tiny portion of the coal-fired electricity price.

The Government’s measures are being sold with a deceitful public relations spin, hiding onerous, soviet-style powers that are the real reason for this legislation.

There’s another serious risk to our energy security this bill ignores – rising interest rates.

Six interest rate rises in 6 months under this Albanese Government.

Rising interest rates increase business overheads right across the energy industry.

Our electricity generation capacity must be replaced to meet ‘net zero by 2050’ –  generators, transmission lines and a whopping $100bn bill for big batteries.

Rising interest rates are pushing up the capital cost of this replacement, as well as operating costs across the energy sector.

If this Government cannot get interest rates under control the outcome will be catastrophic for taxpayers and energy consumers.

There is a better way.

Even to the global warming believers One Nation’s plan can deliver cheap, stable baseload power without upsetting your sky god of warming.

All we have to do is

  • Stop closing coal power stations;
  • Build Collinsville power station and replace Liddell with modern Hele coal;
  • Transition Australia’s coal generators to modern HELE coal.

Transitioning to clean coal and ending government handouts for renewable fairy tale solar and wind power will dramatically reduce electricity bills.

It’s time to walk away from this net zero dumpster fire.

I call on the Senate to reject this bill and say no to soviet level powers that will inevitably backfire and cause an economic and social catastrophe.

One Nation has been right to oppose net zero madness for 25 years.

We will continue to be a voice of reason, bringing better solutions to this Parliament.

Solutions that will provide everyday Australians and the businesses they rely on with opportunity and prosperity for all.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation.

/12 Comments/by

The video that got me BANNED from LinkedIn

It’s been nearly three months since the platform LinkedIn inexplicably banned me for sharing this video. Big tech censorship is getting out of control. Just imagine the consequences when getting labelled with “wrongthink” is combined with the power of a Digital Identity.

/7 Comments/by

Will sportspeople stop going woke yet?

It feels like everywhere you turn politics is mixing with sports. Is it too much to ask that sports celebrities be good at the game they are playing?

When you get down into the details of their grandstanding it never stacks up. Just play the game and do your team proud, Australia already hears enough of the politics.

Transcript

The Australian netball team rejected an offer of sponsorship from Gina Rinehart’s Hancock Prospecting because they refused to wear their logo. Who is this company our netballers rejected? Hancock Prospecting grew into one of Australia’s largest companies on the strength of their Roy Hill iron ore mine. Iron ore is still their largest product—Hancock mines coal as well. Since the Greens seem to be ignorant of metallurgy, let me educate you lot: the only way to make steel is using coal to heat iron ore. The Greens talk about green steel as an alternative—it’s not. Green steel is so brittle it’s unusable. There’s no realistic chance of green steel ever being used to replace coal-fired steel. Green steel does have a role as a photo opportunity to sustain the green steel lie designed to destroy the coal and steel industries for whatever visible reason the Greens advocate.

Australian netballers rejected steel. Senator McKim’s motion is rejecting steel. I hope that all those who feel as Senator McKim does go home tonight and rip out their steel stoves, turn off their steel fridges, throw away their steel microwaves, their cutlery, their knives, their saucepans—you get the idea. How will Senator McKim and his steel haters get home? Not in a car or even an electric vehicle. Those are made from steel and other products made with coal and hydrocarbon fuels. These other products include aluminium, glass, fibreglass and plastic. They can’t travel in a train, bus, cycle or scooter—more steel, more oil. Walking home is, of course, an option—just avoid steel-capped work boots or any boots made with steel tools. The hypocrisy in this motion is breathtaking!

Hancock Prospecting enjoys strong relations with the local Aboriginal communities, who benefited over the last seven years from mining royalties totalling $300 million. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation—coal-powered and steel-built thanks to miners.

/1 Comment/by

Net-Zero means strip mining the sea floor for rare earths

,
The Earth simply doesn’t have enough of the rare earth materials used in batteries and net-zero products to reach net-zero.

That’s even when you take into account the materials gained from strip mining the ocean floor and covering the surrounding ecosystem in silt.

One Nation supports real environmental protection, not the environmental destruction the UN net-zero is pushing.

Transcript

Unreliable, weather-dependent solar and wind power has put a price tag on our oceans. The phrase ‘blue economy’ is used to soften the ugly truth that, to achieve Australia’s transition to net zero, the world’s oceans must be strip-mined for rare-earth minerals. Batteries, solar panels and wind turbines are produced in China, in part using materials that companies, mostly Chinese, mine from the sea floor. Polymetallic nodules needed for solar panels, wind turbines and batteries lay along active volcanic rifts mostly found on the seabed. Giant vacuums suck up the seabed ecosystem to bury and choke the surrounding area in a thick layer of silt. Animals, eggs, sediment, plants—everything is taken off the seabed.

A Greenpeace research fellow, distressed with what was being done, said:

In all cases, seabed mining will, by its very nature, destroy species and habitats within the mining zones. There is no justification for a ‘gold rush’ to mine the seabed …

International waters, particularly in the Pacific, contain more value than the combined mineral wealth of Earth’s continents.

The Pacific is ground zero for this green rush, with China holding the majority of licences that the United Nations International Seabed Authority handed out. The UN International Seabed Authority supports undersea mining because it aligns with the UN’s 2030 so-called—and bogus— Sustainable Development Goals. The former head of the Office of Environmental Management and Mineral Resources at the UN International Seabed Authority is on record saying that the UN International Seabed Authority is ‘not fit to regulate any activity in international waters’ in part due to a perceived conflict of interest with mining giants. Corporations are in control, and, on behalf of those corporations, climate warriors are destroying everything they touch. Explain that to our children. We are one community, we are one nation, and we want our oceans protected from crazy climate warriors.

/2 Comments/by

So it’s come to this – Globalist push on Climate Change

,

I always speak up for what is right. Again today I will speak up for what is right. The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to exploit fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the subjugation of everyday Australians.

It’s time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control.

Transcript

So it has come to this, Madame President.

The globalists’ 50 year ‘long march through the institutions’ has come to this.

50 years of bribery, coercion and censorship of the few remaining honest scientists has come to this.

And 50 years of inciting hatred and violence against anyone who opposes the climate change agenda of ‘fear-based control’ has come to this.

Our scientists, crony corporations, political parties and mouthpiece media have failed Australia.

As a servant to the people of Queensland I have never failed to speak up for what is right and I will speak up for what is right again today.

The Climate Change Bill 2022 seeks to use fear based on fraudulent science to enshrine in legislation the ‘subjugation of everyday Australians’.

On many occasions now I have sought to alert Australians to the nightmare being planned for them.

Those many speeches, motions and bills have made little headway in mainstream media due to dodgy journalists protecting the interests of their advertisers and billionaire owners.

The public have been deceived into thinking climate change is a product of human activity and this bill is necessary to save Australia.

The truth is Australia will need to be saved from this bill.

This is not conjecture, look at the ‘net zero’ chaos overseas resulting from the scientific fraud underlying net zero. Here is just some of that.

Greening the world and growing food

According to the NASA Goddard Space Centre one quarter of the increase in carbon dioxide in the last 30 years has been absorbed into plant life, leading to an increase in forest cover.[i]

This is a demonstration of the fertilizer effect of CO2[ii].

Removing CO2 from the atmosphere will reduce the health of native forests and vegetation.

Reducing CO2 will reduce crop yields, remove food from the tables of the world’s hungry, and require the increased use of chemical fertilizers that are made from … natural gas.

An irony lost on the proponents of this bill.

The world is finding out, as Sri Lanka has found, the trade-off here is between plant food and starvation. It is that simple.

Forestation levels around the world have been rising since the 1980s because of the increase in CO2.[iii]

Australia is currently gaining forests.[iv]

Let me be clear for the disinformation media. Our continent is gaining trees, meaning the density of vegetation is improving thanks to CO2.

We are losing extent – much of that chopped down as part of green energy construction – building wind turbines, solar plants, access roads and transmission easements to take unreliable energy from where these things are being built, to where the power is needed.

13,000 hectares of native vegetation is planned for destruction just in North Queensland alone[v].

I remember when greenies hugged trees, now they chop them down.

Forests are being chopped down for biomass, also known as wood chips.

Apparently wood chips are renewable energy now[vi], spruiked on the BBC back in 2018 when the Drax coal plant was converted to burn trees imported from America in the name of reducing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.[vii]

Burning trees produces more C02 than coal[viii], but warmers never let the facts get in the way of the feels.

One Nation has always supported preserving our old-growth forests because One Nation supports real environmentalism.

Ocean Health

According to NASA one half of the increase in carbon dioxide over the last 30 years has been absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle.[ix]

Carbon is sequestrated in silt and in biological sinks. Sea grasses, mangroves, tidal swamps and wetlands all sequester carbon and thrive.[x]

Providing habitat for fish breeding.

Carbon is also an ingredient in phytoplankton, the start of the marine food chain.

The more CO2 that is produced from all sources and then absorbed in the ocean carbon cycle, the more phytoplankton is produced, leading to an increase in marine life.

Increasing populations of fish support the continued harvesting of seafood as a cheap source of protein. Something oddly opposed over there in Greensland.

The marine carbon cycle also absorbs nitrogen and phosphates coming from natural and man-made sources.

Phytoplankton absorb these elements as part of their growth cycle, producing oxygen in the process. The less carbon dioxide available to be absorbed, the less oxygenation occurs and the less healthy our oceans become.

Coral is calcium carbonate CaCO3. Some of the carbon sequestrated in the ocean has helped coral growth, probably contributing to the record coral cover across the Great Barrier Reef announced just a few weeks ago.

That is an inconvenient truth if ever I heard one.

Greening the earth mitigates increasing temperatures[xi]

A new study reported on the NASA website shows increased vegetation during the current “Greening Earth period” – their words not mine – has a strong cooling effect on the land due to increased efficiency of water vapor transfer to the atmosphere.

Without this the world would be hotter.

Increasing CO2 – plant food – fertilizers our forests, increasing transpiration, leading to more water vapour transfer, which in turn cools the earth.

Increased temperature causes increased evaporation from the oceans and that water vapour transfer also cools the earth.[xii]

We have a beautiful, self-correcting ecosystem that has maintained the earth in a liveable temperature range for millennia.

This bill is based on self-interest, arrogance and hubris, risking a natural ecosystem that will protect us from any variability in atmospheric gasses.

And always has.

Renewable power is a fairy-tale.

Madame President wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could get all our energy from the ‘Sun and wind’ for free.

That is the extent of the thought process in many Green and Teal voters.

Missing the obvious problem – Solar panels, wind turbines, transmission lines through the middle of nowhere, battery backups and access roads are not free.

The direct loss of natural habitat from wind and solar is significantly greater than any other form of power.

Three megawatts of wind or solar generation is needed to replace one megawatt of coal, hydro or nuclear.

To explain that with an example, the NSW Government’s own webpage on wind power mentions their 850MW of wind turbines generate just 1941GW of power annually.[xiii]

850MW running 24/7, if it were a coal or nuclear plant of that sized, will generate 7440GW/h per annum. The actual wind turbine output of 1941GW/h represents just 26% of rated capacity. What a joke these things are.

Solar is worse.

Battery backup

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) recently assessed the battery requirement for net zero grid stability at 60GW/h.[xiv]

Power going into a battery loses 20% in resistance, meaning 72GW/h of generation will be needed to produce 60GW/h of output.

Batteries cost about $1.5m per MW/h, meaning batteries for short term grid stability will require an investment in excess of $100bn every 10 years which is as long as they last.

This is just the start. Germany experienced an 8% reduction in output from wind and solar in the first half of 2021 owing to poor weather.[xv]

No battery can keep the lights on during a sustained period of bad weather, such as Australia has had these last two years.

Blackouts will be normal.

Nuclear is the only way to do net zero

Other countries who descended into renewable hell ahead of us are being forced to rethink to save their economies.

South Korea has given up and announced a move away from wind and solar to nuclear.[xvi]

Germany will extend their last three nuclear power plants until baseload power can be restored from gas.[xvii]

Last week the UK government announced a huge new 3200MW nuclear power plant[xviii].

Nuclear power plants across the world will grow 26% through to 2050.[xix]

Green energy Madame President is very well named, it has become glow in the dark green!

Australia can supply the world with reliable, safe coal for a lifetime, instead the world is going nuclear simply because wind and solar can’t supply reliable baseload power, and coal has been demonised.

Australia will be forced to make this same hard decision if the Climate Change Bill passes.

Insane power bills will destroy the Australia we know

Last week in the UK the household energy cap increased from $2160 to $6020. Just in one year. How can people afford that.[xx]

Commercial power has risen 600% in one year.

Widespread business closures are now likely.[xxi]

A glance at the graph of UK GDP shows citizens of the UK are less wealthy now than they were in 2007.[xxii]

The correlation of GDP stagnation with the retirement of cheap baseload power and the switch to wind and solar is undeniable.

German households are so desperate for heating, firewood is being horded and woodchips are back in commercial use.

Seriously, what’s next – candles?

Despite $250bn spent on solar and wind so far, and $250bn still to come, Germany is planning for blackouts next winter.

10% of German industry is threatened with closure and 40% are under financial pressure.[xxiii]

No wonder Prime Minister Albanese is holding a jobs summit concurrent with the Climate Change Bill.

Here is One Nation’s submission to the jobs summit.

Stop destroying cheap, reliable, coal power.

The mouthpiece media are blaming the war in Ukraine for the gas shortage in Europe, deliberating avoiding the real question-

Which is how did energy-independent nations lose their energy independence, and become reliant on Russian gas in the first place?[xxiv]

Wind and solar did that.

Is this empirical proof wind and solar are unable to sustain baseload power or is it stupidity in shutting down baseload power before replacements were built?

The answer is both.

With unrealistic and unnecessary timelines now embedded in the Climate Change Bill, Australia is about to walk the same path that has brought the rest of the world, especially the UK and Germany nothing but misery.

Cost

Wind and solar is only cost-effective to build and operate if the cost is offset with taxpayer subsidies.

Australian subsidies for wind and solar currently total $13bn every year.[xxv]

Reuters reported last week Australia will need about 40 times the total generation capacity of today’s national electricity market to achieve net zero.

This includes 1,900 GW of solar and 174 GW of wind.[xxvi]

Not megawatts, gigawatts. How is that even possible.

As a comparison Liddell coal plant is 2GW and at full capacity can supply 5% of our current energy needs.

Charging electric vehicles is a large part of this huge increase in power generation needed to reach net zero.

The $20bn cost of re-wiring the national energy grid to allow for the charging of electric cars[xxvii] dwarfs the national electricity market, which is only $11bn.[xxviii]

What will that do to power prices?

There is no costing in the Climate Change Bill because the costings are coming out at insane amounts of money.

I have an amendment to this bill standing in my name to introduce a cost benefit analysis for every government decision taken. Surely that is just prudent economic management.

Blackouts

Last week AEMO announced its latest 10-year outlook for the national electricity market, which warned of reliability “gaps” affecting New South Wales from 2025 and affecting Victoria, Queensland and South Australia from 2030.[xxix]

Gaps in this context means structural blackouts – not enough generation to meet demand.

We know today there will be catastrophic blackouts in 2025 and even worse blackouts in 2030.

What is the Government’s plan to stop the blackouts coming from coal plant closures?

There is no plan because the Climate Change Bill is not about increasing energy output, it is about forcing a reduction in energy consumption.

The Climate Change Bill is about control

The only way to achieve long term stability under net zero is to use smart meters to restrict energy use.

Germany has already started that rollout.[xxx]

The South Australian Government has also announced the rollout-out of smart meters[xxxi]

Smart meters allow the energy operator to go in and turn off any appliance in your home that is connected to the fuse box.

Air conditioners, hot water service, one or all of your light and power circuits can be switched off.

This is not intended as an emergency measure, it will be normal lie under net zero.

Big Brother will reach into your home and decide for you what appliances you can use and when.

That is terrifying in what used to be a free country.

To the Greens and Teal supporters who voted on the basis of feelings not facts can I say this.

You have been deceived.

The experience from countries ahead of us on the net zero slippery slope has been the destruction of small and medium business, the decimation of the middle class and intrusive government control.

You will have less and the elites behind this scam will have more.

We a paying for our own enslavement.

It is time to vote against creating a world where native vegetation, crop yields, the marine environment – the entire biosphere is being damaged through reducing carbon dioxide.

It is time to vote against a world where hunger and poverty will increase by design as a means of control – neo serfdom.

Have some decency.

Vote no to the Climate Change Bill 2022.

We have one flag, we are one community, we are One Nation and we are proud carbon-based life forms.

[i] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

[ii] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_fertilization_effect#:~:text=The%20CO2%20fertilization%20effect,carbon%20dioxide%20(CO2)

[iii] https://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

[iv] https://theconversation.com/every-year-in-australia-nature-grows-8-new-trees-for-you-but-that-alone-wont-fix-climate-change-146922

[v] https://stopthesethings.com/2022/01/23/getting-away-with-green-murder-wind-industry-destroying-vast-tracts-of-australian-wilderness/comment-page-1/

[vi] https://www.energy.gov.au/data/renewables

[vii] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180821-the-giant-coal-plant-converting-to-green-energy

[viii] https://ember-climate.org/insights/research/uk-biomass-emits-more-co2-than-coal/

[ix] https://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle

[x] https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2021/03/06/seagrasses-and-mangroves-can-suck-carbon-from-the-air

[xi] https://www.nasa.gov/feature/greening-of-the-earth-mitigates-surface-warming

[xii] https://carnegiescience.edu/news/water-evaporated-trees-cools-global-climate#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Carnegie’s%20Global,effect%20on%20the%20entire%20atmosphere.

[xiii] https://www.energy.nsw.gov.au/renewables/renewable-generation/wind-energy-nsw

[xiv] https://reneweconomy.com.au/energy-crisis-reminds-us-why-we-need-a-rapid-shift-to-renewables-says-aemo-chief/

[xvi] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-30/korea-pares-back-renewables-as-it-taps-nuclear-for-climate-goal?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-energy&utm_medium=social&utm_content=energy&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter

[xvii] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/could-germany-keep-its-nuclear-plants-running-2022-08-18/

[xviii] https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2022/07/20/uk-approves-new-nuclear-power-plant-in-eastern-england_5990789_4.html

[xix] https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/plans-for-new-reactors-worldwide.aspx#:~:text=In%20the%202021%20edition%20(WEO,in%20particular%20India%20and%20China.

[xx] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/08/29/listening-to-european-electricity-traders-is-very-very-scary/

[xxi] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/aug/30/thousands-of-uk-pubs-face-closure-without-energy-bills-support

[xxii] https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/gdp-per-capita#:~:text=U.K.%20gdp%20per%20capita%20for,a%206.83%25%20increase%20from%202017.

[xxiii] https://www.ft.com/content/d0d46712-6234-4d24-bbed-924a00dd0ca9

[xxiv] https://www.aicgs.org/2021/09/germany-has-a-math-problem-and-its-about-to-get-worse/

[xxv] https://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/13-billion-dolllar-cost-revealed/

[xxvi] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/massive-renewable-energy-needed-power-australia-net-zero-economy-by-2050-study-2022-08-25/

[xxvii] https://alp.org.au/policies/rewiring_the_nation#:~:text=Labor’s%20Rewiring%20the%20Nation%20will,signed%20off%20by%20all%20governments.

[xxviii] https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/Electricity/NEM/National-Electricity-Market-Fact-Sheet.pdf

[xxix] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-08-31/power-supplies-in-australias-biggest-grid-to-run-short-by-2025/101389018

[xxx] ibid

[xxxi] https://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/plan-to-switch-off-aircon-pool-pump-and-hot-water-remotely-to-shore-up-power-grid/news-story/5e9b70e06a1dec857979e17f2c2372e8

/17 Comments/by

Media Release: CLIMATE CHANGE BILL A ROAD TO RUIN

, ,

Senator Roberts calls on the Senate to reject the Climate Change Bills 2022 due to the complete lack of cost-benefit analysis.

He says, “Carbon dioxide emissions reduction is the biggest change to Australian lives Parliament has ever considered.”

“Despite the target’s huge impact, absolutely nothing in the Climate Change Bill says how it will be achieved, what the cost to Australia will be or what measurable impact reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production will have on global temperature.”

“Politicians don’t accept this kind of blank cheque and ignorant attitude to the flow-on effects of legislation in any other policy, and shouldn’t on energy.”

Emissions reduction policies are expected to significantly impact energy, transport and agriculture.

“Grids that have tried to rely on wind and solar to provide their needs have either been left in the dark or have skyrocketing energy prices. Instead of learning from international wind and solar disasters like Texas and Germany, Australian climate alarmists want us to follow their road to ruin.” 

“Adding emissions reduction to the National Energy Objectives will compromise the existing objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply of energy.”

“A government funded study has already sounded the alarm on the forced and premature uptake of electric vehicles, finding that uptake could increase electricity demand by 30-100% on Australia’s already struggling power grid.”

“Under an emissions target, taxpayer money will be spent telling farmers to lockup their land for carbon dioxide credits, essentially a scam plagued with integrity issues and currently under government review. Australia’s farmers can grow enough to feed and clothe the world, yet won’t be able to under this target.”

Senator Roberts’ submission to the Climate Change Bills inquiry outlines the lack of due diligence and ideological, rather than evidence based, attitudes that have driven climate policy.

“Not a single politician can say what specific measurable impact these emissions reduction policies will have on any aspect of climate or weather.” “Until the true, full costs of an emissions target are given to Australia, this Bill must not pass.”

/21 Comments/by

The Climate Change Bill and the Climate Fraud on the Primodcast

,

I chat with Chris Spicer from the Primodcast for a deep dive on Climate Change hysteria and why the upcoming Climate Change Bill is going to be terrible for our country.

Transcript

Speaker 2:

Ladies and gentlemen, podcasting from Sydney, Australia. This is the Primodcast. Independent, unfiltered, and uncensored. Beginning in three, two, one.

Chris:

Senator. Welcome back.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thank you. It’s good to be back Chris.

Chris:

So had a bit of a giggle before we jumped on here about a video that…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What an insane planet we’ve got.

Chris:

Absolutely mad.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, sorry. The people who try to control it, they’re insane.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Fact checkers. But good on you for standing up.

Chris:

Oh mate, I get more insane by the day anyway. So look, thanks for joining me again. I have actually put a few polls out about this episode to see what people wanted to know and what questions people had. So the main reason why I’ve got you on here today, as I said to you before, is that you are very well versed when it comes to the climate change debate, agenda, whatever you want to call it. And I guess, very similar to what we’ve seen with COVID that doesn’t seem too much opposition to the agenda. And if there is opposition, it tends to get silenced.

Chris:

So what I thought I would do was invite you obviously, and Adam Bandt, the leader of the Greens party onto the show to have an open debate where there’s no Channel Seven, no Channel Nine hand picking questions for him. I just want an open transparent debate. You agreed, which I knew you would, but I never got a response from Adam. So we’re doing it without him, but that’s okay. I’ve got the questions I have. So look, you’ve been speaking about the climate argument now for a while, and you’ve had a bit of experience with it. I think you said something to do with, was it university or something you’ve studied in the past?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. What the argument is, their argument, the climate alarmists, they’re saying that the burning of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas is causing catastrophic global warming and it’s going to destroy the planet and freeze us and fry us and everything. The storms are going to increase. So let’s just have a look at the basic message. Hydrocarbon fuels contain atoms of hydrogen and atoms of carbon, hydrocarbon. And when they burn in oxygen in the air, they use the oxygen. So the hydrogen atoms react with the oxygen atoms to form H2O, which is water. And the carbon atoms react with the oxygen to form CO2, which is carbon dioxide. To be perfectly clear and complete, sometimes if it’s not burnt properly, you’ll get carbon monoxide, CO, that’s one carbon and one oxygen, carbon monoxide. And that’s a toxic poison, but that’s not what their issue is. If you burn it efficiently, you get very little carbon monoxide, but still don’t put the exhaust from your car into your car because you kill yourself. That’s carbon monoxide.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the majority of gas that comes out is carbon dioxide and water vapour. Now then when you find hydrocarbon fuels, they’re found in nature is coal, oil and natural gas, they have impurities because of the way they were formed in nature. They were laid down millions of years ago, hundreds of millions of years ago. So you might have sulphur in it, you might have other elements in it. And when you burn sulphur in oxygen, you get sulphur dioxide, which is a pollutant. You might get nitrous oxides, which are pollutants. You might get particulates, which are pieces of soot basically, they’re pollutants. That’s what used to cause the smoke. You’ll notice these days in most cities, they don’t have much smoke anymore. That’s because the particulates get scrubbed out at the power station. The sulphur dioxide gets scrubbed out at the power station. The nitrous oxides get scrubbed out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s why these days at a coal fired power station or a gas fired power station, you’ll see a chimney with nothing coming out of it because water vapor’s invisible except on a cold day when it forms steam, and carbon dioxide’s always invisible. So what they’re saying is that the carbon dioxide which is coming out of smoke stacks, coming out of industries, coming out of power stations, coming out of cars, coming out of cows farting, cows belching, coming out of your nose right now because your carbon dioxide, the air has 0.04%. It’s got bugger all of it. That’s enough to keep our plants alive. But when you exhale, because you’re a factory as well, when you take in your oxygen and you mix it with the carbon and hydrogen in your food, then you get same thing, water vapour and carbon dioxide coming out.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what you’ve done is you’ve taken in carbon dioxide at 0.04%, and you’ve put it out at 5%, which is more than 100 times, 125 times, whatever it is, higher. So you are polluting right now, Chris. We’ve got to kill you. We’ve got to tax you rather. So that’s what they’re about. They’re about limiting the carbon dioxide because carbon dioxide is in everything. And so they can tax almost everything. And when I said to you a minute ago about you’re breathing out carbon dioxide, there is a consultant who did some work in London for Tony Blair’s office. They were asked to assess the feasibility of taxing people for the breath they’re exhaling.

Chris:

That’s insane.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I’m only a little guy. Maybe I’m producing less carbon dioxide because I’m more efficient than you as a big fellow. So you’ll have to pay more than I will. How can you do that? And I mean, that’s what they’re after. They’re after control of our energy and control of our food and control of our agriculture, that’s it.

Chris:

So when you have people the Greens party, who are obviously more, in terms of that space, they’re definitely the more dominant with what they’re saying. Now this is the question. Not just them, but everyone in general that are pushing for this. How do they know that carbon is causing climate change? How do they know that? Are they referring to a specific type of literature? Where are they getting that information from? Who’s telling them it’s bad?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. So the first thing is I have challenged Senator Larissa Waters, who’s the leader of the Greens in the Senate to a debate on the science behind climate science and the corruption of that science. I challenged her when we were both on the stage in a forum. We were both on a four person panel. On October the seventh, I think it was, Thursday, October the seventh, 2010. She jumped to her feet the moment I challenged her, she jumped to her feet and said, “I will not debate you.” At the end of the forum, I was the last one to speak in answering questions, I turned and walked back towards her just to get to my chair. She jumped and said, “I will not debate you again, just to make it clear.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I challenged her again in the 2016 election campaign in May. I challenged her and also Mark Butler, the Labour party spokesman for climate change. They both said, “No.” I’ve challenged Larissa Waters starting on the 9th of September 2019. I said to her and to Di Natale, who was the leader of the Greens in the Senate at the time, that “I challenge you to a debate. And I challenge you to put forward your evidence for your claims about carbon dioxide from human activity affecting climate.” They have never debated me. They’ve never put forward their evidence. That’s the first thing I want to say. So they run from it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now what’s their science based on? It’s based on bullshit. There is no science at all that they have ever cited. What they do, Chris, is they say, “We had a storm last night. That was due to mankind’s climate change. Nothing different. They had hurricanes going to New York. That was due to climate change.” Bullshit. Because they’ve had hurricanes going, tracking all the way to Canada. They know that from human civilization and when the United States was developed, we know that there’s nothing unusual at all going on in the climate. But what they do is they tell lies about the Barrier Reef. You’ve probably just seen the article that says the Barrier Reef’s in fine shape. It’s got record coral cover in the north and the central regions and the south, they’re only affected by Crown-of-storms starfish, which is entirely natural and cyclical. So there’s nothing happening in the Barrier Reef.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

There’s nothing happening with storm activity. It’s no more frequent storms, no more severe storms, nothing happening with droughts. They’re no more severe than in the past. The biggest drought we’ve had, most severe drought was 1901 in our recorded history and perhaps 1920s to 40s. There’s nothing changing in snowfall. They just vary. And what they’ll do is they’ll pick a year or a month when we have natural variation, it’s up, and they’ll say, “Oh, this temperature’s high.” But they don’t tell you when the temperature’s low. So there’s nothing. They’ve got no evidence. First of all, they have to prove that there’s something, remember this is all based on global warming, unprecedented global warming. So what they have to do, first of all, is prove that the temperatures are unusually warm and continuing to rise. They’re not.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had 25 years, the most authoritative temperature record for the whole planet is NASA’s satellites. And they’re showing that since 1995, 27 years ago, if you remove the El Nino and La Nina cycles of temperature, the temperature has been flat globally. Flat. If you look at the temperature records for our country, the temperatures were warmer in the 1880s and 1890s. I said 1880s, 1890s, than today. United States, it was warmer in the 1930s, 1940s than today. So they’re fabricating this. They’re just telling lies. And so what they use though, is they make lies up about the Barrier Reef, about the polar bears, the pandas, the cuddly koalas, all the bullshit that they can come up with. There’s nothing there that they have ever presented any evidence. It’s based on nothing it’s based on just simply wanting to control the agenda, to control your energy, control your food, control your water, and control your property.

Chris:

Now I know, obviously you can’t speak on behalf…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, by the way, Chris, by the way, you mentioned the word carbon. It’s not carbon, it’s carbon dioxide. What they’re done is they started with carbon dioxide from human activity, and then they very quickly converted it to carbon. And carbon, they did that because the old pollution was carbon when they had smoke particles coming out of the chimneys. And carbon is black, usually. Carbon is also diamonds by the way, carbon is also graphite. So pure carbon. But carbon in the smoke stacks was a filthy pollutant. And that’s what they’re trying to conjure up an image of, a filthy pollutant. But carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. First of all, it’s odourless, tasteless, colourless. It’s non toxic. And the second thing about it is it’s entirely natural. Nature produces 32 times more every year than we do. Nature controls the level in the atmosphere.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’ve had two natural experiments. In 2008, we had the global financial crisis, which you’d remember. The following year around the world, except for Australia where we were exporting record amounts of minerals, we had a major recession in most countries. So when you have a major recession, you use less industrial fuels. So the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas decreased, which meant the amount of carbon dioxide that humans produced decreased. And we know that for a fact. And yet the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing. In 2020 we had the almost depression around the world due to government restrictions, not due to COVID, due to government restrictions on COVID. And we had the same decrease in fuels, same decrease in human carbon dioxide, but the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere continued increasing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So what that tells you is that we do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Nature does. Nature alone. It produces 32 times more every year. We don’t even know how much carbon dioxide is produced by nature in some years, it’s just phenomenal. It swamps human activity. But the second thing is nature alone controls the level because there’s more carbon dioxide in dissolved form in the oceans, 50 to 70 times more in the oceans than in the entire earth’s atmosphere. Slight changes in the sun’s activity lead to slight changes in the ocean temperature, which lead to either carbon dioxide being absorbed or being expelled from the oceans. And so on a seasonal basis, you have this going on with carbon dioxide and that’s exactly what’s showing nature controls it. We also know the laws of chemistry like Henry’s Law. Humans do not control and do not affect the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If we shut down everything, all that would happen is that nature would release a little bit more from the oceans to keep that balance.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’ve had two experiments which prove that if we tax people, shut down industry, it won’t matter a damn, because nature controls the level in the atmosphere. But it’s very important to talk about carbon dioxide and human carbon dioxide. They’ve never been able to show any impact whatsoever from human carbon dioxide. The whole of these policies are built on bullshit. To have a good policy what you need to do is you need to say, for every unit of carbon dioxide from human activity, it has this effect on temperature, or this effect on snowfall, this effect on droughts, this effect on storms. They’ve never been able to specify that. If you haven’t got that specific quantified effect, you can’t make up a policy about what you’ll do to cut it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you can’t cost the benefits, you can’t cost the cost to industry. The costs to industry are huge. The cost on families is enormous. And the cost to our inflation is stupendous, because electricity is used in everything. It’s used in services, not just manufacturing and transport. So what’s happening is we have gone ahead with a policy that has never, ever been specified, never. And the other thing about it is that without that specific quantity of human carbon dioxide and its effect, you cannot tell how your policies are being effective or not. You just don’t know how you’re going. So it’s based on bullshit and it’s based on an objective to take money out of your pocket and to control what you do, what you eat eventually, what energy you use, how you use it, what you spend your money on. That’s all of this, it’s a tax.

Chris:

Well, you know what I think, even though I think one of the first times we had a conversation and we spoke about climate and I hadn’t really formed an opinion on it. Simply because I’m aware that the climate changes obviously, and it’s always been that way, but I hadn’t looked into it any deeper than that. So I didn’t know whether human caused climate change, how much of a difference humans were making. I didn’t look into any of that.

Chris:

But what I did notice is that not just in Australia, I mean around the world, these climate policies that are ever being pushed through, or even just spoken about, all seem to have one thing in common, control. And that’s where I thought, well, hold on a second. If this is going to impact my life and control us even more than we are at the moment, then I want to know why. Show me why. Justify it to me. If they could prove that we are in fact causing it and there’s going to be catastrophic and all the rest of it and little koala bears and all that sort of thing, like they do, that’s what they push through. I don’t think any person would have a problem with that.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, you’re right.

Chris:

It’s when they’re just saying this needs to happen. This needs to happen. We have to do this. We need to sacrifice this because of this. Oh, can I have a look at how are you coming to that conclusion? Ah, just don’t worry about it. Everyone knows that that’s what’s happening. That’s all I keep hearing. And again, maybe it’s due to the whole COVID scenario, where I’ve learned that if you get shut down from an alternative opinion to what’s being pushed through the mainstream narrative, then you need to stop and think why. Because the truth doesn’t mind being debated, at all. Lies do. And it’s a very similar pattern as to what you’re seeing with COVID. The vaccine, I guess, to an extent, and climate. They’re all similar.

Chris:

And all three also are to do with control. Mandates, control. And I mean, I did read the climate change bill that Labour have put through. I did have a read of that. There wasn’t much detail in the way of how they’re going to achieve that 43%. They just said, we’re going to achieve 43% by 2030. That was it. So I think they need to be a lot more transparent with, okay, well, how do you think we’re going to achieve that? And what does that mean for people like you and I? Is my cost of living going to get higher?

Chris:

But there’s none of that. It’s just this is what needs to happen. This is what’s going to happen. And you can’t ask questions because you get shut down. And that’s why I wanted to speak to you about it because I know that you have the information that a lot of people are looking for that they just can’t find anywhere. And again, if you share something on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram, whatever it is, the mainstream social media networks, the same thing happens as to what happened with COVID. They start giving you links. Ah, you spoke about climate. Well, here’s a link to this agency. Here’s a link to that agency. And if you say something that goes against that narrative, they’ll flag your post for false information or misinformation. And I’m starting to see that a lot more in the past six months as COVID’s died down a little bit, you can see they’re transitioning into climate.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. You’re astute. You’re thinking. You’re actually thinking, unlike most people. In France, they’ve had lockdowns due to heat waves, natural heat waves. They’ve had lockdowns. Don’t leave your house because you could die. I’m serious. And they’re talking about lockdowns in other countries for similar things. I’ll just mention a couple of things. First of all, you said, well, where’s your evidence? Well, they haven’t got any evidence. They’re just talking about emotional stories and they’re actually telling lies. So when you want to question science, science is based upon hard evidence. That’s the beauty of science. And when science started emerging a few hundred years ago, it put a real hole in people’s attempts to control, the elites attempts to control, because instead of standing over you with financial power, instead of standing over you with economic power, instead of standing over you with military forces, with thugs, instead of standing over you with emotion, instead of standing over you with religion and fears of going to hell, people started saying, hang on, give me the basis. Where’s the objective facts?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And science is all about having hard, empirical evidence. Empirical just means measured. And so that’s what I’ve been using in the parliament ever since I got in, in 2016. When I first mentioned it, the journalists rushed off to get their dictionaries. They didn’t know that. And people have been laughing at me at times and trying to ridicule, and that’s what they do. And they’ve been saying, “Oh, where’s your empirical evidence?” I’ve given them plenty. But the point is that people now know what empirical means and it’s hard data.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the second thing is, that’s not good enough. We had Emma Alberici on the ABC tell me, well, what more evidence do you need? We produced 50 billion gigatons of carbon dioxide last year around the planet. So what, Emma? So what? Because you’ve got to have the second part of the science, which is you’ve got to be able to prove cause and effect. So if you do this, this happens. If you do this, or if you see this effect, what caused it? This caused it. So you’ve got to have the cause and effect. So you’ve got to have the data, which makes it objective within a scientific framework that proves logically, with reasoning that this is the effect. So that’s the first thing.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’ve never provided any links to logical scientific points. Never. The same thing I’d mention to you is that the truth loves being debated, as you just said there. I agree with you entirely. And why does the truth love being debated? Because it reinforces itself. If it’s not the truth, it’s found out and it’s no longer the truth. And the third thing I’ll just mention is that this whole climate narrative is anti-environment, because if you look at the real pollutants, which I started talking about, the sulphur dioxide, the nitrous oxide, the particulates. In old power stations like they used to have in China 30 years ago, they’d be belching out these pollutants. And that’s why you see haze in Beijing. It’s not because of carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is invisible. It’s because of the old power stations were putting out carbon in the form of particulates, haze, smoke particles. And so what they were saying here was, “Don’t burn our power here, ship our manufacturing to China.”

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So China was producing real pollution. So they’re actually increasing the pollution around the planet by shutting down us. Where we had clean power stations that scrubbed out the particulates, scrubbed out the sulphur dioxide, scrubbed out the nitrous oxide, and just let carbon dioxide and water through. Harmless gases essential for all life on this planet. So it’s anti- environment. The other thing, I don’t deny that humans have an effect on climate. If you go into massive land clearing, you will affect the climate in that region. We do not have an effect on global climate. Well, how do you affect the local climate? You affect the local climate if you change the vegetation, you change the water vapour, you change the moisture in the air. So those are the things that do affect. So I’m not saying humans should just go and destroy the environment. But what you’ll find is the focus on climate change is causing serious consequences on the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

If you look at the wind turbines, they’re putting up in the name of climate, they’re chopping birds. If you look at the forest they clear for wind turbines. If you look at the solar panels, the agricultural land they’re destroying the forest they’re clearing for solar panels. And these solar panels and wind turbines, they’re hideous uses of resources. For every unit of electricity from a coal fired power station, you need 35 tonnes of steel. For every unit, the same unit of electricity from a wind turbine, you need 546 tonnes of steel. How do you make steel? With carbon dioxide being produced. So these wind turbines, over the life of the wind turbine, produce more carbon dioxide then they save. Not that that matters because carbon dioxide’s harmless.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the point is they use so much materials, that that’s why wind will never, ever compete with coal, nuclear, hydro, gas, oil. Never, because the amount of resources that they consume are huge. So the cost is enormous and the energy density is so low that they produce so little energy that the cost per unit energy is something like double what coal is. So what they’re doing is they’re driving our economy into a tailspin. They’re inflating our economy. What happens is we then subsidise the wind turbines and the solar panels because they can’t stand on their own. We subsidise them. Who do we pay the subsidies to? The wind turbine and solar panel manufacturers, which are mostly in China, and then we subsidise the people who instal them here in Australia, mostly foreign companies and some billionaires. And then we pay them subsidies to keep operating them because they can’t compete with coal.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And then what happens is that the price of normal electricity increases because of the subsidies. And we also then find they rigged the system so that they’re favoured and then that means the coal fired power stations are uneconomical, even though they’re actually half the price to produce. And so then coal starts dying. Next thing, they shut the coal fired power stations down, and you’ve got only high cost components producing our electricity. We’re buggered.

Chris:

Yeah. It’ll drive up the cost of everything. Manufacturing, even our electricity bills. That’s why we need to be asking more questions because I don’t think people realise that when Albanese got up and said that, we’re going to hit their 43% reduction. Okay. It sounds good, but how are you going to do that? And what does that mean? And that’s what I really wanted to speak to you about as well as to how these targets, climate targets will impact everyday Australians in regards to what can we see to go up in price? Obviously we know electricity bills will go up, but what else can we see happening around the country the more they push this on?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. Everything that uses steel and electricity will be increased in price, everything. So if you look at Adam Bandt’s showing signs that he’s admitted defeat on one key part. Coal is used to generate electricity. It’s called thermal coal or steaming coal. It’s fed into power stations to boil water, to drive the turbines, to turn the electricity generators. That creates steam. So it’s called steaming coal or thermal coal. It’s used to provide heat. Coal is also used to produce metallurgical coal in steel mills. In a steel mill you need something that’s got a lot of carbon in it. And when it’s burned it produces carbon dioxide. So they use coal because it’s got the carbon, they also use coal because it’s a solid material and they can blow the air through it, which reduces your iron oxide into iron. Then that forms your steel.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They also use coal because there’s carbon in coal that goes into your steel to make it a better quality steel. We produce some of the best quality steel in the world. And they also need it to support that whole mass because they put the iron ore on top, which is very heavy. And so you’ve got to support that mass so the air can get through it and do its job. So that means coal is absolutely essential for steel. Unless you get scrap steel and just melt it down, but then you need electricity anyway.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So coal is needed for steel. And I’ve been telling people this for years. Adam Bandt in the election campaign suddenly admitted quietly, “Oh, we can’t stop the production of steel.” That’s right. Steel is in trucks. It’s in our food implements, to plough the ground, we harvest the ground. We sow the ground. We harvest the ground, we truck it, we process it. We store it in fridges. We process it in factories that are full of stainless steel. Steel is in everything. It’s in the goods. It’s in the trucks that transport. So steel is in everything. And if it’s not in everything, it’s in the production of everything because you need a steel truck or a steel implement or a steel scalpel or a steel implement. So steel is in everything. You make roads with steel, you make pipes with steel for bringing water in. You do everything with steel, either as the tool or as a raw material.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But electricity, what they’re trying to do there, is say let’s cut our use of steaming coal to generate electricity and use wind turbines. Well, hello. What goes into making wind turbines? Steel. And there’s 16 times as much steel in the bloody wind turbine unit electricity than in a coal fired power station producing electricity. So that’s why wind and solar is so damn expensive and battery cars are so expensive, because they’re huge consumers of resources. We are increasing the footprint of humanity by using this bloody stuff. And we’re increasing the toxic chemicals because it’s very difficult to get rid of batteries. They use very rare earths that are mined using toxic processes.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So we’re increasing the use of copper. So that means mining. We’re increasing the use of rare earths, which means mining. We’re actually increasing the use of mining to produce the rare earths and the other exotic metals and minerals that are needed for solar and for wind turbines and for the increased batteries. And yet you will never, ever produce enough electricity from these things and you certainly cannot store it. So what they’re trying to do is absolute madness, but what’s happening is that they will tax us all out of existence and then they’ll control us. And if you look at the United States, this is an example. You’ve heard of George Soros?

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

George SOS owns the Democratic Party. Obama was a President in the Democratic Party. George Soros said to Obama, negative messages on coal. Obama really ramped it up on coal. They shut down so many coal mines. The price of Peabody Coal shares went from $1,100 to $15. That’s a 98% reduction. Who bought the shares?

Chris:

Soros.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Soros. Because the long term predictions from most people that the use of coal will increase dramatically in the future. That’s the only way to get Africa and Asia up and running the same as we’ve had, in our development of industrially. So coal forecasts are huge. So he’s now sitting pretty with Peabody Coal company, the world’s largest coal producer. That’s what they’re doing. Soros has got a reputation for destroying whole countries, bringing them to their knees economically by manipulating the economy and then making a profit. That’s what Soros does. He destroys to create wealth for Soros at the cost of billions of people’s lives. So that’s what we are facing here. We’re facing control for lining billionaires’ pockets. There are people in this country who are making money hand over fist, they’re billionaires. You can’t afford enormous solar complexes and wind turbo complexes, but they can. And what they do is they make money out of it by getting subsidies. Warren Buffet, who’s the most astute investor ever, he said, “Wind turbines, useless. Subsidised wind turbines, fabulous investment.” It’s the subsidies.

Chris:

Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Government is now the largest transferor of wealth from the poor and from the middle class to the wealthy. And it’s deliberate.

Chris:

That’s exactly what’s happening at the moment. That’s exactly what’s happening. And you can see that. There’s actually a very good documentary I watched only the other day on Netflix called Capitalism: A Love Story. Have you heard of that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I haven’t.

Chris:

Very, very interesting. Just in regards to how the system works. This was based in late 2000s. Well, when America had their crisis, was it 2008, 2009?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. Global financial crisis. They had it in ’08, near the end of ’08. And then they destroyed their economy in 09.

Chris:

Yeah, with the bailout package. And what happened with that? And the banks used it and it was an absolute shamozzle, deliberate though. It was deliberate. Goldman Sachs, the treasury department of the US government infiltrated by Goldman Sachs. It’s what they do. It’s what they do. But unfortunately they do it in such a way, like we’re seeing now with climate. We see an issue, the average person will see an issue of climate, this is what needs to happen. But in the background, these people making money hand over fist while it’s costing you money. And it’s going to get to the point now where it’s not going to get better. The economy’s not going to get better so long as they’re pushing this 43% target, that Labour push. So has that gone through? What’s the status of that climate change bill?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s gone through the lower house and it’s gone to a committee in the Senate and it’ll probably come up in about four weeks time in the Senate for voting there.

Chris:

How do you think it’ll go?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’ll pass for several reasons. First of all, Labour and the Greens, thanks to dopey liberal recommendations on preferencing, Labour and the Greens together have 38 votes out of 76, they’ve got 50%. All the independents, One Nation and the Liberal Nationals have 38, 50%. So it just needs one independent to cross to go and join the Greens and they’ve got it through. Now David Pocock has said that he will support it. So David Pocock, he’s a hell of a nice guy.

Chris:

ACT isn’t he, I think?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. He’s a hell of nice guy.

Chris:

Is he a rugby player?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, a very, very, very good rugby player. Real, real hard on him. He’s a fabulous rugby player, very fit. I mean, the guy is built like an ox, but he’s lithe and agile. I mean, he’s a magnificent specimen as a human in terms of physique. Very, very fit. Very, very strong. He and Richie McCaw from the All Blacks revolutionised the way where way number sevens and number sixes play. They’re really very, very effective. Top player. But on science, complete ignorant. Completely ignorant. He stood up in the Senate the other day and he is not a demonstrative guy. He’s a nice personality. He just said, “I’m all for following the science, like we did in COVID.”

Chris:

Okay. Yeah.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What? And he’s been sold the pop on climate. He’s drunk the Kool-Aid. And there’s so many intelligent people like David, who don’t think. It’s not intelligence that matters. It’s the ability to think analytically. So the economy, if you look… Chris, we’ve been scratching around in the dirt as humans for thousands of years, hundreds of thousands of years. We’ve been at the whim of every drought, every famine and humans have been at the mercy of climate until we got hydrocarbon fields, coal, oil and natural gas. And all of a sudden in 170 years, we’ve now got these things. We’ve got so many things that 170 years ago, when the industrial revolution started, we would not have dreamt where we are today. A person on welfare in this country lives better, longer, safer, easier, more comfortably than a king or queen did 200 years ago. Fact. They live much longer and easier and healthier.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So that’s been due to coal, oil and natural gas. We used to cut down forests 170 years ago to do our cooking, to provide our warmth, especially in Europe where you needed the warmth. We used to kill whales to produce our whale oil for lighting, for reading at night. Then we got gas lights. Then we got coal fired power stations. Then we got oil. All of a sudden, we don’t have to burn the forest. So as a result of coal, oil and natural gas, the area of forest in the developed countries has increased dramatically. Forests have increased because of coal, oil and natural gas. The whales, we don’t kill them anymore for whale oil, for lighting. The number of whales are now pretty secure. So coal, oil and natural gas has been a huge driver of the environment, benefit for the environment.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The other thing that happens is when you use coal, oil and natural gas, you have a very high energy density fuel. When you have high energy density, you get high energy production for low cost. And when you decrease the cost of energy, you increase your productivity. If you can afford to use more energy, you become more productive. Think of all the energy you’ve got at home, your fridge, your stove, your dishwasher, your car, your car is so much more efficient than a cycle. If you look at farmers, each of us, we could go out and till our own soil. But it’s so energy intensive, that when you get a farmer with a massive John Deere or Cat tractor, they produce far more than we could even dream of. So when you produce that high productivity, the cost per unit of your food, the cost per unit of all your services decreases dramatically.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The single greatest thing for the last 170 years industrial revolution has been human creativity, our heart in their minds and sharing that. That’s why freedom’s so important. But the second biggest thing and easily the second biggest thing, is the relentless decreases in real costs of electricity and fuels. When you have decreases in fuels, you get greater use of fuels and you get greater productivity. When you have greater productivity, you have cheaper production, you have greater wealth, you have greater prosperity. And what’s happened is we’ve now got greater prosperity, except that in the last three years that every decrease in price for electricity has been artificially increased. And Australia’s gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to now being amongst the most expensive.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Our electricity prices have trebled artificially. If we removed all the bullshit restrictions, we’d still be decreasing the real cost of electricity, but that’s no longer the case. So we are reversing human progress. It’s inhuman, it’s unconscionable and it’s immoral. And it’s all based on a lie. No science whatsoever drives this bullshit and a criminal named Maurice Strong started this in 1980, when he started the scam of global warming. A criminal from the United Nations.

Chris:

Yeah, I was watching a little, it wasn’t long, it was maybe five or six minute documentary on him a few weeks ago. But I think, look, the people like Adam Bandt, the people like the independents that put a lot of climate activists got through independents at the election, what do those people gain from that? Obviously they’re not the ones that are going to be benefiting from extra control. Is it just they’re brainwashed? It has to be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But what they’re benefiting from is increased representation in parliament. The Greens have now got two senators from every state. They’ve got more clout in parliament. They can now tell the government what to do. The Greens are completely ignorant. They have no idea of what we are talking about right now. They have no interest in what we’re talking about right now. The Greens are hell bent on control. If you look at the Greens, they supported injection mandates. They were speaking vigorously on injection mandates. They supported the invasion of the United States and NATO into the Ukrainian conflict. They support control everywhere if you look at the Greens. They want to increase regulation. They want to tell you how to live, what to do. The Greens are so damn arrogant and ignorant that they think they can ignore four and a half billion years of evolution and tell us how the planet should evolve in the future.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Now you probably believe in evolution. I do. Our planet has come from being a ball of gases to being a solid planet. And then we had erosion on the planet due to water and air. And then we had life forms introduced to the planet. Then it was single cell. And then we had complex animals. Then we had dinosaurs and then mammals. And then we had humans and our ability as humans, completely different from any other animal species. We’ve got a neocortex, that’s wonderful. We then created all kinds of technological improvements in just 170 years we’ve just gone phenomenally well. What they’re trying to say is how we should evolve in the future. They’re playing God, Chris. They’re trying to tell us how the planet would evolve. Forget your four and a half billion years of evolution. This is what we’re going to do in the future. Who do they think they are? They think they’re God.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So they’re all about control. Now, what I said was all of the Greens are delusional when it comes to science, they have no idea. They’ll talk about the koalas being threatened. They’ll talk about the Barrier Reef being threatened. They’ll tell lies, they’ll fabricate lies one after the other, and you can come in and give them evidence, they won’t do anything. But the other thing about the Greens is some of them are the foot soldiers for the World Economic Forum and the United Nations. The Greens is the policy introduction for the United Nations into this country. What they do is they bring in policies, they get the media through their stunts and then the Labour Party starts adopting those policies, and you check. Then the Liberal Party says Labour Party’s getting votes. So we need to put in those policies. And so the Greens bring in these policies and they’re doing it on behalf of the United Nations. But most of the Greens wouldn’t know what I was talking about there, just some of their leaders would know.

Chris:

Yeah. Talking about the Greens, that’s why I was looking down. I’ve got to read this to you. It was a post I’d seen yesterday. I don’t know if he put it out yesterday or was just the post he’s put out and someone took a screenshot of it. So it’s a Adam Bandt Twitter, I’ve put it up for you to see through the thing there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I can’t see it there.

Chris:

You can’t see it. So this is what he tweeted, off subject but I think you can see the mentality and what’s going on there. He said, “Yearly reminder that drug dealers aren’t to blame for your loved ones banned drug related problems. Quite the opposite. Dealers often act as community elders, keeping an eye out for regulars and providing a stigma free community connection point.” I couldn’t believe that. What is wrong with him?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

What’s wrong with him? He’s not all there. He can’t be. I couldn’t believe that. It’s one of the worst ones I’ve ever seen.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no, I can believe it. These people are inhuman, they’re anti-human, mate. If you look at the Greens policies, they’re anti-education, anti-science, anti-environment, the impact, they tell you they’re pro environment. But the impact on the environment is horrendous. Anti-industry, anti-development, anti-Australian. They’re anti-homosexual because they support Islam and Islam wants to throw homosexuals off the bridges, off the roofs of buildings. They’re anti-women, anti-families. I can make a solid case in all these things. The Greens, some of those are deliberate. Some of those are just through sheer ignorance. By the way, bringing up that thing about drugs. What’s the difference between a drug pusher and big pharma?

Chris:

No. What?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

The drug pusher doesn’t force you to use their drugs.

Chris:

That’s a fair point. They don’t mandate it. That’s right. I was only saying the other day, could you imagine how illegal a Pfizer vaccine would be if it was made by a Columbian drug cartel? Can you imagine?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep.

Chris:

Oh, it’s crazy. But I could not believe that when I read that. He says outrageous things, honestly. His Twitter feed’s like a comedy. It’s hilarious, some of the shit. You think, the world doesn’t work that way. Do you know what, it looks to me like he’s got no actual experience. No life experience. He’s never been to and seen what drugs do to people. Because I think if he could, he would legalise drug use. He would.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

For sure. When I see certain things, I’ve seen people, I’ve seen someone get stabbed in a park over drugs when I was 15 years old. You see a lot of things. And that’s why when you look at comments like that, that he’s made, that drug dealers are essentially elders looking after the community. No.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. David Leyonhjelm in the Senate and other people in the LDP put out some pretty good questions. I think we need to think about banning things and criminalising things. Because when you do that, you create a black market and then you can’t control it. Okay. So there is a reasonable argument for legalising some drugs. That’ll actually bring it under close to public scrutiny and you probably have less use of it. That’s one side of the argument. So I’m open to that debate, but it’s got to be done very, very properly. Not a lot like he’s doing it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And you’re never going to have a drug lord who’s going to be the representative for the community and the judiciary for the community. I mean, that’s complete rubbish. That’s nonsense. And that’s the problem we have, Chris, because if you saw some of the Green’s election campaigns and remember they had a very successful election campaign, they’ve got more members in the lower house, they’ve got more members in the Senate. There was one TikTok video of somebody dancing above Parliament House. They had a picture of Canberra’s Parliament House and somebody dancing above it and Adam Bandt looking up with a vague look on his face. That was it. No message, no words. That was it. What kind of people does that appeal to?

Chris:

Yeah, I don’t know. Brain dead.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Exactly.

Chris:

I think look, the issue with drugs is one that I think there’s a lot of variables, but I think when we’re talking about drug use, I don’t believe cannabis should be… That should be decriminalised for sure. But then you look at drugs like marijuana and you go, okay, well. But then you look at drugs like heroin or methamphetamine and you start thinking well, okay, you don’t really want that legalised in any capacity. But marijuana, sure. Because a lot of the pharmaceutical drugs do more damage to the community than black market drugs will ever do. Ever. If you look at the US, their opioid epidemic, now it’s fentanyl. It was OxyContin. Now it’s fentanyl. They’ve got huge problems over there on legal drugs that are prescribed by doctors and fulfilled by pharmacies. So opioids, painkillers, some benzodiazepines are much more dangerous and harmful to the community than marijuana would ever be.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, marijuana, sorry. Let’s talk about medical cannabis because we’re very, very strong supporters of medical cannabis, very strong supporters. It’s a wonderful product. It’s entirely natural. There are no side effects for most people at all. Not only that, you can’t overdose on it. You can stuff yourself so full of medical cannabis that you still wouldn’t have any problems. Whereas opioids, you can die. And the opioids are addictive whereas medical cannabis is not. So there’s a separate argument for marijuana compared with medical cannabis. But they’re both worth looking at. Medical cannabis, we’re entirely sold. That’s it. And we are keeping the two separate at the moment because most people are not ready for the decriminalisation of marijuana because of the THC in it, the psychotropic effects.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But medical cannabis, it’s used by a lot of people in this country and it should be much, much cheaper and much more readily available. It should be readily available at least by prescription from a chemist, at least. And the reason it’s not, Chris, is because of big pharma. Big pharma controls the health department, at state and federal level. It controls many of the doctors, it controls the doctors’ Guilds, the doctors associations, and what they do is they’re seeking continued profits. Medical cannabis is useful for so many things. In the 1930s, I read somewhere, it was the number one prescribed medicine. Number one. It was in the Doctor’s Almanack. It was taken out because big pharma wanted to produce its toxins and medical cannabis cannot be patented because it’s natural. So that means if you can’t patent it, you’ll never be able to charge outrageous prices for it. And yet it’s effective, it’s safe and it’s affordable and accessible. It’s perfect. That’s why it’s not wanted by big pharma. And that’s why big pharma keeps the government to outlaw it.

Chris:

That’s right. I don’t know about Australia, but I know in the US a lot of the anti-cannabis campaigns, TV campaigns and whatnot were funded by pharmaceutical companies.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah.

Chris:

That’s exactly it, they don’t want that because you think about the conditions. I mean, depression, I get anxiety, insomnia. Instead of sleeping pills, people just have medicinal cannabis. There’s so many…

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Post traumatic stress.

Chris:

Post traumatic stress, cancer, for pain. But you know what’s interesting as well? I’ve been looking into it a bit recently, is there the use of certain, what are they? I can’t think of the actual name of it now, but the mushrooms. Little micro doses of mushrooms that they’re giving to, I think retired military personnel in the US to help with their PTSD. It’s working wonders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

It’s also being used in some countries, I think in the United States. I know some doctors who are involved with it working wonders with mental health issues. Really very, very effective, very effective. And so we need to advocate more for at least experimental use of them right now. There are people, I can put you in touch with people in this country who are actually using it therapeutically right now.

Chris:

Yeah. I’m sure it happens. Australia’s quite far behind, especially behind the US when it comes to experimenting with drugs that were frowned upon for so many years, and it’s working wonders. And I don’t know how much influence the pharmaceutical companies have here. Well, I know they’ve got a fair bit considering what we’ve been through over the last few years, but there doesn’t seem to be a lot of talk. I know the Greens do support that, but I think they support recreational use don’t they?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yes. And what we want to do is we want to separate those two for now because we want to get medicinal cannabis into people’s hands, cheaply, readily. We want to make that more widespread. So most people are open to that, but they’re not open to recreational use. So rather than stop the use of both, because by pushing both, we just want to push at the moment medical cannabis. We’ll look at the other one later. Put it aside for now, let’s get medical cannabis into people’s hands and into people’s bodies.

Chris:

Would you say it’s a generational thing, because I don’t know many people at all that are around my age that would oppose the legalisation of recreational marijuana use. Maybe highly religious people, but the average person, I don’t think they care too much.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, I don’t think it is a generational thing. We know of a lot of army veterans or defence force veterans, we know a lot of older people who have got things that come on with age, they love medicinal cannabis. They think it’s fabulous. I think over a million people use it, but we’ve got to make it much easier.

Chris:

It’s quite expensive, isn’t it, I think, at the moment to get it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep, and it shouldn’t be. We could have with our clean environment in this country, we could be supplying medical cannabis all over Asia. It would be huge. And hemp producers, hemp. Then we’ve also got cannabis producing food. I mean really good food. Textiles. So it’s a wonderful, wonderful crop. We could get that in into Australia, that would be fab. And it is coming in certain places. They’re already growing hemp. They’re growing medical cannabis, but it’s just not widespread yet. But there are some people who are trying to do battle with all the bureaucrats and the regulators and they’re making progress and we’ve been supporting them and we’ve got a few more things planned.

Chris:

Do you know Dr. Katelaris? Heard of Dr. Katelaris? Also known as Dr. Pot?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No.

Chris:

No. So he’s an Australian doctor who was charged in the 90s for supplying and helping children and also breast cancer, people with breast cancer with medicinal cannabis, back in the 90s.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Which State?

Chris:

New South Wales.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Okay. We know of a couple of Queensland doctors who’ve helped people enormously, especially epileptics.

Chris:

Yeah. Well, he was doing it in the 90s and actually reversed breast cancer in many women that he was treating, and also helped children that were in pain with medicinal cannabis. Done great work, great work. He did an interview I think on 60 Minutes or something like that. And then a few days later, apparently the feds kicked in his door and got hold of him. And he had history with Dr. Kerry Chant then, in regards to what happened then. Well, he had his medical licence taken and was actually sent to jail, pending his court hearing and he represented himself and used on the basis of medical necessity and he walked out free, as he should.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, what’s changed, mate? What’s changed now the medical… No, I shouldn’t say that. The health departments are telling doctors what to say and what not to say. They’ve completely smashed the doctor, patient relationship. That’s sacrosanct. The Greeks developed that 3000 years ago. That’s been smashed.

Chris:

Absolutely.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We’re destroying informed consent. We’re mandating things. I mean, this is not all right. It’s not human. And this is what our country has descended into and that’s what we’re fighting against.

Chris:

There’s too much government involvement in our lives. And a buddy of mine only a few weeks ago was fined for fishing without a licence. And I thought, man. You know what? Obviously, I know you’re a part of it, but no politician should have the right to tell another human being that they’re not allowed to fish. It is our basic human right to fish.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I agree. And who’s pushing for that? United Nations. They’re trying to lock up. We have the largest continental shelf fishing zone in the world. We have a tiny population by world standards of 25, 26 million people. That’s it. We should be exporting seafood hand over fist all over the planet. We import three quarters of the seafood we consume. How the hell does that happen? I’ll tell you how it happens. We have 36% of the world’s marine parks in our country. Some of them are controlled on behalf of the UN, by our state and federal governments. Some are controlled directly by the UN. China has 1.4 billion people. What’s that? I’m guessing that’s around 60 times what we have.

Chris:

Oh yeah. A lot more.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They have a tiny coastline compared to ours. Who’s our biggest exporter of fish, seafood into this country? China.

Chris:

Oh, Thailand would be close to China, wouldn’t it?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Thailand is second. Thailand has a tiny coastline compared to ours. A population that’s about three times ours. Yet they’re the second biggest importer of fish into our country. How can that be? The fish don’t say, “Oh, we better look after Australian waters here. We’ll stay out of Australian waters. We’ll go to Thailand waters.” Bullshit. The Thais and the Chinese say that to the United Nations because they have a country to feed. What we’ve done here is the Greens, the Labour, the Liberals and the Nationals have sold out our fishing industry. We used to have a vibrant fishing industry. Not anymore. We’re so regulated.

Chris:

Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t John West originally Australian? Well, I’m trying to think of the old cans of salmon and tuna, John West.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t know where John West was, but I know that our last tuna cannery was packed up, dismantled, packed up and sent to Thailand back in 2010. Sydney was told by Alzheimer’s Sydney had lots of canneries, seafood canneries. We had a vibrant fishing industry. It’s been gutted because of UN regulations. What’s that done to the price of fish? What’s that done to the quality of fish? What’s that done to your choice, your freedom?

Chris:

Oh, quality of fish at the moment, I don’t know about up there, but in New South Wales, try getting a nice piece of barramundi. You could tell they’re all farmed. They got that muddy taste to the farmed barramundi, you can’t get any fresh barramundi, it’s almost, around where I am, impossible.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See, this is the UN affecting our energy, UN affecting our water, UN controlling our food, controlling our transport, controlling our movement. What they want to do is control our identity, control what we spend, how we spend it through digital identity, which is a product of the World Economic Forum, the Liberal party introduced legislation before the election. And they’ve copied parts of that from the World Economic Forum’s digital platform project. Copied and pasted it into our legislation. I mean, this is what’s happening to our country. That’s why we’ve got to speak. And that’s why it’s so important to keep doing what you are doing.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to continue to have these conversations. And I have tried many times to have people on the other side of the debate on for a chat, and I’ll be completely, even if I don’t agree with them. There’s some things you say that I don’t agree with. There’s probably some things I say you don’t agree with, and that’s fine. But you always allow the opportunity or the other person to speak and get their point across. And I’m happy to do that. Just the other day, I wanted Mike Carlton to come on another chat about a few things that he was saying. And I said something about his best mate, Peter FitzSimons. And I got a message just last night from Mike Carlton in my inbox saying, “Fuck off dickhead.” And then blocked me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Let me tell you a story about Mike Carlton. I’ll see if I can remember. It was a few years ago, there was a journalist called Ben Cubby. He was at the Sydney Morning Herald and he was their Chief Environmental Reporting. Got that? He was the head of their environmental reporting. So Ben called me up and said, “Can I interview you about this?” This is before I got into the Senate, “About your stance on climate?” And I said, “Sure.” And I gave him a whole lot of stuff. In the middle of that I said, “Do you know about the IPCC? The UN’s intergovernmental panel on climate change?” “No.” No clue. Here he is, the environmental reporter on a single biggest issue, supposedly, in the environment. He didn’t know about that body.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

So I told him a few things. He made a story, it’s a long time ago, probably seven or eight years ago, he made a story and he published it. And it wasn’t that offbeat, but it talked about me being a director of a company I wasn’t. It talked about me doing other things. It tried to frame me as a bit of a coal producer, I wasn’t. I’m very keen on, supportive of coal, oil, gas, and nuclear and hydro electricity because they’re the cheapest forms of electricity. And what else did he do? Oh, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Then Mike Carlton came out and said I was antisemitic. Antisemitic? At the time I was a volunteer on the Galileo Movement, which was founded by a man whose wife was Jewish and who, as a two and a half year old, escaped from the Holocaust concentration camps. A Hungarian Jew, a lovely, lovely lady. A lot of my friends are Jewish. I was at a bloody protest in support of Israel where the Greens were hammering the Israeli companies in this country. I was standing up for the Jews, and Mike Carlton came out and said, I was antisemitic. I mean, what a lying bastard.

Chris:

I think they just throw labels on people. I don’t think there’s any thought.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct.

Chris:

They just chuck a label on you. Maybe it could just be for… Look, undoubtedly, it’s so people look at you in a particular way. So anything you say after that point, people will just ignore. That’s why they label people, anti-vax, what you were referred to, climate denier. I got called, and this is something I’ll… because a lot of people have agreed. A lot of people have disagreed with my point, but I made a point the other day to, I’ll tell you who she is now because it ended up as a nightmare on Twitter. Twitter’s good, isn’t it? I’ll tell you what. It’s Doctor, she’s down, I think in South Australia, an indigenous woman. Oh, I’m trying to find her now. Where is she? Here we go. Dr. Tracy Westerman. You familiar, no?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

No, no.

Chris:

So anyway, she said something about how come when people ask if you’re Italian, Greek, and you tell someone you’re Italian and Greek people go, oh, okay. But when you tell people you’re indigenous, they say, okay, but how much? How indigenous are you?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I’ve never thought of that. And no one’s ever told me that.

Chris:

That’s what she said. And I said to her, look, in my own experience because I’ve seen it happen, is that people will claim they’re indigenous even if they’d never mentioned it before in their life. I knew someone who did it, they had a dental campaign, I don’t know if it was a federal or state funded dental programme, but indigenous Australians got some free dental work done. This is about 10 years ago now. And a friend of mine claimed that he was indigenous for that for free dental work. There’s another person I know who’s great, great grandfather was indigenous. It’s actually a distant family member. So I know exactly who she is. And I know her family. She claimed that so she could get housing. She got into public housing in about six weeks while I know people that have been waiting for five years. And that was my point, is that a lot of people unfortunately say that or claim it for their own personal gain. And she went off, saying it was weaponized language.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, wait until she gets hold of Nampijinpa Price in the Senate. Most people know as Jacinta Price. Her full name is Nampijinpa Price. Man, what a wonderful Senator she’s going to be. I don’t know if you’ve listened to her first speech. Wow. She put the facts out there. She is just a wonderful human being. She is just so lovely to have in the Senate. She doesn’t hang back. She’s just great. And she’s in the Liberal Party, but where credit’s deserved, I give credit. And Nampijinpa Price deserves heaps of credit. She’s going to change that parliament just by telling the truth on indigenous. Beautiful.

Chris:

Well, I’ll tell you what, she’s upsetting the left at the moment. She’s upsetting the left of what she was saying the other day. But again, that’s that same guy I was telling you about, Pete FitzSimons interviewed her and apparently was quite rude and I think she said that she felt bullied by him.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. I can’t imagine anyone bullying Nampijinpa.

Chris:

I don’t know. I did see the speech, but I don’t know much about her, but that’s what we need though. We need a voice where, because I think we all know deep down. There’s a lot of stuff that’s going on at the moment that we know is bullshit. We know that, but people are just too afraid to say that because of the backlash they cop.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, we’ve been calling out and the worst thing you can call an Australian woman is racist. And that’s what they’ve done with Pauline. And you just said you are given labels at times. I’m given labels, climate denial and all that. Whenever they give you a label, it means they can’t argue with you, it means they haven’t got the facts and they can’t string their facts into a logical argument. So they resort to a label. So when people give me a label, I just say, “Well, thank you very much, Chris, for giving me that label. It means you haven’t got an argument. So thank you. I’ve just won the debate. See you.” And they can’t give Nampijinpa Price a label. They give Pauline a label, but it doesn’t shut Pauline down. It won’t shut me down because we know what they’re doing. That Pauline has been fighting so hard for the aboriginals in this country and the Torres Strait Islanders.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

When I was first elected into the Senate in 2016, I was walking up to One Nation headquarters in Albion at the time. And three aboriginals from the Territory saw me. And so they walked up and said, “Where’s Pauline’s office?” And I said, “In this building, come with me.” And I said, “What are you doing down here from the Territory?” And they said, “Well, she’s the only one who gets it. She’s the only one who stands up for us. She’s the only one who knows what’s going on.” And we’ve been calling out the Aboriginal industry because the Aboriginal industry is feeding 30 billion a year into an industry from taxpayer money and it’s not getting to the people in the communities.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

We made a list of something like, oh, how many? There are dozens and dozens and dozens of Aboriginal groups that are not serving the people. The people on the communities, the Aboriginal communities are languishing, and they’re not getting the money. The money’s going to black and white consultants, black and white lawyers. It’s going to a whole industry. As some of the aboriginals in the Territory said, you talk about a housing project to build houses. Most of the bloody money goes on white contractors, when the aboriginals could develop a skill and build the bloody houses themselves and have greater ownership. Why is that being neglected? That’s not help.

Chris:

No, it’s appalling. And you know what? You see it with a lot of other minorities. You see that they’ll be used for political gain or for many other reasons. And that’s what we’re seeing at the moment, that topic at the referendum that’s going to be put out, for the indigenous voice. I don’t agree with it, only because I think that we need to come together as one now, this division, it needs to stop. It’s unnecessary, we’re one country. And I just think it does more harm than good, especially in the long term.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re exactly correct. It also says something else too. Currently, around about 5 or 6% of federal senators and MPs identify as indigenous. 5 or 6%. When you look at the number in there, out of the total number of 227 representatives, 5 or 6% are indigenous. The indigenous population is 3%. They’re already overrepresented. So aren’t they really saying that the Aboriginal representatives in parliament are not doing their job?

Chris:

Well, that’s an interesting way to look at it. Isn’t that? Well, that’s what they are saying.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah. That’s right? So that is like the whites in parliament. They’re not doing their job either because they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. They’re not representing the people, they’re following the party power brokers’ instructions. The other thing it does is, I agree with you. We are one nation or one country, whatever term you want to use. And it separates into two. That’s not good.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

But the third thing it does is really insidious. The Greens are very, very damaging with this one. They create victims. They create classes of people and they say, “Chris, you are being demoralised. You are a victim.” And then that destroys your sense of responsibility, destroys your initiative and you become a victim forever. That’s what the Greens do. And to some extent, the modern Labour Party does that. The old Labour Party used to be about standing up together, united by all means, but at least standing up and the Greens create victims to get votes. And in the process they destroy lives. So the Greens are about looking good, not doing good. And the Greens actually, that’s why I keep saying they’re inhuman, because they’re destroying lives. They’re creating perpetual victims and saying, you are this or you’re that, or you’re a single parent or you’re an Aboriginal or you’re a Torres Strait Islander. No, you’re Australian. If you’ve got particular concerns, let’s hear about them. But don’t talk to me about my skin colour or all short people need more money, Chris.

Chris:

Do you know what? It’s the virtue signalling and just like Coles have now announced that they’re got to put a welcome to country on their receipts. What? I don’t understand that. Why? Why don’t you do more for the community? I looked at this last night. Coles have 112,000 employees. I think it was 1800 or 1600 of those employees are indigenous. So how about you do more there? If that’s your concern, how about you do that? How about you employ more indigenous Australians? Because you know what? My children, at the school, they have indigenous, NADOC, we have all these things and I’m all for that, because I think we can all learn a lot from indigenous Australians. In regards to their connection with the land are unmatched, unmatched. And I find it very interesting. And I’m all for my kids learning a bit more about culture. There’s no problem with that, but it’s this pushing it down your throat all the time that gets to me.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, let me give you a little example of something. We’ve got an excellent barrister in our office. And I asked him to research the Native Title Act, which came in under Keating, I think it was. Now, all of us whities think that the Native Title Act was brought in to give Aboriginals some land. Bullshit. The Native Title Act of parliament, federal parliament, the preamble to it, the introduction to it, is littered with the words United Nations. If you go to an Aboriginal community like we have in Cape York, Northern Territory, they cannot get access to land. If you cannot get access to land, how the hell do you get money to borrow, to pay for a house? How the hell do you get money to start a small business? What the Native Title Act was about, was about locking up the land, taking your land, pretending to give it to the Aboriginals, but not. And so it was about locking up the land. Where did it come from? United Nations. It was about stealing land.

Chris:

What year was that?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Oh, Keating. When was Keating in power?

Chris:

No idea. It’s why I asked.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

’96, ’93, ’96, somewhere around there.

Chris:

Was the mid 90s, somewhere there.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Early to mid 90s. So this is what’s going on and people aren’t aware of that. And we all sit back and think, well, the virtue signal etc. We’ve done our job. We’ve given the Aboriginals land, bullshit. Go to an Aboriginal community and talk to them. They will tell you they can’t get the land. And they’ll also tell you the Aboriginal industry is stopping the money flying from the taxpayers to the Aboriginal in the community. Torres Strait Islander, we were up there last year. I said, what do you think about Close The Gap? Because to me it’s a negative because you’re focusing on the negative, closing a gap. And he said, “It’s bullshit and you’ll never close the gap while ever we have a Close The Gap programme.”

Chris:

That’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Of course it is. But I was wanting to know, so I said, “What do you mean?” And he said, “Well, who do you think makes money out of having a Close The Gap programme? All the people supposed to be on these programmes who are closing the gap.” If they close the gap, they won’t get the money. They’re not interested in closing the gap. It’s that simple. It’s been turned into an industry that is hurting the Aboriginals in the communities. That’s what we object to. And Pauline has been calling that out since ’96.

Chris:

So it comes from… That’s what I mean, there’s people that will label you and Pauline as racist and on all the rest of the terms that they use.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Nazis.

Chris:

Nazis. If you have to speak, because if what you say, if you just make a point and you just read that in passing, it may look that way. But the way you explain it and the way that you, and not just you, but Pauline as well, it’s very clear to anyone that listens that it comes from a good place. And that in fact, you’re probably doing more for that community than what the other people are, and that you’re actually standing up and speaking for them. But it’s the same thing. The minute you even suggest that you’ll vote no to the referendum for the indigenous voice, the comments were flying about you being racist. You’re like, well, that’s irrelevant. What do you mean I’m racist? I’m objecting to a particular issue. But people just can’t, when I mean people, I mean let’s be honest, primarily the left, but they just see it and run with it.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I don’t call them the left. As you know, I call them the control side of politics, because left and right are meaningless terms these days. I know what you’re saying. And most people can understand a broad group by the left, but there’s so many people on the left economically who are on the right when it comes to morals or values and vice versa. It’s an irrelevant term. And I realised, I was reading a book one day about 10, 15 years ago. And I realised that left and right are used to confuse people. The real terms are you’re either in favour of control or you’re in favour of freedom. And the real issue throughout humanity has been control versus freedom. Labour Party is in favour of controls. Greens are in favour of controls. So what you call the left broadly, in favour of controls. UN is in favour of controls.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

And that’s been the entire battle in humans, it’s a battle within each of us, whether we want to control someone else. It’s a battle between two of us, who’s going to control. It’s a battle between a group. It’s a battle within a community. It’s a battle within a nation. It’s a battle between nations, that’s what’s caused most wars. So it’s that ego again that comes up. That’s what the core issue is with humans, the control element, the fear based element. People who want to control, always beneath control is fear. So it’s whether or not we let their fears take over and control others, try to control others, or we let our spirit come through. And then we’re of the universe.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re not a part of the universe, you’re of the universe, but the way we create ourselves and fabricate the ego that I call Malcolm, I’m part of the universe, whereas I’m really of the universe. And I think we’ve got to get back to that holistic thinking, that unified thinking, universal thinking, which means you don’t have a voice for Aboriginals. You have a voice for the people of Australia, that’s it. And what we’ve got to get back to is that, because at the moment we have a voice for the Liberal Party, a voice for the Labour Party, a voice for the National Party, although it’s pretty weak, and a voice for the Greens.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

They’re all speaking for the UN. David Littleproud is the leader of the Nationals. He’s trying to push forward globalist policies. One of the last things he did as a National Party minister was introduce a bill on biodiversity, which is complete bullshit. It was about controlling land in the guise of giving money to farmers for that control. I mean they’re coming at us every which way they can, Chris. We’ve just got to be so much on guard, but I think we’ve got to get back to being individuals within a human species of our universe rather than looking at separation and fragmentation.

Chris:

Mate, well said. We’ll end it there on that. That was yep, exactly right. You’re exactly right. And I heard something a few weeks ago and they said that in the video, he said that we were controlled by freedom, that we’re being controlled by freedom. And then once cryptocurrency and people, you had the internet, they started talking, like we are doing here and bouncing ideas off each other, they lost a little bit of that control. So the shift now is they’re trying to control us with safety, which is exactly what they’re doing. In the last three years, how many viruses have popped up out of nowhere? How many? Coronavirus, monkey pox, now there’s a new one in China where there was 31 cases identified of a brand new virus. It’s just one after the next.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Foot and mouth in Bali.

Chris:

Foot and mouth, that’s right.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

That one’s real.

Chris:

Yeah, that’s very concerning that one. Very, very concerning. But anyway, I’m aware you have another meeting at 12, so we’ll leave it there. But Malcolm, always a pleasure.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yeah, same here, Chris. And keep doing what you’re doing, mate, because we can’t rely on the mockingbird media, the anti-social media, the legacy media, the charlatan media. We’ve got to rely upon people like you to get the truth out. So thank you.

Chris:

Absolutely. And is your TNT Radio, what’s your vision for that? Are you doing that for the foreseeable future?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Yep. Every two weeks on a Saturday from three til five. And thank you for mentioning it. TNTradio.live wonderful, wonderful, global, Australian actually, but they have hosts in New York, Los Angeles, Tel Aviv, Belfast, Ireland, London, all over Australia. And they have journalists during the week and people who’ve come from prominent positions. We’ve got former CIA, senior people in CIA on there. And then on the weekends, they tend to have people like me and we take our turns. So every second Saturday three til five I’m on. But TNT was funded by a person who wants to change politics in this country and change journalism, bring it back to basics and honesty. And by a journalist, Mike Ryan, who’s doing a wonderful job. What they’re doing is they’re just saying to the media, here’s some honesty. And they’re saying to the media, here’s the real politics. So they’re reporting fearlessly on any topic. They just tell the truth. As they say the only thing that TNT mandates is the truth.

Chris:

Yeah. We need to have that. And that’s why I have no problem recommending your show on TNT Radio because we need to work together collectively. Because you know what that’s going to do, it’s going to pressure the mainstream media to hopefully start being a little bit more honest, because people are going to get sick of it. And I’ve already noticed that people are getting sick of the mainstream media. People know that the mainstream media lie. And I think it’s a lack of awareness that podcasts like mine and shows like yours exist. But I think people are really starting to see that now. And it’s going to force the mainstream media to change, because if the mainstream media change and they’re more forthcoming and truthful with their reporting, everyone wins. Everyone wins. So it doesn’t bother me if I promote your show and we’re all in it together collectively, it’s a collective effort. But anyway, Malcolm.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

I meant what I said, keep doing what you’re doing.

Chris:

I appreciate that mate, all the best.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

See you, mate.

/8 Comments/by