Former terrorist Tedros Ghebreyesus will not fire 83 WHO staff engaged in abuse including rape and forced abortions, with one victim 13, claiming rape and forced abortion do not violate WHO’s policies because the victims were not receiving WHO aid.
Transcript
Last year the Albanese government continued the Morrison government’s campaign to sign away Australian sovereignty to the United Nations World Health Organization, the WHO. Despite the attempt failing, WHO’s power grab is ongoing.
The WHO is not independent. Their owners are corporate donors who contribute most of the WHO budget. WHO’s current sugar daddy is Bill Gates, who has made billions out of his investment in the same vaccines that WHO promotes. Gates bought the WHO and they now recommend his products. It is that simple.
The head of the WHO is Tedros Ghebreyesus, who was previously the health minister of a terrorist organisation called the Tigray People’s Liberation Front and used international aid to buy power and punish his enemies. The regions of Ethiopia that Tedros starved of medical supplies suffered disastrous cholera epidemics in 2006, 2009 and 2011. Independent investigators found Tedros was ‘fully complicit in the terrible suffering and dying that continues to spread in East Africa.’ He’s a killer. WHO is rotting from the head.
Last week, Associated Press reported on the WHO sex crimes scandal, where WHO staffers sexually exploited girls and women during the Congo’s recent Ebola outbreak—inhuman. At least 83 WHO staff engaged in abuse, including rape and forced abortions, with victims as young as 13. WHO refused to fire the perpetrators, using the absurd argument that their actions didn’t violate WHO’s sexual exploitation practice policies because the victims were not receiving WHO aid; the raping part is okay with Tedros. This the person who heads an organisation that many in government and academia want to elevate above the Australian parliament.
One Nation rejects the UN-WHO power grab and will defend Australia’s sovereignty. So should you all.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/8wpSTVoDgjM/hqdefault.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-03-09 15:12:072023-03-16 09:14:46World Health Organisation is rotting from the head
Free Trade Agreements are a race to the bottom. A race to the lowest wages, the lowest taxation, the least corporate regulation and the most efficient enterprise. Efficiency is a code word for large corporations becoming larger and sending small businesses broke. They do not benefit Australia.
Transcript
President once again we have a so-called free trade agreement in front of the Senate.
Each time a free trade agreement is advanced we hear speeches extolling the virtues of free trade, telling us just how much this will help everyday Australians.
Free trade lowers tariff barriers, making it easier for our farmers to sell their produce, we are told.
We’re told that so-called free trade gives market access for our manufactured goods, software and suchlike.
Australia has free trade agreements with:
New Zealand
Singapore
United States
Thailand
Chile
Malaysia
Korea
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Peru
Indonesia
Mexico and Vietnam through the CPTPP
Brunei Darussalam and Cambodia through the RCEP
And now India and the UK
After all these free trade agreements bringing all this increased prosperity Australia should be rolling in it.
According to the ABS measure of Household Income and Wealth, since 2010 everyday Australian households have seen a reduction in their annual income of 1.2%.[1]
Not an increase, a reduction.
Everyday Australian households have also seen a reduction in their wealth of 1.6%.
Australia is not rolling in new found wealth.
Australia has gone backwards. And Australians are going backwards.
It should be remembered that in this period our minerals exports have boomed. From that alone, every Australian should be thousands of dollars better off.
So what’s going wrong?
It’s simple, nations do not sign free trade agreements unless they consider they will gain more than they lose.
That of course is not possible. A pie can only be sliced so many ways.
There’s no evidence free trade agreements will grow the pie so each slice is larger.
While growing the pie is the promise, the outcome is smaller slices of the same size pie.
This so-called free trade agreement, like the previous agreements, will not make our lives better.
It will make it easier for large corporations to move capital around chasing the lowest wage, the most flexible labour arrangements, including labour hire contracts that One Nation is still waiting for Labor to do something about.
International capital will move money around chasing the lowest tax rates and the highest profits.
This is where some of the negative outcomes lie.
Free Trade Agreements are a race to the bottom. A race to the lowest wages, the lowest taxation, the least corporate regulation and the most efficient enterprise.
When proponents of free trade agreement talk about business efficiency they never mean small and medium businesses, family businesses.
Efficiency is a code word for large corporations becoming larger and sending small businesses broke.
One Nation supports fair trade not so-called free trade.
Fair trade can occur between nations with similar wages and environmental regulations. These are the two big costs that decide how fairly one country can compete with another.
The UK free trade agreement is more likely to provide a fair outcome for Australia than any other of these agreements with countries like China, that treat environmental legislation as a joke and who pay their workers unfairly low wages.
The fact that a party called the Labor party promotes these agreements belies their new iteration as the party of global capital and environmental rent seekers. One Nation is now the party of workers.
Getting rid of Nuclear Weapons is a laudable goal, but I don’t expect the United Nations to have any success given they’ve failed at just about everything else worth doing.
Transcript
Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a laudable goal, and for this reason One Nation will be supporting this matter of urgency. To be consistent, though, I point out that the United Nations has failed at every peace initiative it has attempted in the last 77 years. I doubt this initiative will be any different. How will the United Nations achieve compliance from rogue states like North Korea and Iran? Will China be given a free pass on their nuclear weapons, in the same manner that the UN gives China a free pass on complying with 2050 carbon dioxide targets? I would love Australia to be treated the same as China on net zero. Imagine the lights that would be kept on in Australia, and the jobs and prosperity that could be saved. The UN has given China a free pass on labour camps yet had the hide to turn up in Queanbeyan, just down the road, last week to inspect our prisons for human rights abuses.
Humanity has not seen a world war since 1945. The United Nations did not do that; nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war did that. Yet nuclear weapons have served their purpose. Future wars will be served with robots and drones, not nuclear weapons. Uranium is better used as a wonderful source of electrical power, not military power. While passing this treaty is one thing, implementing it is quite another. If this treaty passes, the United Nations must implement the treaty fairly and have in mind the need to not change the balance of power amongst nuclear nations. Removing nuclear weapons unevenly from some nations and not others would increase the potential for plunging the world into a nuclear war—the opposite of this treaty’s intention.
I wish the UN the wisdom and courage necessary to achieve this objective. Having demonstrated over the last 77 years the complete absence of these qualities, I’m not hopeful. Yet we must try, because it’s the right thing to do. The world will be better completely without nuclear weapons. We are one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and the time for nuclear weapons is over.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/L6RIQ5046qQ/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-10-26 09:05:352022-10-26 09:05:41Uranium – Better for Nuclear power than Nuclear weapons
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I wish to indicate some concerns I have about this Bill which is both divisive and mostly unnecessary.
Our country is Australia. Our country consists of people from many nations, cultures and religions and from many racial groups providing a rich tapestry of positive contributions to our Australian nation.
What we do not want or need is legislation that picks out a particular cultural group and make laws aimed at that particular cultural group, driving a potentially divisive wedge between aboriginal Australians and other Australians.
It does not matter where a person comes from or what that person’s cultural or racial background is. “I am, you are, we are Australian”, are the words of a well- known theme song.
It’s true. We know that and we do not need legislation that is geared to a “them and us” mentality.
This Bill is intended to affirm into Australian domestic law the contents and intention of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People.
This is a requirement necessary before the UN Declaration provisions become enforceable In Australian law.
Aboriginal Australians, as Australians, already have the same rights as any other Australian right now.
If there are gaps in services available to Indigenous Australians these gaps are due to poverty and remoteness, issues that affect many isolated people across Australia.
It is the failings of successive governments to adequately address health, housing, education and infrastructure that have led to many persons, aboriginal and otherwise, to fall into the poverty gap.
I call on the government to address these issues with priority before considering this Bill which is unnecessary and does nothing more than acknowledging what already is in place for all Australians.
This Bill perpetuates the victimhood of aboriginal people. It places blame on past cultural divides for the current lack of support for aboriginal minorities.
There are many aboriginal people in Australia who have accessed free education, worked hard and prospered as Australians in the broader community. They do not need this Bill.
There are many indigenous Australians who would be offended by the content of this Bill which virtually enshrines a “them and us” mentality.
The most divisive clause in this Bill is clause 7 which throws blame on colonisation for all the ills that prevent their right to develop in accord with their own needs and interests.
All this in the face of facts that include:
Determined indigenous Native Title claims now cover approximately half of the Australian land mass.
Aboriginal Australians represent approximately 3.5% of Australia’s population
All aboriginal children are entitled to scholarships to continue education through high school and beyond.
Assistance to aboriginal families has now become an enviable but divisive issue within small remote communities where other minorities in similar living conditions are not able to access assistance at the same level.
This is where the true problem lies.
Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist, scientifically false, legally questionable, morally condemnable and socially unjust. Simply wrong.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/WzigaYH9KxU/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-08-01 14:03:312022-08-01 14:26:23Treating Australians differently on the basis of race is racist: The UN declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
A new, dangerous World Health Organisation pandemic treaty is a threat to all Australians.
The next World Health Assembly, which will take place in Geneva, May 22 to 28, 2022, will vote upon proposed amendments to the International Health Orders (IHO).
The vote is to make the World Health Organisation’s International Health Regulations mandatory on member nations. Australia is a member.
If the vote is successful, Australia will then need to ratify the new arrangement by way of passing legislation through Federal Parliament, handing power over Australia to the WHO in the event of a pandemic.
The Liberals have already expressed support, it is most likely that our globalist uniparty (Liberal, Nationals and the ALP) will wave these measures through with only One Nation in opposition.
IHO regulations are a comprehensive guidebook to implement even worse restrictions than Australia suffered through during COVID-19.
Measures specifically provided for in the regulations include lockdowns, hard borders around quarantine zones, vaccine passports, mandatory check-in and contact tracing, mandatory health tests, mandatory removal and quarantine.
Even worse, compulsory vaccination is part of the International Health Regulations, and may now be forced on all Australians if this vote succeeds.
Regulations are in place for as long as WHO decides is necessary.
The World Health Organisation can declare a pandemic without justifying or even publishing their reasons. There is no appeal, no transparency, no fairness.
In 2009-11 WHO created a false pandemic called H1N1. This disease also “escaped” from a lab and was no worse than a bad flu, a fact not in dispute today.
The WHO response to H1N1, if repeated for the next lab “escape” of a manufactured virus, will implement International Health Orders in Australia, including forced vaccination and forced removal & quarantine.
The police and armed forces have already demonstrated their support for these measures during COVID.
One Nation strongly opposes the ceding of our sovereignty to the UN and WHO. Unelected, unrepresentative foreign bureaucrats should not have the power to lock Australia down and force Australians to undergo medical procedures.
The Government should never have the power to force a medical procedure without your consent, an unelected international organisation certainly should not.
This brazen proposal shows the WHO is not fit for purpose, cannot be trusted and does not operate with Australia’s sovereign interests in mind. Australia must immediately exit the WHO and maintain our sovereignty.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/fernando-dearferdo-globe-unsplash.jpg?fit=4830%2C3220&ssl=132204830Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-05-16 10:54:012022-05-16 10:54:01Dangerous WHO pandemic treaty must be opposed
I investigated where Meat and Livestock Australia is taking the $28bn red meat industry. It is clear that the industry plan titled “Red Meat 2030” does not tell the full story. Red Meat 2030 is a strategic plan to double the value of the red meat industry without increasing herd numbers or prices, whilst bringing the industry to net zero emissions. This sounds like a fairy-tale and yet the Liberal/Nationals Government is selling this plan to farmers with a straight face.
In answer to my questions on Tuesday Jason Strong, Managing Director of Meat and Livestock Australia made the stunning admission the Red Meat 2030 plan is not a plan but an “ambitious goal” – bureaucrat speak for a political goal not a planning goal. MLA do not have a plan for how to deliver the 100% increase in the value of the red meat market.
Improvements to feed composition, genetics, transport and finishing have led to a 13% increase in weight. Where is the other 87% increase coming from if herd numbers are not increased?
Tuesday’s answers give us a hint of what is really planned. To explain, at the moment marginal farming land produces meat that sells in the cheaper end of the market, mostly through major supermarkets. This allows everyday Australians to buy red meat as a routine part of their diet. Once MLA complete this plan, there will be no more of this reasonably-priced meat. The only red meat produced in Australia will be a premium product to go on the tables of the very wealthy, with most production being exported to wealthy citizens of other countries. That is where the 87% price increase comes from.
Red Meat 2030 is a plan to take red meat off the table of everyday Australians. This is implementing the political goals of the United Nations to reduce red meat consumption to 14g – one mouthful – a day. I spoke about this UN plan in my speech to the Senate recently. A vote for the Liberal, Nationals, Labor or Greens is a vote for taking red meat off the table of everyday Australians through their Red Meat 2030 plan.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you for attending. May I start by complimenting Meat & Livestock Australia on their Australia Day TV advertisement. I loved it.
This is my first question. Mr Strong, in your letter to me, dated 27 October 2021, you acknowledged that the data I quoted at the last Senate estimates from a report published on the CSIRO website titled ‘Australian cattle herd: a new perspective on structure, performance and production’, dated 2021, was correctly quoted. I thank you for that and accept that Meat & Livestock Australia consider the figure I used is higher than what you would use. The lead author of that report, Dr Geoffry Fordyce, works for Meat & Livestock Australia on your NB2 herd pillar feed base program. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : He certainly has. I’m not sure if he’s currently contracted, but certainly he has worked with us, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So my decision to use the data that I used was logical, then, wasn’t it?
Mr Strong : Partially, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I want to turn to the Meat & Livestock Australia Strategic Plan 2025. You’re familiar with that. On page 4—these are your own words, Mr Strong—it says:
With a new whole‑of‑industry strategic plan in place, Red Meat 2030—
that’s the name of your plan—
there is an opportunity for MLA to drive transformational change. We have to find ways to support the industry to deliver on its ambitious vision of doubling the value of red meat sales.
Could you please specify what percentage of this 100 per cent increase in sales revenue will come from price rises and what percentage will come from sales volume increases.
Mr Strong : The Red Meat 2030 plan is actually the industry plan that was put together by RMAC. It’s a 10-year plan that the industry collectively put together. Our five-year plan then fits in behind that. We’ve adopted the same overarching goal and the six pillars—
Mr Strong : That’s our five-year plan. It draws on the Red Meat 2030 plan, which is the broader industry plan. It doesn’t specify what component of that growth comes from price or volume. Speaking from opinion, having been involved in that process, the setting of that target was being ambitious for the future of the industry in creating and capturing value but also making sure that we weren’t, as an industry, limited to price or volume. The industry, collectively, has over the last 30 years invested in a significant range of activities—not just with Meat & Livestock Australia and our R&D and marketing but with a range of other activities as well—for us to produce a higher quality, more consistent, traceable and guaranteed product but also to take advantage of or participate in the preferential market access that we have available to us. So there are opportunities for us to increase productivity, but there are also opportunities for us to create and capture more value in higher quality products where we have preferential access to high-quality markets. So it’s a combination of both.
Senator ROBERTS: Pardon me, but it sounds like waffle. Who are you trying to convince here? The farmers, the producers, need to have some kind of faith in what you’re leading and yet you’re telling me now that it’s just an ambitious plan with no limit on price or volume. Surely this has all been modelled.
Mr Strong : There are a number of things sitting behind it, but I think it’s quite the opposite to waffle. It’s providing opportunity in multiple areas rather than restricting it to one.
Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. Opportunity comes from knowing something about it. What you’re saying here is: ‘We haven’t done this. It’s an opportunity because it hasn’t been modelled.’
Mr Strong : The opportunity comes from the investments that the broader industry has made over the last 20 or 30 years in having a consistent, quality, traceable product—with a quality assurance program behind it—that is being sold at higher prices into markets where we now have preferential access.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, but you’re still talking very generally. To double the value of red meat sales you need to double the price if the herd stays flat.
Mr Strong : If the volume stays the same. The volume can increase if the herd stays the same size. You can have increased carcase weight or increased productivity.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, 13 per cent is your increased carcase weight. There doesn’t seem to be any real meat in this.
Mr Strong : There’s an outcomes report that actually lays out some of the progress that has already been made. Look at something like Meat Standards Australia, which is the eating quality program. Last year it added $158 million in value to farmgate revenue for producers and over the last 10 years it has created more than $1 billion in value at the farmgate. We can share with you the extension adoption report, which does list some very specific areas, like Meat Standards Australia, like the Profitable Grazing Systems program and the Producer Demonstration Sites program, which have quantified increases in farmgate value and also increases on a per hectare basis of benefit to producers of adopting the things that the industry has invested in.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, I’ll accept that, if you’d like to send us that. The fundamental figure though is 100 per cent increase in value with flat herd size.
Mr Strong : No, it’s not, Senator. There’s nothing about a flat herd size. It is doubling the value of red meat sales over a 10-year period.
Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:
We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.
I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?
Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.
Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.
Mr Strong : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.
Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.
Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.
Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.
Mr Str ong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?
Mr Strong : We can provide you with some.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’ve got questions on this. Perhaps, if you stick around, we can talk about it.
Senator ROBERTS: Good. I’ve only got two more questions. Can you provide that breakdown?
Mr Strong : We can provide some. As I say, that’s an industry broader 10-year goal. In our five-year plan we’ve laid out a range of areas that we’re investing in, so we can certainly provide you with a range of activities that are currently underway. And, like I mentioned before, the outcomes report will give you some evidence of where that progress has already been shown.
Senator ROBERTS: Just to summarise, I’m concerned—and hopefully your figures will alleviate that concern—that what you’re relying upon is a huge increase in price, which will hurt the consumer. The second thing I’m concerned about is why this is being done. Let’s listen to the chair’s questions and let’s get the figures from you.
My last two questions: I acknowledge from your letter that there’s been a reduction in carbon dioxide production of 53 per cent since 2000 by the Australian red meat industry. Again, there’s never been any evidence produced that carbon dioxide needs to be cut from human activity. This has been driven by measures that are now in place. How will you get the other 47 per cent, other than calling the permanent herd reduction numbers a net zero measure?
Mr Strong : There are a range of things already underway and a couple we can point to straightaway including feed supplements. There are two good examples of that.
Mr Strong : No, additional feed supplements that will go into a ration, for example. The red asparagopsis seaweed product has demonstrated to reduce the production of methane by more than 90 per cent. There’s also a synthetic version of the same type of component, which so far has demonstrated the same type of effect. So feed supplements are certainly a key opportunity in reducing the amount of methane being produced.
One of the other areas relates to things we’ve just been talking about, which is increasing productivity from the herd that we have through improved genetics, improved productivity through the things we were just talking about. So there are a number of areas in addition to a stable herd which are already largely proven and underway. We’re only a couple of years into the path to 2030.
Senator ROBERTS: WWF in America has been on a concerted campaign to kill the beef industry. The same organisation is doing the same here in this country, and cattle graziers have told me that. So there’s a lot of pressure on the beef industry, its very existence, for political reasons, not economic or scientific reasons. Do you, as the MLA, just accept the mantra that we need to cut the carbon dioxide produced by humans or human activity, or do you actually have scientific justification for accepting that?
Mr Strong : It’s not our position to enter into that discussion.
Mr Strong : It’s not the environment to have a position either way. This is an industry goal, which is ambitious, but what’s really important is that we don’t think about CN30 in the absence of profitability, productivity and intergeneration sustainability. There’s nothing that we’re doing or investing in that doesn’t have a lens on profitability or productivity of the industry at the same time as thinking about its impact on the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: I would beg to differ. It seems to me that you need to have a sound rationale for why you’re doing these things and I have yet to see any proof of that. Feeding seaweed to cattle, feed supplements: surely there’s cost in there. You’re asking farmers to change their practices which could increase costs further. It seems like the doomsayers that have been hitting our electricity sector, our transport sector, our regulatory sector are now hitting our agriculture sector in many, many ways.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5EzJvGrH7YY/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-08 14:28:372022-04-08 14:37:04Eat the Bugs Peasant – Meat and Livestock Australia
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, tonight I draw attention to a new government bill, the Trusted Digital Identity Bill 2021. This is no time for subtlety. The Trusted Digital Identity Bill represents a watershed moment in Australian history. We stand at the divide between a free, personal-enterprise future and a digital surveillance age in which the government sits in the middle of every interaction Australians have with each other and with the world. It achieves this in the same way China does, creating a digital identity that forms a central part of a person’s life. Call it a licence to live.
This bill removes the privacy protection currently preventing this exploitation and allows the government to keep one massive data file with everything the government knows about you and to sell that file to private companies overseas. Those companies can add your private sector data to build up a complete digital record of every Australian—everything: medical, shopping, whom we associate with, social security, veterans services, travel, web viewing, employment, our social media comments. Everything will go on the record and be available to any large corporation that can pay for access. We will each have to pay to access our medical records from that corporation. In Morrison-Joyce news speak, it’s a ‘human-centric digital identity’—sounds great, doesn’t it!
This has frightening ramifications for government and corporate control of everyday Australians. Policy documents attached to this bill promote digital identity as a benign housekeeping bill to fix antiquated and incomplete government databases ‘to save a few minutes filling out that government form’, they say. ‘This will reinvigorate the economy after COVID,’ they say. What the economy really needs is for the government to get the hell out of the way and let Australians lift ourselves up through our own hard work and enterprise—remove vaccine passports or, as I call them, digital prisons; ditch QR codes; stop spreading fear; and let the Australian spirit do the rest.
One Nation believes in technological advancements and in streamlining services. We would love to see a bill come forward to clean up the government’s databases and improve the online experience of Australians trying to access our own data. This is not what the digital identity bill does. Digital identity will do nothing to fix the government’s IT, yet it creates a crown-jewel scenario for hackers to steal not just one set of government data but, rather, personalised treasure troves. Far from safe, the Australian government’s is one of the most hacked databases in the world. This year, medical records became a highly sought after target. If you want to know the direction in which global policy is headed, watch what the hackers are trying to steal.
Another concern is vaccination. Digital identity links medical history with consumer purchases. What’s to stop a government locking out an uninjected person from the economy, as more than one state premier already threatens? It is a social credit system. We should not have to ask these questions, because the power should not exist. Digital identity represents the cornerstone in a larger World Economic Forum and United Nations campaign to implement a global digital identity system.
Why is the Morrison-Joyce government allowing the World Economic Forum to write Australian legislation? This bill is a copy-and-paste from the World Economic Forum’s Global Digital Identity Project—part of the digital transformation initiative. The Morrison-Joyce government brought this package to Australia, and this bill will start the World Economic Forum package’s implementation. It’s designed to shift the global economy away from private ownership and into what the World Economic Forum calls an ‘access model’—in other words, control. Australians have heard the slogan of the globalist Build Back Better campaign. You will own nothing and you will be happy. The goal of digital identity is life via subscription. Put simply, everyday Australians will not own assets like a house, car or furniture. Instead, they will rent these from corporations—corporations that the cabal owns—or, as the UN calls them, ‘corporate partners’.
When they talk about us having less, or living sustainably, or living in a closed-loop economy, what they mean is: we will have less—a lot less—so that billionaires can have more. It’s this principle that informed the Liberal Party’s billion-dollar Digital Economy Strategy 2030 which is reliant on the Trusted Digital Identity Bill. Indeed, the bulk of the supporting commentary around digital identity and the Digital Economy Strategy 2030 obsesses about how the government will be able to manage Australia’s economy onto a so-called sustainable path—a UN path.
For a glimpse into this future, we need only look at the food menus on display at the UN climate summit that the Prime Minister attended earlier this month. Each dish listed its carbon footprint, with a United Nations pledge to reduce the carbon footprint of every meal consumed across the world, including ours, every day. What happens when a government, obsessed with pursuing digital net-zero policies, decides to encourage people to reduce the carbon footprint of our food choices? We already know the UN is pushing vegetarianism and limiting red meat consumption to one mouthful per person per day.
The level of control this legislation provides to the UN is frightening. Instead of allowing businesses to seek out and explore natural market forces and people’s needs, digital identity is a tool to introduce a controlled economy under international direction, where implementing something like net zero can be mandated individually.
One Nation rejects providing more power to unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable UN bureaucrats to control everyday Australians in what we can eat, where we can travel, how much water and power we can use, under the threat of being shut off from the ability to feed, clothe and house ourselves.
It’s evident that this policy robs businesses of control over their own future. The government will dictate each and every business’s future interactions with customers and suppliers. Small and medium businesses will have to contend with a massive technology overhead and be forced into an unfair David-versus-Goliath fight against large, incredibly well-informed businesses that are in the globalist information-sharing club. More Australian businesses will fall to foreign multinationals.
Digital identity is the end of personal privacy, anonymity, confidentiality, sovereignty and choice. Despite the bill repeatedly insisting that it offers a voluntary service to make life easier, it’s clear from the full documentation that digital identity will be made compulsory in the same way that vaccine mandates are now.
With this bill, once again, Prime Minister Morrison is trying to ban cash. One Nation was successful in striking the government’s cash-ban bill from the Senate Notice Paper last year, after public outrage. Cashless payments are popular, but the complete loss of cash opens up an entirely different conversation. Cash is a safeguard. When we have cash, we have purchasing power. A digital identity, though, could easily limit our individual purchases based on government or corporate policy. So, under this bill, cash has to go and, under this legislation, cash will go.
Australian banks have already voiced their interest in the Trusted Digital Identity Framework, saying it will allow them to create a rich view of their customers. Most people do not want banking institutions creating rich data maps of their personal and private information. This bill will allow banks to micromanage our spending in the name of whatever social justice cause banks are promoting. The design of the new payment platform that the Reserve Bank of Australia introduced in 2018 and forced on all Australian banks, allows for the addition of a digital identity. In fact, the basic architecture of the new payment platform was designed for a digital identity. Under the new payment platform, every transaction, every retail sale, interbank transfer, pay, online sale, all come through one central server. This allows the digital identity of each party to be checked and approved before the payment is finalised. Just how long have the World Economic Forum and the UN been planning this? For decades.
In China, a person’s phone controls their lives. The same thing has happened in Australia during COVID. Without a phone to prove our identity and to cough up medical data, citizens are excluded from society. The need to carry a phone at all times—charged and ready to offer their digital identity to buy something as simple as a cup of coffee—can be replaced with a wearable or an implantable chip. I can’t wait to see how they sell that! All forced at the start of a social credit system.
The Trusted Digital Identity Bill makes a wild claim that it will solve online fraud and protect businesses and customers. The government even put ‘trusted’ in the title, so it must be true! Anyone with any experience in online fraud knows this system will not solve fraud; it will likely make it worse.
The reason we have a Constitution is to enforce absolute boundaries to stop politicians taking liberties with our liberties. The behaviour of politicians during COVID has shown everyone how quick many politicians and bureaucrats were to abuse rights and to punish and coerce citizens into undergoing untested and unproven medical procedures. This bill will give premiers and the Prime Minister the power to take such action at any time. What a terrifying prospect! For this government, once the public understand how much we’re going to lose under the global reset, oppression becomes essential. This bill becomes the framework for that oppression. The Trusted Digital Identity Bill is a global surveillance and control mechanism that profit-hungry corporations and power-mad politicians drafted and crafted. It aims to introduce the total-control economy where citizens own nothing and have no freedom and no choices.
One Nation opposes this inhuman dystopian future that the United Nations promotes as the great reset, and we condemn this parliament for signing on to it. The only way to stop this monstrous plan is, at the next election, to throw out the globalist cheer squad—Liberal, Labor, Nationals and Greens parties—and develop a potent One Nation representation to hold government accountable and return parliament to serving the people of Australia.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/9ok_5mSztio/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-12-01 17:59:002021-12-01 09:43:54“1984: the Bill” – The Trusted Digital Identity
The United Nations is demonising our farmers and trying to send our society back to the stone age by taking 2.4 billion kilos of protein off of the market. Despite the UN wanting to destroy one of Australia’s largest industries supporting life as we know it, the Morrison government still gives them $64 million of our money.
Transcript
The United Nations food systems presummit last week in Rome recommended a dietary limit of 14 grams of red meat per person per day. That’s one bite. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m appalled, and I’ll explain how this is an attack on our farmers and on every Australian.
The presummit recommended the introduction of a worldwide environmental tax on meat of $1.60 per kilo for cattle grazing on pasture, yet not for cattle raised in intensive feedlots. That distinction reflects the influence of large multinational feedlot operators and the lack of influence that family farms have in the UN’s eyes. As my colleague Bob Katter rightly pointed out, this UN measure will take 2.4 billion kilos of protein off the market, starving 80 million people of protein. Yes, go the UN!
The third recommendation of the food systems presummit is to move food production within reach of population centres and produce whatever protein and nutrition is possible in that region. It’s called short chain food supply. We did it 200 years ago. People starved. Nutrition was poor. Life expectancy was less than half what we enjoy today. Then along came long chain food supply, allowing countries like Australia to grow crops to feed and clothe those in need. World hunger fell to less than 10 per cent. The only reason there are still areas of poverty and hunger in 2021 is because of war and civil unrest—you know, the things that the United Nations were supposed to solve. World peace has eluded the UN, yet cows have not. The United Nations is proposing to eliminate global food chains that have brought good food to the world for hundreds of years.
I recently spoke about the false water shortage brought to you thanks to the UN’s directive to not build new dams. This is the start of a false food shortage. The motivation is to eliminate broadacre agriculture, eliminate food exports and return all that land to nature.
Rural voters will be annoyed to hear that the Morrison government bankrolled this attack on our farming community with a $64 million donation. The Liberal-National government is funding our own demise—the betrayal and demise of our farmers, of our country. Australian farms employ 326,000 people directly. They contribute $75 billion to the economy and $60 billion to our exports. Without the bush, we’d be stuffed, broke and hungry. These three United Nations proposals will destroy rural Australia, wipe out family farms, crash real estate prices and further hollow out country towns for no benefit to us.
There’s no better source of protein than red meat, yet our supermarkets stock protein and fake food products made from crickets. Why? It’s because billionaires can’t make enough profit out of cattle. It’s a variable industry, with good times and bad. Billionaires can, though, make money on intensive cultivation of bugs for protein. This breaks the reliance on nature’s weather and allows scheduled production of a food-like substance with great profit margins and low fulfilment costs. This satisfies the UN dictate for short chain supply. The United Nations food and agriculture organisation is literally directing the replacement of red meat with bug protein. Sceptics can even attend one of the regular UN bug tastings, where journalists are encouraged to extoll the virtues of bug cuisine.
The CSIRO has fallen in line behind the UN, publishing a 64-page love letter on the delights of eating bugs entitled Edible insects: a roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry. Looking through the glossy pages, we see that the CSIRO advocates our future should include insect milkshakes, bug ice-cream and granola bars made from dried cockroaches.
I’m not making any of this up. It’s real. This is happening, and we taxpayers are paying for it thanks to the Morrison-Joyce government.
For those who think they’re eating an environmentally friendly product, think again A fake hamburger patty using plant or bug protein contains 20 chemicals found in pet food. That’s all the UN and their quislings in our federal government think the public deserve: pet food. How does it make sense to grow good food and, instead of eating that food, feed it to crickets and then eat the crickets?
Fellow Australians, there is no protein shortage. There will be, though, if the UN succeeds in wiping out red meat production so that they can hand the protein industry over to their big business, corporate partners. One Nation rejects this attack on our farming community. We reject state and federal parliaments around our country continuing to demonise and isolate farmers. We will continue to oppose the UN dictating to federal and state governments. One Nation will continue to oppose ideology over humanity. We will continue to stand up for a fair society based on a citizen’s right to exercise free choice about diet, health and business. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one sovereign nation. It’s time to withdraw from the United Nations.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/protein.00_01_45_16.Still001.png?fit=1280%2C720&ssl=17201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-08-11 12:12:242021-08-11 12:12:36UN wants to ban more than one bite of meat a day
SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH DOES THE U.N. COST AUSTRALIA?
I could not believe no one in government could give me a total cost on what we pay to the UN, its subsidiaries and how much we spend in complying with their dictates.
Transcript
[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. My questions are about the United Nations. So I don’t know who will answer those questions. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations or subsidiaries each year, in dollar terms? Do we need to take that on notice?
[Minister Payne] No, I don’t think we do, I think someone’s coming down from upstairs. We will unfortunately get into questions of definition about which subsidiary agencies and all the rest of it, we may need to… in order to give a completely comprehensive answer, we may need to take it on notice, that there’ll be a number of things that we can say that are general level that I hope will be what you’re after Senator.
[Senator Roberts] I’m after a comprehensive level, yeah.
[Minister Payne] Well if you need comprehensive Senator, I’ll ask officials to do their best at the table.
[Senator Roberts] Yes.
And then if parts of it needs to be taken on notice, we’ll return to the committee.
[Senator Roberts] Of course. – Thank you.
[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. Apologies. I just had to come down the stairs. Justin Lee, first assistant secretary multilateral policy division. Senator, can I just ask you to repeat the question?
[Senator Roberts] Yes. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations, or its subsidiaries, each year, in dollar terms?
[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. The key contribution that Australia makes is our assessed contribution to the United Nations and that’s based upon the size of Australia’s economy. Australia contributes 2.21% to the UN regular budget.
[Chair] The question was in dollar terms.
[Justin Lee] Yes. And that equates to, in 2021, around $82.2 million, is our assessed contribution to the UN. We also make other contributions for example, to UN peacekeeping. And that is also based on an assessed contribution to the United Nations. And in 2019/20, which was the last year, we had a figure out for that. Australia provided $212 million in assessed contributions to support UN peacekeeping missions. Senator that is not the total of course though, of our contribution to the United Nations. And I don’t have a figure because that is provided by a range of contributions that may be made through the development corporation programme. It may be made through contributions to UN specialised agencies. They would be looked after by other Australian government agencies as well. So getting the total contribution that Australia makes to the UN, and all of the subsidiary agencies, requires a collation of data from across government, which we don’t have.
[Senator Roberts] I’ll be happy to take that on notice. Thank you. This is a very important issue for our constituents because they’re concerned at the cost and the impact on the country. The next one is along the same vein. In total, how much does it cost Australia to comply with, or to implement, UN dictates in the form of various forms, treaties, agreements declarations, protocols that are expected of the UN members?
[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. I don’t think that we would be able to provide a figure on that because if Australia, Australia of course seeks to adhere to its international obligations, including treaty reporting processes, a lot of that would be the responsibility of Australian government agencies and, and to to calculate that, you would need to look at the the staff costs, the time costs. Sorry, I, I… I just don’t think that we would have that figure or be able to collect a figure, on implementation of international obligations in that, in the way that you portray it.
[Senator Roberts] It would be. Thank you for your openness. It would be enormous. I’m thinking of the compliance with the UN Kyoto protocol. That’s cost a lot of farmers to lose their property rights. That’s been estimated by some people to be either a 100 or $200 billion. So it’s rubbery but it’s a difficult thing. Compliance with the water act, which puts compliance with international obligations as it’s, one of its primary aims, right through. Compliance with the UN Paris agreement, particularly when other nations don’t have to wreck their economy to comply because their goals are so easy. So manufacturing the UN Lima agreement, a declaration from 1975 and the governance impacts from the UN Rio declaration in 1992. So just take it, but I am. I am wondering if anyone has figured out the cost to this country in dollar terms, the cost to our economy the cost to a loss of our governance and sovereignty.
[Justin Lee] Senator, I think the only other way to portray it though is the, is the benefits that, that Australia gets from these arrangements and these agreements.
[Chair] With respect, I understand that but this isn’t the forum for arguing somebody seeking costs. And if somebody else wants to ask a question about the benefits, then that’s up to them. But time is very limited. I’m sorry.
[Senator Roberts] So that, that leads to my third question which is given the globalist approach of the UN, what value is there for Australia to constantly pay out money directly and at huge indirect cost to our governance and our economy?
[Justin Lee] Oh, well, I think the answer to that would be the benefits that we get from those, those arrangements, both in terms of having, having rules that are that guide many things that, that guide the Australian economy. If we look for example, all the work that we have been doing around rules that guide international aviation, international shipping, telecommunications, all of those rules are set by the United Nations. That means that we’ve got a global economy that we can participate in that sets equal rules between countries which Australia is a, is an open trading economy and an economy of our size can, can benefit from. Similarly, we have international organisations dealing with global challenges. So the roles that the WHO is playing in response to COVID. Dealing with, dealing with those challenges that we want addressed in the world, by making contributions to those, we get benefit from that. So we appreciate that there are costs, both direct costs and obligations that Australia has to adhere but we also get a number of very significant benefits.
[Senator Roberts] And I’d put it to you that the benefits, for example in aviation, they could be done by a country hosting the other countries of the world to come up with a convention on that. So that doesn’t have to come from the UN. And we’ve shown that in the history of our planet. What would it mean to Australia, if Australia chose to withdraw from the United Nations? If we exited.
[Minister Payne] Senator, I can assure you that there is no consideration of that, that our engagement in the international system, and indeed Australia’s security and prosperity has been underpinned for a very long time, by what is known as the rules-based international order in the institutions that were created to support that. What we have seen in the last 12 months, frankly, the impact of COVID around the world. We’ve seen what happens when those systems can click into gear. And can support the countries and the communities that need them. The international cooperation that we have through those UN agencies and organisations is very important to that management. COVID-19, as I was saying, has really exposed the magnitude of the consequences if those global institutions are not working as well as they should, that does not mean, and I think the prime minister and you, have probably engaged on this before. It does not mean, as the prime minister said in his Lowy speech last year. He said, ‘We can’t be an indifferent bystander to these events that impact our livelihoods, our safety and our sovereignty. We must, as we have done previously, cultivate, marshal and bring our influence to bear to protect and promote our national interests.’ So what we seek, is an international system that respects the unique characteristics of individual states within it. In our case, Australia. That still provides a framework for cooperation on security and prosperity. Mr. Lee, Dr. Lee has advanced international aviation I think, if I was, if I was hearing correctly as a, as an example of that, but there are countless others, Senator, where we understand that working cooperatively with others is an important part of our national interest. It’s in our national interest, it allows us to pursue shared regional and global objectives. And it is a centrepiece of our international engagement. Now, we did a lot of work on this last year, a lot of work. And that has crystallised and firmed the government’s views on these matters.
[Senator Roberts] Well, thank you and I respect your right to have an opinion. I also have a different opinion.
[Minister Payne] As I do yours, Senator.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you. I know you’ve shown that in the past.
[Minister Payne] We’re in a very good democracy. Sorry. I took some of those minutes. My apologies.
[Senator Roberts] I do acknowledge the prime minister said, I think these words, on the 3rd of October, 2019 when he addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney, ‘Unaccountable’ he spoke of, ‘The unaccountable internationalist bureaucrats or bureaucracies.’ I think those were the words. And then promptly gave, advocated to give World Health Organisation more power. I would argue with you about the World Health Organization’s benefits, because I think it contributed to the rampant spread of COVID, but nonetheless. How many funding arrangements between Australia and the UN are open-ended?
[Justin Lee] I, I’m not…
[Senator Roberts] They get ratcheted up automatically, or they’re they haven’t got a closing date.
[Justin Lee] Yes. I, I’ll try to take that on notice. But my, my initial reaction would be that we would have no open-ended commitments, or any commitment that we make would be on the basis of an agreement or an understanding. But I can take that on notice.
[Senator Roberts] I think there is some updates to our laws or our requirements, or our commitments that are made automatically if the UN document or protocol is, is changed. Are you aware of any of those?
[Justin Lee] You could be, I’m not sure Senator, you could be referring to what I mentioned earlier, which was our assessed contribution. And there is a committee that looks at our assessed contributions and adjusts that contribution according to changes and our national circumstances, our size of our economy, debt ratios and the like in comparison to other countries. That is still part of a committee which we participate in. But ultimately we would abide by the finding of that committee and at the end of that process. So there is that sort of process. And that was what I was referring to earlier about the calculation about assessing.
[Senator Roberts] It may be, I’ll finish up now, but it may be in the human rights area. Or the rights of the child area, where changes in the UN requirements are automatically fed through to us and we have to comply with them. So that may be something to consider, but I believe that’s the case.
[Justin Lee] I can take that on notice.
[Senator Roberts] Thank you, if you could. And, you know, from my, my questioning. I really question the need to stay in the UN and the advantage to this country because of the governance impact on our country, the sovereignty impact on a country and the economic impacts on a country. So, you know, I recognise and acknowledge that this country’s current government is not thinking about exiting the UN, but we certainly are. So a lot of our constituents want to.
[Minister Payne] Senator, can I also say, I understand the reform issues you’ve raised and we are strong supporters of the reform processes that have been underway in the UN and acknowledged, more to do. And I did raise that with the secretary general last week, in a conversation on a number of regional issues. But also in passing on the year-end reform questions.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/skpZBw2Eq4I/mqdefault.jpg180320Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-03-30 11:54:482021-03-30 11:54:57How much does the U.N. cost Australia? DFAT at Senate Estimates
This morning I talked to Marcus Paul about coal-fired power, the mess our Industrial Relations are in and the fact that the corrupt World Health Organisation actually said Australia could be where COVID originated.
Transcript
[Marcus Paul]
Malcolm, good morning, mate.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Good morning, Marcus, how are you?
[Marcus Paul]
I’m okay. I’m very well. Listen, I just wanted to ask you first off the bat, a question without notice because I know you’re very good on your feet. New research has found Australia’s coal fired power stations are routinely breaching their licence conditions putting our community’s health and the environment at risk.
The newly released coal impacts index reveals there have been more than 150 publicly reported environmental breaches since 2015. However, the spokes person for Australia Beyond Coal, David Ridditz says only a fraction of these, 16, have resulted in penalties or enforceable undertakings. Now, if coal’s to be a part of our reliable energy future, we need to clean up our backyard I think.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Well, if that’s true then certainly we need to. No one should be exempt from those regulations, Marcus. The environment is very important. It’s also important to understand that solar power destroys the environment as well because they’re leaking cadmium and selenium and lead into the soil and into the water.
In fact, it’s monstrous what’s going on north of Brisbane. A proposed Chinese development of a solar panel farm. They’re not farms, they’re industrial complexes, directly affecting Brisbane’s water supply for two million people. So, I mean, we’ve got to protect the environment. That’s the number one thing. The environment can’t exist without civilization being productive and civilization can’t be productive without the environment being protected. So, the future of our civilization, the future of our environment are interdependent and rely on each other.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. Anthony Albanese, the federal opposition leader yesterday, talked policy. He’ll be on the programme a little later this morning, but by the way, he’s promising workers a better deal with a suite of reforms to improve job security and provide minimum pay and entitlements to those in insecure work. What’s your take on this?
[Malcolm Roberts]
I think he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth. For a start, his policies on energy, his policies on lack of taxation reform, are cruelling job security. Secondly, his policies on energies just mentioned, don’t take into account the fact that Australian workers need to be productive and we can’t be productive when we’ve got energy costs that are now amongst the highest in the world due to labour policies under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard and due to liberal national policies under John Howard and every prime minister since. So, what we need to do is look at the big picture.
But also, it’s very hypocritical and I believe dishonest of Anthony Abanese to talk what he’s talking about casual because Joe Fitzgibbon had plenty of opportunity to address the casual issues in the Hunter Valley. Instead, what he did was he tried to misrepresent me going after it and now, what we’re seeing is I was absolutely right, with Simon Turner and other’s in the Hunter Valley, loss of worker’s compensation, loss of their leave entitlements, loss of their long service leave, accruals being accurate, loss of their accident pay, being suppressed when they had an accident or injury and being told to cover it up.
Anthony Abanese has got to come clean on this. Joe Fitzgibbon had six years to fix this. So did the liberal party. They’ve done nothing until their big corporate mates get into trouble and now they’re wanting to take on the little guy again.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, all right, let’s move onto the World Health Organisation and that dopey, ridiculous, so called investigation into Covid.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yeah, can you believe it? That they think it might have come from our beef. I mean, this is absolutely monstrous. We know that the Chinese Communist Party and the UN, through the World Health Organisation, have colluded closely to suppress the news of Covid virus in China early last year. We know that.
That enabled the virus to get a march on around the world. I mean, the Chinese came out and the World Health Organisation echoed them saying, there is no human to human virus transmission, none at all. And then they suppressed news of that, they suppressed their own doctors of it and the World Health Organization’s chief has been beholden to China. So, this is not an investigation, it’s a cover up, it’s a complete cover up and can we really have confidence that this is a transparent and thorough investigation?
No, we can’t. What we need to do is get the hell out of the World Health Organisation and get out of the UN. That’s why I called for an Aus Exit from the UN back in 2016 and I keep calling for that. The UN is a corrupt, dishonest, incompetent, lazy organisation that is hurting our country.
[Marcus Paul]
Well, they say the likely scenario is that the virus passed from original animal host to intermediary animals including frozen and chilled animal products, including Australian beef to humans.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. I mean, it’s ludicrous. They wouldn’t allow an investigation for 12 months basically. They covered everything up, they weren’t allowed to go to the lab. I mean, this is not an investigation, it’s a stitch up.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. What about the Nationals, are they backing away from manufacturing policy? They’ve collapsed on coal, they’re backing net-zero 2050. It means they’re, in your opinion, opposing jobs.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. We talked last week about the fact that the Nationals came up with a lovely glossy booklet and the core of that booklet… Sorry, on their managing policy, but on the manufacturing policy, but the core of that booklet was a solid page on their support for coal.
Then we put a motion into the senate one week ago and we said we need to build a coal fired power station in Hunter Valley, which is exactly what the Nationals were proposing. In the face of the motion, in the senate, the Nationals ran away and voted with the Liberals against a coal fired power station in the Hunter, after they said just a week before, that they were supporting it. So, they abandoned coal last week.
Now, we see their manufacturing policy relies upon cheap energy, but with the net zero 2050, it means the liberal party will be opposing jobs and opposing cheap energy and opposing manufacturing. The Nationals have meekly rolled over again. Because this policy for net-zero, according to the IPA, will cost coal miners, farmers and steel and iron workers amongst the majority of the 654,000 jobs that will be lost by the adoption of Net-Zero. We can’t afford it. It’s absolute rubbish.
[Marcus Paul]
All right. Let’s move now to the north of the country. Western Australia in particular. The north west. Yet another overreach, you say, by Mark McGowan, the WA premier and closing down for some five days.
[Malcolm Roberts]
Yes. Marcus, I was supposed to be calling you from WA, up in the north west, up near the Kimberlys today. But unfortunately, we couldn’t go there because Mark McGowan capriciously locked down parts of WA again and made it impossible for us to get there and come back in the time without some risk.
So, we need a better way of managing our community and business in the face of the virus being here. It’s just ludicrous where we get one case and people get locked down. We get people jumping on a plane in Perth, coming to Brisbane, by the time they land in Brisbane, five hours later, they suddenly find out WA’s been locked down and they have to go into hotel quarantine for two weeks at their own expense.
It’s just not right. We’ve got people in New South Wales contacted me saying they’d love to spend a holiday in Northern Queensland, beautiful up there, and they’re not going to do it because they just don’t know what Annastacia Palaszczuk’s going to do. McGowan, Palaszczuk, the control freak in Victoria, they’re using lock downs capriciously and even the UN’s corrupt World Health Organisation has admitted that lock downs are a blunt instrument to be used when things are out of control to get control.
So, the premiers of Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria simply admitting that they can’t control their states properly with the virus in their state.
[Marcus Paul]
Always good to have you on for your views. I appreciate it.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bC8ypc3F8Jw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-02-11 15:17:302021-02-11 15:17:46Each-Way Albo at it again
