Posts

What’s Labor’s REAL Plan?

International organisations can be granted immunity when operating in Australia against legal action resulting from good faith actions. This also includes protection of their records from inquiry. The Albanese Government has decided to extend this immunity to a wider range of international organisations, including those where Australia does not get a vote in how the organisation is run.

I asked the Minister what they were up to. The existing arrangements have worked fine for 30 years and I saw no reason to change them.

While the Minister’s reassurances were welcome, the point remains there is unlikely anything good going to come from this bill.

As a result, One Nation opposed the bill.

Transcript of Questions to the Minister

Senator Roberts: I have two questions for the minister. The first question is: who else will get immunity? The second question is: what additional immunities will be provided? Minister, in regard to the first question as to who else will get immunity under this bill who currently doesn’t get immunity, can you please name organisations that could be granted immunity under this bill who do not currently receive immunity? I note that the explanatory memorandum mentions the framework agreement for the Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation, OCCAR. Who else does the government have in mind, because it seems a major bill for one minor agreement? For example, would the World Economic Forum meet the criteria for immunity? Would Gavi, the global alliance for vaccines and immunisation, meet the criteria? This organisation is partly private and partly public. Does this bill extend record protections to existing organisations? I use the United Nations as an example. Do they have inviolability for their records or operations in Australia already? Under the existing legislation are all United Nations agencies, such as the World Health Organization, protected by the overarching enlisting of the United Nations as an immune organisation? Does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during COVID? Is that what’s going on with this bill?

Senator McAllister: Thanks for the questions, Senator Roberts. The short way of answering your questions is to say that international
organisations are organisations that are formed as a consequence of treaty making. That is the broad test at the heart of the existing legislation and it is not proposed to change that. The specific change that is being made here that is relevant to your question is simply to allow organisations to be recognised where Australia is not a member. I’m advised by the department that the World Economic Forum is not an organisation that would be considered relevant. They sought to clarify whether Gavi would be included and they confirm that Gavi would not be included.

Senator Roberts: Specifically, does this bill protect from inquiry, including a Senate inquiry or a royal commission, the World Health Organization’s records in respect of directions and actions they took during the COVID management response?

Senator McAllister: This bill doesn’t change the protections that would be applicable to the World Health Organization.

Senator Roberts: Thank you, Minister. My second question goes to what additional immunities are offered. Will the designation of a new body be a disallowable instrument? Will there be any form of inquiry, public consultation or committee process before the minister grants immunity to some international organisations that we have no control over? What if a person from an organisation commits a summary offence in Australia? Are they covered by immunity? What if a person commits an indictable offence? Do they have immunity? Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they are liable for taxation. Under what circumstance would an exemption apply? Inviolability of records may mean an organisation can be given immunity, come over here and then do something controversial. In that situation, can the Senate examine the organisation under oath in a Senate inquiry and compel testimony, including the provision of records?

Senator McAllister: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I think you asked essentially two questions, the first of which is about opportunities for the Senate to scrutinise decisions taken under the legislation should it pass and the second goes to what privileges or immunities might be available to organisations. In relation to scrutiny, the allocation of privileges and immunities would be done by a disallowable instrument made in the Senate, so the ordinary arrangements for the Senate would apply in this regard. I understand that, when the committee considered this, this was one of the features that senators considered in their discussion and it’s reflected in the report that was provided by the committee on this bill. In terms of the specific privileges and immunities that are presently available under the legislation, I can say two things. The first is that this bill doesn’t change those at all. It doesn’t seek to change the privileges or immunities that would be made available to an eligible organisation, but, to provide some clarity for you, I will set out what is presently available, noting that this bill makes no change to that. Privileges and immunities are legal protections afforded to foreign missions, international organisations and their representatives. The privileges and immunities contained in the act include immunity from jurisdiction, inviolability of premises and archives, currency and fiscal privileges, and the absence of censorship of official correspondence and communications. As I indicated, the bill will not change the privileges and immunities available under the act.

Senator Roberts: Thank you for your answer, Minister. I would like one clarification. I asked: Will indemnity be given to a commercial operation which, according to this bill, may be excused from taxation? Exemption from taxation suggests they’re liable for taxation, so under what circumstance would an exemption apply?

Senator McAllister: The present legislation provides for privileges and immunities to be allocated to international organisations. I’ve already provided some indication of the definition of an international organisation. It’s not proposed to change that in the legislation before the Senate.

Senator Roberts: Following on from Senator Rennick ‘s questions, I’m specifically interested in the United Nations World Health Organization. Originally that was funded as part of the United Nations, but we now know that about 80 per cent of its funding comes from private entities. Would the UN World Health Organization be considered an international organisation?

Senator McAllister: The World Health Organization is an entity that’s comprised of member states, and it would be considered an international organisation, I am advised.

Senator Roberts: [Inaudible] the discretion to stop or to look behind the proposed takeover of a UN body by a private entity as much as that’s happened with the United Nations World Health Organization?

Senator McAllister: I’m uncertain of the basis of that assertion, but, putting that to one side, this is a relatively narrow bill which makes very limited changes to an existing piece of legislation which offers privileges and immunities to international organisations. It wouldn’t affect the Australian government’s capacity to examine our participation in any of these organisations at all.

Senator Roberts: It wouldn’t stop the Senate from scrutinising such an organisation if it were brought under the umbrella of ‘international organisation’, so we could still scrutinise its actions in relevance to Australia’s operations?

Senator McAllister: As I indicated in my last answer, the matters you refer to and the capacity for the Senate to more broadly examine the functioning of international organisations or international treaties is not the subject of this bill; however, as I indicated earlier, to the extent that this bill provides a regulation-making power that might be exercised by the minister, the Senate would continue to have the opportunity to scrutinise those decisions.

Senator Roberts: I put on record my thanks to the minister for her answers.

/4 Comments/by

World Health Organisation is rotting from the head

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. 

/22 Comments/by

The Great Resist

,

While crooked Klaus Schwab wants the Great Reset, I’m promising to take up the Great Resist. We will resist the infiltration of our Parliament by globalist pawns. We will resist the destruction of the family. We will resist billionaires making everyone else poorer.

Transcript

In a previous speech, I called for Australia to reject the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and instead mount a ‘Great Resist’. These were not idle words. Video is circulating online of World Economic Forum crook and mastermind Klaus Schwab bragging about penetrating the cabinets of western democracies with his young global leaders. Some Klaus Schwab disciples are in this Senate, and one is in the cabinet. How this has not triggered a national security investigation is beyond One Nation. We certainly would be taking a much closer look, given the coordination we are seeing in the policies being enacted by WEF disciples like Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau.

One Nation will resist the transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to predatory billionaires. This was the inevitable and deliberate outcome of profligate government COVID spending that the Liberals, Nationals, Labor and Greens waved through this parliament. One Nation will resist exposing our children to adult sexual content in their libraries and school textbooks and, now, in kids programs on the ABC. One Nation will resist the dehumanisation of women through genderless language that erases the very concept of a woman and a mother. We will not allow the family to be undermined. One Nation will resist the reduction of sex to a soul-destroying, meaningless transaction—the very thing Aldous Huxley warned us about in Brave New World.

One Nation will resist the war on farming that seeks to destroy family farms, rewild the bush and shift food production to corporate owned, near-urban, intensive factories producing chemically driven food-like substances for everyday Australians to eat while the elite gorge themselves on red meat and seafood—something they did again last week at COP27 in Egypt, indulging in luxury while spreading poverty. Disgusting!

We are one community, we are One Nation, and parliaments belong to no-one but the Australian people.

/7 Comments/by

Foreign Interference: One Nation gets under the World Economic Forum’s Skin

“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”

The World Economic Forum has described One Nation as Xenophobic, Racist and Extremist on it’s “Strategic Intelligence” hub, a member only service.

The Strategic Intelligence hub aims to provide talking points to some of the world’s most elite corporate and government officers. One of the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence partners is the Center for China and Globalisation.

One Nation’s policies do not contain one reference to skin colour. Our goal has always been the equal treatment of all based on content of character, not differential treatment on skin colour as Albanese’s Voice to Parliament would do.

As for extreme, our policies are simply conservative, all of which were accepted in the mainstream media only ten years ago before politicians accelerated their sellout of our country.

International, globalist, unelected organisations that seek to control our country from the top down must be rejected.

This false labelling of One Nation must be called out for what it is, foreign interference in our democracy.

/27 Comments/by

“1984: the Bill” – The Trusted Digital Identity

,

Transcript

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.

/6 Comments/by