The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

,
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.

Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.

This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.

Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.

‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’

When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:

‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’

Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:

‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…

There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:

Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.

It does.

According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.

This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.

As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’

If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.

Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.

The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.

What is the Paris Agreement?

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.

Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…

The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.

And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.

A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.

And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.

As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.

This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.

‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan

The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.

There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.

The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.

An expensive bit of paper…

This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.

And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.

Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.

These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…

This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.

And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump

Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.

At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.

This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?

On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:

57 Paris Agreement

That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.

Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.

In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.

In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.

We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)

However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.

/3 Comments/by

One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation

,

One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.

By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.

Transcript

Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.

Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.

Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.

Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.

One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.

We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.

The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.

A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.

They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.

They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.

However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.

It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.

Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.

One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.

The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.

ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.

Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.

ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.

This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.

Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.

Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.

When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.

To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.

One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.

It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.

At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.

Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.

We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.

It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.

This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.

This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.

/0 Comments/by

The Battle for Farrer – and Conservatism

,
This is why David Farley must win.

While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.

Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.

Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.

A battle for conservatism.

With a real choice.

The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.

Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.

How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?

As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.

On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.

The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.

Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.

It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.

The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.

One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.

And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?

No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.

Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?

The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.

We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).

On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.

We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.

It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…

While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.

One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.

By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.

How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?

Who knows.

You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.

And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.

Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.

David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.

Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.

The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This is why David Farley must win.

Read on Substack

/by

One Nation Leading Where Others Follow

,

The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.

For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.

They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.

People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.

One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.

It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.

/1 Comment/by

The High Price of False Virtue

,

For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.

And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.

Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.

While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.

Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”

Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.

It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!

Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.

We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.

/by

One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer

,

Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.

Senator Cash said:

‘The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, “Why does One Nation want to ban cash?” Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does.’

The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.

‘This is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow.’

I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.

Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.

As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.

One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.

Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:

‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’

He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’

What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.

Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.

This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.

As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.

It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.

Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.

Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.

Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.

To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.

The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.

This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.

In other words … policy housekeeping.

Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:

‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’

The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.

These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.

The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.

For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.

What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?

By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.

One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.

Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?

An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.

To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.

We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.

These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.

We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.

Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.

Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.

One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.

And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.

One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.

Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.

And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.

One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Read on Substack
/5 Comments/by

Labor Trapped Young People

,

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.

Everyone knows it.

Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.

Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.

They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.

These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.

When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.

The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.

Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.

In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.

Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.

There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.

That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.

Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.

In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.

Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.

Their argument is this:

‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’

Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.

Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.

And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.

If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.

To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.

A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.

An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.

It isn’t a game.

It’s people’s lives.

People’s futures.

This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.

It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.

Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.

Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)

To quote:

‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’

It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.

Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.

When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.

Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.

If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?

The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.

It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.

Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.

One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.

We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.

One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.

Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts

RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by

Running on Empty

,

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.

We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.

As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.

‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.

‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.

Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.

Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.

It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.

To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.

Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.

Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.

Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.

At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.

This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.

Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.

We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.

It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.

A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.

In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.

…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.

As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:

‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.

When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’

It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.

These are things we need to know.

And what did Labor and the Greens do?

They voted it down.

They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.

Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.

While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.

The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.

Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.

The outrageous propaganda is already starting.

News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.

It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.

If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.

The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?

AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.

Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.

Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.

Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.

Strategically, it’s madness.

In reality – it’s impossible.

Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.

The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.

Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.

And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.

One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.

We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.

One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.

We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.

This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.

‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts

How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’

Read on Substack

/by

Say Its Name, Albanese: Islamic Terror

,

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.

On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.

Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.

On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.

These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.

Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.

These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.

As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.

To panic people.

To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.

An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?

Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?

Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.

The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.

This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.

Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.

Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.

An inhuman, uncivilised society.

Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.

The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.

They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.

And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.

They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.

They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.

And cruelly treats its own citizens.

Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?

You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.

What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.

It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.

As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’

I look around and think how far the left have fallen.

This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.

It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.

The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.

This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.

If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.

We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.

This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.

I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.

After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.

This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.

It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.

As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.

And yet we do NOT use those laws.

Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?

We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?

If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?

It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.

Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition

Read on Substack

/3 Comments/by

Bigger than the Burqa

,

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.

They called it ‘a stunt’.

They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.

The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.

Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.

Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.

Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.

When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.

Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.

Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.

Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.

The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.

When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’

‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell

‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.

When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.

When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.

Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.

‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.

Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.

This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.

The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.

Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.

It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.

When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.

They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.

Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.

Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.

To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.

They probably agreed with her the first time too.

Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.

Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.

A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.

As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.

It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.

Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.

We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.

Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.

One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.

And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.

Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.

Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.

Read on Substack

/1 Comment/by