Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China …
Three thousand cars are rotting at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean – 800 of them electric – after the Morning Midas cargo ship burst into flames sank on its trip between China and Mexico.
The cause of the fire remains unknown, but many suspect lithium-ion batteries may be to blame.
Morning Midas burned for a week, pouring toxic fumes into the air, before aimlessly tipping over and taking her cargo of heavy metals to the ocean floor where they will leak into the surrounding water for the next century.
All the crew are safe, thank goodness.
What about the environment?
You and I could not dump these materials into the water without severe repercussions.
Meanwhile, our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his Coalition-deputy (?) Larissa Waters, have said very little about the issue to his counterparts in China.
Albanese is off on a six-day $325 billion trade trip where he has confirmed he will meet with Xi Jinping, head of the Chinese Communist Party.
The Prime Minister has not met with US President Donald Trump – leader of the nation whose defence structure protects Australia from China’s ambitions in the Pacific.
We should not forget (and neither should the Greens, who remain silent) that China’s environmental credentials include pouring concrete over coral atolls to build military bases inside disputed waters while deliberately transgressing against its Asian neighbours.
China’s neighbours are our Pacific partners, and together we rely on America to police the Hague’s freedom of navigation rules. Without an American presence in Pacific waters, China would control our critical trade routes and no doubt treat them with the same care as their history of ransoming river water in Asia as an ‘incentive’ to sign agreements.
The Prime Minister seems very keen to empower China inside the Australian economy, encouraging foreign business prosperity at the expense of our children’s careers.
While Treasurer Jim Chalmers mulls over tax reform to punish successful Australians, Anthony Albanese is all-but gushing over the prospect of Chinese cash.
‘Trade is now flowing freely, to the benefit of both countries and to people and businesses on both sides. We will continue to patiently and deliberately work towards a stable relationship with China, with dialogue at its core. I will raise issues that are important to Australians and the region including my government’s enduring commitment to pursuing Australia’s national interest.’
He is taking 14 people with him to sit on an Australian-China business roundtable to talk about food, resources, banking, and tertiary education.
Strangely, pollution is one of the many things left off this ‘green’ economic agenda…
How odd.
There is no chance Albanese and his delegation will question China about recycling guarantees for the millions of tonnes of solar panels and wind turbines headed for Australian landfills every single year as industrial projects are decommissioned.
Whose responsibility is it to clean up after the Chinese Net Zero boom?
Australian taxpayers.
Who could have guessed?
Pollution is a sore spot with China. The communist empire courting our Prime Minister has made a mess of its own landscape.
67.7% of China’s water is unsafe for human contact, let alone consumption. Its air pollution crisis, much of which is from the factories that churn out ‘clean’ technology, is so severe it’s thought to kill two million people every year. China, the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand are responsible for 60% of plastic in the ocean – and yet the Prime Minister is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to these countries as an apology for Australia’s (factually dubious) contribution to ‘rising sea levels’.
China is not, as the UN claims, a beacon of ‘Net Zero’ environmentalism.
If anything, China’s environmental catastrophe reveals the dirty side of the so-called renewable empire. It has led to polluted rivers, destroyed sacred mountains, slave-run factories, and an export chain that includes debt-trapping vulnerable nations with loans repaid with land acquisition, the empowerment of brutal dictatorships, and even child labour in the rare-earth mines.
In China, environmental and cultural protesters who stand against the renewable energy industry are harassed, arrested, or simply vanish.
Activists in Wuhan, famous for its dodgy gain-of-function labs, demanded the Chinese government ‘give back the green mountains and clear waters’.
Their social media posts were scrubbed and the story suppressed by digital censors.
It’s a process familiar to Australians who lived through the Great Digital Dark Age of Covid where the government saw fit to issue take-down notices to Twitter and Facebook to keep vaccine-injured victims quiet. Many of these social media sites still have legacy community guidelines that warn about the ‘misinformation’ of posts sceptical about Climate Change while Australian policy is littered with clauses determined to protect the narrative of the political movement even if it means listing environmental concern as ‘dangerous’ or ‘misleading’.
Chinese activists were not exaggerating their pollution problem, and neither are Australian farmers or beachside residents furious about the solar and wind industrial projects tearing apart the serenity of Australia’s landscape.
Soon, the curse of Net Zero will touch every corner of our continent.
The Morning Midas and Net Zero monstrosities share a fate decomposing into the landscape, poisoning everything around them – abandoned by the companies and governments responsible for their creation.
A toxic legacy left for nature to remediate.
It’s unlikely the Morning Midas will be remembered as anything other than a sidenote on the next article about a sinking EV cargo ship, but the EV problem is not going away.
Cheap Chinese vehicles are being welcomed into Australia as a market disruption by a Labor government desperate to prove that EVs can be ‘cheap’.
This is despite their questionable green credentials, service standards, and quality control.
How long will EVs stay cheap as the resources used in their manufacturing double and triple in price?
Market forces are sinking EVs, while Labor, and particularly Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, remain oblivious.
They would prefer to allow TEMU-style EVs to destabilise the auto industry, causing permanent damage, for the sake of a product that may not survive given its concerning track record in other countries. This is not good for the Australian consumer, the global environment, or the industries that support the car industry which employ many of our skilled young people.
Are we going to outsource auto-workers and mechanics to a Chinese helpline that goes unanswered?
Do we really want to keep pushing jobs and skills away in exchange for a collapsing ‘green’ dream with all the appeal of algae?
What about when these cheap cars break – which they undoubtedly will – where do they end up? In landfill, sheltering under a busted solar panel? Parked beneath a derelict wind turbine? In an abandoned shed with all the plastic we are meant to be recycling?
This is not a good look for an industry that exists purely to capitalise on environmental credentials.
It is hideous.
Electric vehicles are not better products. They are a technical solution to an ideological problem propped up by government subsidies and corporate Environment and Social Governance programs.
In this respect, EVs occupy the same ideological market space as lab-grown meat.
The third sinking of a cargo ship laden with electric cars is not a one-off event.
With Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen pushing Australia toward EVs – specifically China-made EVs – we can only wonder if the next cargo ship will sink onto the Great Barrier Reef.
EVs are a sinking ship by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Electric dreams left to rot on the ocean floor as Albanese heads to China
Has the price of a steak taken your breath away recently? That’s because the government wants you eating bugs or lab grown cells, not organic red meat.
In 2022, I confronted Meat and Livestock Australia directly. They were signed up to the crazy plan of ‘net zero’ by 2030.
The only way they ever could have achieved this is by killing off cows, reducing the total number across the country. That means good farm-grown meat would be too expensive for the peasants, but the elites jetting off to Davos every year would be able to afford it.
Three years later, Meat and Livestock have just admitted they are ditching their net-zero 2030 goals, exactly like I told them to do three years ago. Yet, they’re still committed to doing it by 2050.
End the nonsense. Ditch net-zero and make meat affordable for every Aussie house!
Senator ROBERTS: In the last Senate estimates we had a difference of opinion on the direction of herd numbers, and we’ve still got that.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I maintained that the only way to meet net zero carbon dioxide targets—and why you’d want to meet that is beyond me, because no-one has given me any proof—under Meat & Livestock Australia’s CN30 program, the Carbon Neutral by 2030 program, is to hold herd numbers at the historically low numbers experienced during the recent drought. In reply you said:
We are very aware that there have been discussions that things like the carbon neutral goal are reliant on limiting livestock numbers or reducing production or profitability, and we completely reject those.
I thank you for your answer on notice regarding herd numbers and I now reference a document you sent me—a Meat & Livestock Australia publication titled ‘Industry projections 2021: Australian cattle—July update’. On page 4 there are herd numbers. Herd size, slaughter and production are all flat—and, arguably, slightly decreasing in the last few years—across the period indicated, from 2000 to 2023, and down from their peak in this period. Am I reading that right?
Mr Strong : You may be, Senator, but I don’t have that one in front of me. What I can do is provide you with the updated projections from earlier this year, which show the projected increase in production and outputs, so increases in herd size and increases in productivity. We can provide that to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, if you could, please.
Mr Strong : We can certainly do that.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to what you raised earlier on, in the bottom graph carcase weights are showing an increase of 13 per cent. This does in part reflect the work done by Meat & Livestock Australia on genetics, feedbase and transport. Is that correct?
Mr Strong : In part, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Only in part? There are other factors involved?
Mr Strong : Yes—like producers’ willingness to adopt new technologies. But I think part of the increase in carcass weight comes from the increase in turn-off through the feedlot sector. An increased number of animals have come through the feedlot sector as a finishing mechanism in the last year or two. That also contributes to an increase in carcass weight.
Senator ROBERTS: Either way, it’s a good job because 13 per cent is a significant increase in productivity and profitability.
Mr Strong : Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Page 2 of this report says the average herd number for cattle from 2016 to 2021, which included a substantial drought influence, was 26,619. The best year was 2018, at 28,052. Meat & Livestock Australia’s projections are 27,223 for 2022 and 28,039 for 2023. This is down from the CSIRO’s figure of 30 million to 40 million before the drought, which was the point I was making in the last Senate estimates.
Even if the CSIRO figure is higher than you would accept, I fail to see an increase here in these figures. And I’m still trying to see where the increase in the herd numbers component of the 100 per cent increase in red meat production is coming from. Is it true that, unless the herd numbers recover to around 30 million, Meat & Livestock Australia are projecting a permanent reduction in the Australian herd?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. The paper you’re referencing is not a CSIRO paper. Dr Fordyce is the lead author and he’s previously worked with CSIRO. It was present on their publication site but it’s not a formal CSIRO paper. But that’s an aside.
Senator ROBERTS: But he did work for you?
Mr St rong : Absolutely. And he still does work in a range of different areas. He’s been a very prominent researcher with the Queensland Department of Primary Industries in northern Australia and has done quite a bit of work with MLA and our predecessors over the years.
Senator ROBERTS: So he’s pretty competent?
Mr Strong : That doesn’t mean we have to agree on everything, though, does it? We could also quote other papers—
Senator ROBERTS: No. But, if he’s competent, there’s got to be a reason for not agreeing.
Mr Strong : Certainly. But other papers that have been produced by independent analysts say the herd’s even smaller than what we project.
Senator ROBERTS: Even smaller?
Mr Strong : Yes. Those papers are by private commercial analysts. They are widely read and get quoted to us as much or more than this paper does. But the herd size isn’t the only driver of productivity. As you said, it’s about being able to increase carcass weights, increase value and increase productivity. One of the things that Dr Fordyce has been involved with is the NB2 program that you mentioned. The ability to increase cows in calf, decrease cow mortality, increase calves that survive and increase weaning weight in reasonably modest levels—a decrease in cow mortality by a couple of per cent, an increase in fertility by a couple of per cent and a 10-kilo increase in weaning weight—has a material impact on northern productivity not just in numbers but also in value. The herd size is an important number to help us with our planning and projections when we look at a range of things; but it’s only one of the contributors to productivity, profitability and how we get to a doubling of value for the red meat sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Looking at agricultural producers, whether it be livestock or crops, there’s certainly a huge increase and improvement in the use of science to guide it. That’s become a wonderful productivity improvement tool. But it still comes back to basic arithmetic. If herd numbers are not growing, after allowing for improved carcass weights, the only way to increase the value of red meat production by 100 per cent, after allowing for the 13 per cent carcass weight increase, is for price increases of 87 per cent.
Mr Strong : No, it’s not. Chairman Beckett mentioned our trip to Darwin two weeks ago. One of the great things we heard about there was the use of knowledge that’s been gained over the last 10 or 20 years by the industry. There were a couple of fantastic examples of the use of phosphorus as a supplement in phosphorus-deficient country. For the same cow herd size, there was a halving in cow mortality and a 30 per cent increase in weaning rates. Herd size is not the only way to increase productivity. When you think about ways to make significant improvements in productivity, it actually becomes a minor factor. Being able to produce more from what we have, regardless of what we have, and creating and capturing more value from that is much more important than the herd size.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that it’s a laudable goal to increase the productivity, capturing more from what you have.
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if herd sizes stay flat, are you able to provide me with the breakdown of where the 100 per cent increase in red meat value will come from?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Gcu-Lo9whE8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-03 17:05:092025-07-03 17:05:21Bugs for Dinner? Not on My Watch!
Is the true cost of Net Zero our national security? “We’re becoming a third-world country in the blink of an eye – and no one seems to care! It’s very simple, if we want Australia to win – we ditch Net Zero.
Because if a country can’t defend itself, it doesn’t matter what its policies are. It doesn’t matter at all. You know, our coal, our oil, natural gas and our uranium reserve are probably the largest in the world – certainly per capita. We are the richest nation in the world – the UN has said so itself.
Excluding tourists, there are two and a half million migrants in the country on temporary visas. That’s around about one and a half million houses that we need just for them. And that’s far too many people for our roads, our hospitals and the number of houses we have – far too many. And what’s happening is that good people, working families, because working families – I’ve visited them in every major city in this state – working families, mothers and fathers, are going home to their children, seeing if they’re still in the car where they’ll sleep tonight.
Alexandra Marshall (Host): Hello and welcome to SPECTATOR TV Australia. I’m your host, online editor Alexandra Marshall. And today we are joined by Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts. Senator, welcome to the show.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, and congratulations on being back on air with SPECTATOR TV.
Alexandra Marshall: Thank you so much, Senator. And also a big congratulations to you, because you have just been re-elected to the Senate. Are you excited about being the de facto opposition this time around?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, first of all, thank you to the many people who supported me and thanks for the vote of confidence, because it’s actually the third time I’ve been elected to the Senate and the second time I’ve been re-elected. So I’m very, very pleased with that. We are the de facto opposition because Liberal and Labor have basically introduced the same policies over the last – since 1975, particularly since John Howard, who started the Liberal-Labor Uni party. What’s happening Alexandra is that the Liberal Party introduces every major climate energy policy, for example, and the most destructive housing and immigration policies – they’re the ones who put in big Australia and the Labor Party has just come in and ramped it up. So One Nation is the only elected party that’s capable of dealing with reality. You know, we focus on the data, the hard facts and the cruel facts. We don’t run away from them and and we keep reminding them. We’re the only party that will stick up and stay say the truth. And in that sense, we’ve always been the true opposition.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, I’ve been hearing a lot of chatter about the endless silence from the Coalition. The election was a while ago and yet we hear nothing from them when major world events happen. So I’m guessing One Nation is looking forward to having policies as well as opinions.
Senator ROBERTS: Well, we’ve had the best policies. I can honestly say most of them came out of my office thanks to the staff in our office. But we’ve had the best policies I have ever seen of any political party at any time in Australian history.
Alexandra Marshall: Well Senator, the world did change over the weekend with President Donald Trump taking a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. Now regardless of what anybody thinks about this or what will happen next, has home defence of Australia become a critical policy for when you return to Canberra?
Senator ROBERTS: It has been since we’ve been in Canberra, Alexandra. And yes, it will be when we return to Canberra, because if a country can’t defend itself, it doesn’t matter what its policies are, it doesn’t matter at all – the Chinese Communist Party just sent warships down here. They circled our country. We didn’t have one of our own warships tailing them when they were starting to to do firing, firing practise. You know, we are exporting our coal to China to build steel for, for arming itself and making weapons. We can’t use the coal here as steel industry is shutting down because of the high energy costs. We are crippling ourselves and people are just laughing at us.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, Senator, there’s been a lot of criticism of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and indeed our Foreign Minister Penny Wong regarding what’s going on in the global stage now, particularly Anthony Anthony Albanese’s performance at the G7. But when we talk about what’s going on there, has Australia’s position on the world stage been damaged by the way Labour has approached our situation in the world and let’s face it, one of our strongest allies, which is the United States?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, unquestionably every country, including Australia, benefits when we have a good reputation. Everyone, after all, is usually happy to meet an Aussie overseas travelling. And you know, I know that when I was working and studying and travelling across the United States for a total of about five years and two visits, people love to hear Australians. Oh, I love your accent. But then they love the way we are so similar to Americans in our lifestyle and their values. They love to meet Australians. They’re laughing at us. When they look closely, when people overseas look closely, what we’re doing, they just laugh and ask if we’re serious about what what’s going on in this country. We’re crippling our manufacturing, crippling our energy sector and countries are saying, haven’t you learned anything from Spain? Haven’t you learned anything from from Germany? Haven’t you learned anything from the Europeans destroying? Haven’t you learned anything about Britain destroying itself? Haven’t you learned anything from Donald Trump saying no more solar and wind? I mean, these, you know, our coal, our oil, natural gas and our uranium reserves are probably the largest in the world. Certainly per capita we are the richest nation in the world. The UN has said so itself. And you know, I accuse them of lying, but that’s they’ve still got that fact right. Yet our power costs are sky high because we only export it. We can’t use it here.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, why the while there is a silence from most of our elected officials, which is kind of concerning given the state of the world. One Nation leader Pauline Hanson did release a statement. Now in that statement, she says, and I’m going to quote and read from this. This is directed toward our Anthony Albanese. Your government’s position continues to be inadequate against the danger of radical Islam in Australia, which puts the lives of citizens at risk. Now that is what Pauline Hanson has said and she is saying this in relation to Australia’s immigration policy and calling for there to be no more visas issued to Iranians at this point in time when there is a risk of a regime change and more extreme ideological views coming into the country. As Senator, there’s also a mass migration disaster taking place in the cities around Australia right now. Would you like to see migration and immigration, the Prime Minister put a tighter hold and control on that, particularly given the geopolitical climate we are in right now?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s a very simple answer to give. Yes. What’s more, Alexandra, we have asked him for that and he’s given us given us that, that response, but he broke it and he lied about it straight afterwards. We asked him after his first year in office, he imported 518,000 new immigrants, net migration 518,000 over half a million. And then when we exposed that and told him how much damage he was doing. We’ve got people homeless from every, every provincial city in this, this state of ours. We should be the richest in the world. We’ve got 10s of thousands of people homeless. You don’t have to go far to see it. And when we raised that, he said, OK, well, we’ll make sure immigration is lower the following year – it was bloody higher. Now we’ve always discussed issues, Alexandra, with the quality and quantity of immigration, the number of people and the type and quality of people in terms of their ability to contribute. Straight away he’s, he’s bringing in people that. What are the figures now – 0.6% have construction experience and will go into housing. They’re supposed to build houses for the other 99.4%, you know, excluding tourists, there are two and a half million migrants in the country on temporary visas. That’s around about one and a half million houses that we need just for them. And that’s far too many people for our roads, our hospitals and the number of houses we have far too many. And what’s happening is that good people, working families, I should calm down because working families, I’ve visited them in every major provincial city in this this state, working families, mothers and fathers are going home to their children, seeing if they’re still in the car, where they’ll sleep tonight. Where do they go to the toilet? Where do they shower? This is this is a barn. Good working families.
Alexandra Marshall: And even in city suburbs, we would not expect to see it. Senator, I myself have personally stood in line at house inspections with over 60 people. And you know, there’s there’s so little hope for people trying to find somewhere to live. And everywhere you do find is ridiculously expensive for what is essentially a shoebox. But Senator, I want to talk.
Senator ROBERTS: Alexandra. It’s also another fact that that the reason immigration is so high is to hide the fact that we are in a per capita recession, which is the real measure of a recession. So we are in a per capita recession, which is a recession. But the definition of a recession, as you know just as well as I do, is two terms, two quarters of negative growth overall in the economy. And they’ve stayed out of that by inflating the economy with people, inflating demand, raising our gross domestic product. So it’s barely over 0. And that way they stay out of officially being called a recession. That’s what they’re doing. They don’t care how many people are homeless, how many people are living in misery, how many people are living with with threats of violence over their heads in our country because they just want to make sure that they’re not officially classified as the treasurer and Prime Minister who brought upon us the recession. And Scott Morrison needs to be held partly accountable for that, too.
Alexandra Marshall: So strange that socialists are lacking empathy, Senator, but that does appear to be the case. Now, look, domestic security and national security are intrinsically linked with energy security and mineral security. That is how we protect a grid, how we create energy and how we manage our natural resources, which are of course finite. Now, under the previous governments of both Coalition and Labour, Australia has been outsourcing not only all of our coal and oil and gas, which we sell off into other countries, particularly China, but our energy grid which is becoming increasingly reliant on foreign powers to function. And not only that, it’s becoming more and more fragile. If you were given the absolute power, senator in Canberra and you can make a change to Australia’s energy condition, what would you like to see happen as soon as possible?
Senator ROBERTS: First of all, the message that you just said needs to be articulated across the country. We need to have energy. Energy has been on a relentless downward trend. Energy price has been on the relentless downward trend in real terms from about 1850 to now and sorry until about 1996 and the start of the Howard government when that was artificially increased. The important point is that decreasing costs of energy in real terms are the the powerhouse that drives human progress. So what happened with John Howard coming in with his renewable energy targets, stealing farmers property rights, National Electricity Market putting in in place first policy for carbon dioxide tax. Yes, Liberal were the first to have that policy. What he did was he reversed human progress and made it more expensive to for for energy. Now the important thing in that is that manufacturing over the last few decades, the number one cost factor in manufacturing is energy prices. The lower your energy price, the lower your manufacturing costs. What we have done is artificially inflated, raised the cost of energy. We’ve destroyed our manufacturing and guess where it’s going? It’s going to China. First of all, we’re we’re subsidising the Chinese to make solar and wind solar panels and wind turbines. We’re subsidising them to import them, we’re subsidising to transport them. We’re subsidising them to erect them. We’re subsidising to run them. We’re subsidising after 15 years for them to replace the damn things when a coal fired power station lasts 60 years at least. And So what we’re doing, taking that subsidy under our electricity costs, is driving the cost of electricity to make it unaffordable for manufacturing. So our manufacturers go to China and manufacturing jobs go to China. Our electricity becomes much more expensive. We’re becoming a third world country in the blink of an eye and nobody seems to be caring about it. So it’s very simple if we want Australia to win – we ditch net zero. We use the coal, the oil, the gas and the uranium reserves in Australia for Australians. China is using our coal to cheaply power its manufacturing industry. It’ll cripple our manufacturing. It’s crippling our farmers. During a drought, The last drought we had farmers in North Queensland, they personally told me farmers in central QLD and farmers in southern Queensland did not plant hot fodder crops because the cost of pumping water was too high. In a drought, no fodder crops. This is insane.
Alexandra Marshall: It’s often difficult to explain to the younger generation exactly what the rising price of energy is impacting in their lives. One great way that I’ve found is to turn the lights off or turn the power off and see how many things would no longer work. In a society a lmost nothing work with our energy and that’s everything which this green tax is being added to. But you know, the Nationals are being sent down a little rabbit hole about trying to workout how much net zero will cost. Personally, I think they’ve been sent on a bit of busy work by the Liberals who don’t really want to talk about net zero. But as you indicated, I think AI has done a few calculations and it thinks that net 0 cost Australia 9 trillion or something in that order to fully maintain and change our grid. But that does not include losses to businesses. It does not include replacing the grid every 15 years when everything breaks. That’s a a conservative estimate, but my question is could the real cost of net 0 senator be our national security.
Senator ROBERTS: Definitely is. Undoubtedly it is. And by the way, on the cost estimates for for net zero, Peter Dutton, Dutton said the Coalition has estimated the cost of $1.3 trillion. An independent study from three universities in this country estimated 1.5 trillion, Bloomberg 1.9 trillion. And as as you said, when you include the cost of jobs, businesses, replacing the grid every 15 years, it’s 9 trillion. That was developed by AI, which is just taking some of the facts that are freely available. The cost to Australia though, is national security, $9 trillion is how much capital will be needed in the next 35 years. According to Net 0, the most comprehensive start. Sorry, according to Net 0 Australia, the most comprehensive study to date by the University of Melbourne, the University of Queensland and Princeton IN America, that’s $260 billion a year, Alexandra, that gets tacked onto our electricity costs and our taxation. Australia’s entire military budget is 56 billion. That’s 0.6% of the of the costs of, of Net 0. And part of net 0 is that we can’t use coal and make steel in Australia. You can’t make, you can’t make steel using the coal that we have. The best cooking coal, the best steel grade coal, coal in the world. And Australia is shipping that to China where they’re building warships with it and munitions with it. We can’t use it here. I mean, people know that. That’s an absolute insanity. The true cost to our country and our way of life, Australia’s way of life, standard of living, cost of living, affordability, lifestyle, safety, security, our children’s future. Everything is being decimated, jobs, lifestyle out the door because Liberal in which Liberal Nationals which introduced this and Labor Party which ramped it up in each occasion are crippling this country and the Nationals. I believe that some of the Nationals are genuinely afraid of net 0. Some of them who are afraid of net zero and wanted to stop actually advocated for us to cut carbon dioxide. So they’re culpable in in in some instances, but they’ve woken up because because One Nation has put the pressure to them. We’re the only party that’s calling out net zero as insanity, the only party that’s saying it’s it’s detrimental to our to our health of our country, but we’re the only ones actually opposed to it and what they’re trying to do is deceptive, but we’ll call them out on it.
Alexandra Marshall: It’s quite extraordinary that Jim Chalmers and Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese and the whole Labour Kit and Gaboodle are going to war against carbon, which is the fundamental building block of life and they have a defence budget to match which is of course the spending on renewable energy. It is an extraordinary amount of money being wasted on a wall that does not exist anywhere except in their own UN driven fantasy world. But you did touch on a topic there before, Senator, which was about the resources that Australia has, these precious resources. Now, we often hear that Australia’s economy runs on the back of the mining industry. Now that is true, But when the world enters a dangerous geopolitical footing, the basic resources that a country possesses are worth more than what they can be exported as. Now, given this, should Australia be more careful about how much of our limited resources we are shipping to places like China on the cheap instead of getting the maximum value out of this of this resources? Do we need to be more careful about how we manage lithium, iron, silicon, coal, oil, gas, gold, everything.
Senator ROBERTS: Copper, silver, zinc, lead? Yes, we should be more careful. Number one, we should get more money for it that we, we are the world’s third largest exporter of natural gas. Qatar is the second largest I believe and the United States is the largest. We get ****** all for it. Our coal, we get ****** all for that, except in Queensland now we get, we get massive royalties, but we’re still not not using them properly. We’re still allowing the export of valuable cooking coal and and that’s fine, but we need to make sure we have access to it here and have a steel industry that can be supported. That’s why we pushed Capricorn Steel building a transcontinental railway line in the north north of Australia just above the Cap Tropic of Capricorn to have steel mills in the iron ore and have steel mills in the West and have steel mills in the cooking coal mines in in the east and ship the the coal West and the iron ore East, we need to build an iron ore. We need to think strategically and rebuild our on our industry. We can be and they’re hard, the customers for this and hard investors looking at this, including Australian investors. We need to be the world’s largest producers of steel and iron and the best quality and that is easily and easily achieved with the proposals we are saying. We have got so much coal, so much iron ore, so much gas, so much uranium and we look like we could be the one of the world’s largest producers of rare earth metals. But these and other metals we need to be considering strategically and to think long term for our country. You know, we have enough resources to last our country for thousands of years, but not if we let other countries plunder it while getting none of the benefit. We need to export. We need to identify the best resources for ourselves and we need to get a fair price for our export exports. You know, why would Australia want to invade? Why would China want to invade Australia when they already own airports, mines, houses and water and some of our electricity networks? What’s left for them to take? They’ve been buying it. We should use our resources for ourselves first and export what’s what’s what remains.
Alexandra Marshall: And finally, Senator, the One Nation has been making recommendations about defence honours and the Awards Appeals Tribunal. And it says he would like to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and medals to senior officers between 1991 and 2012, among a whole other raft of recommendations. This is a very interesting series of ideas that One Nation has. What is the purpose and significance behind One Nation’s recommendations in this field?
Senator ROBERTS: Well, it’s really simple when it comes to defence the critical foundation of our defence strategy is the quality of our people and that has been driven by mateship – that is being eroded Alexandra. We have a we had a proud Defence Force who no longer have the high morale they had and that has been crippled by the lack of accountability in the top brass. They have been flagrantly abusing their privileges, their titles, the honours and award system and their positions. We have the the the head of the Australian Defence Force, the Chief of the Defence forces. He is now paid 3 times what the American equivalent is paid. The American equivalent has 10s of thousands of many times more servicemen and women, has nuclear capable ships, planes. He has so many weapons and he can do so much damage and yet he’s paid 1/3 what our chief of defence forces is. This is ridiculous. We are overpaying our senior officers. We’re giving them far too much leniency. They’re not being held accountable. They are destroying the morale. And you know, we plan the well, the government plans to pay hundreds of billions of dollars for equipment like orcas submarines, the Hunter class frigates, combat reconnaissance vehicles, F35 jets. What the hell can they do without good morale in amongst the people who fly them and ship them and pilot them and, and arm them? The retention crisis now is from low morale. So we don’t have people to drive that fancy equipment. We’ve got a contractor on over a billion dollars income payment that we are outsourcing to recruit. Why the hell should we do that? Under them the recruit retention has gone down. Under them the recruit intake has gone down. We won’t have anyone to drive that fancy equipment. And when we do put people in that equipment, how the hell can we have ensure they have high morale when they’re being gutted by the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy and the deceit of of of the top brass. The ADF people are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry looked at. There’s a two tier system in the Defence Force at this moment and that needs to be addressed if we want people to win. The overarching thing about Australian leadership is that people in Australia will follow good leaders. If they’re not good leaders they will crucify them. And what we’re heading for here is, is real embarrassment for Australia’s Defence Force because we are not keeping up with the standards in the Australian military. And that is due solely and entirely to two groups of people, the top brass in our country and the and the Liberal and Labour Uni Party, defence ministers and bureaucrats that are just ******** on basically the soldiers. And we need to stop that. The soldiers, the airmen and the and the Navy sailors, we need to stop that. Need to call it call, call a spade a spade and get on with fixing the Defence Force morale and the Defence Force strategy.
Alexandra Marshall: Well, Senator, there has never been a more important time in our modern history for Australia’s defence forces to feel as if they are being looked after, particularly the young men and women who are on the ground defending Australia’s interests here at home and abroad. So I’d like to thank you very much, Senator Malcolm Roberts for joining us here today on Spectator TV.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome. Keep up the good work, Alexandra.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0ZjDDvv3LF8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-02 09:50:122025-07-02 09:50:22Australia’s Wake-Up Call: No Defence, No Homes, No Future?
EXPOSED: Our Senate inquiry revealed widespread abuse of military medals by top brass.
Generals received medals for being ‘in action’ despite no records of being under enemy fire.
Our troops deserve better than this corrupt two-tier system.
Transcript
It’s alleged former Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Campbell, received a medal for being ‘in action’ when he was never on the ground with the enemy firing on him.
One Nation initiated a Senate inquiry into the military medals system which just finished.
Here’s what I found:
Government plans to pay hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars for equipment like AUKUS Submarines, the Hunter Class Frigates, Combat Reconnaissance Vehicles and F-35 fighter jets.
Yet, Defence is in a recruiting and retention crisis due to low morale.
So we won’t have people to drive that fancy equipment
ADF Personnel are leaving because they don’t feel valued and that’s what my medals inquiry investigated.
A functioning, fair and transparent Honours and Awards system that recognises the sacrifices and achievements of ADF personnel regardless of their rank has never been more important – if we want people to join and stay in our Defence force.
We found widespread abuse of the honours and awards system.
With the upper brass abusing the system.
Top brass is plagued with hypocrisy, a sense of entitlement and low accountability. The head generals give themselves medals illegally for sitting in air-conditioning while soldiers on the ground, in action, under fire don’t get recognised.
Right now, there’s a two-tier system in the Defence force and that needs to be addressed if we want people to join.
Here’s what I recommended from the inquiry:
Firstly, we want those medals to the top brass reviewed properly. It’s not been possible to find when many senior officers who received a Distinguished Service Cross were ever recorded as being ‘in action’ as the award criteria required. The Defence Minister must direct the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal to review all nominations for Distinguished Service Crosses and Medals to Senior Officers from 1991 to 2012 for integrity assurance, with specific assurance the ‘in action’ criteria was satisfied for each.
Secondly, return the criteria for the Distinguished Service Cross and Distinguished Service Medal to require the recipient’s conduct to be ‘in action’. The original change was done without support and against recommendations from important groups. The distinction for acts committed ‘in action’ under enemy fire is not trivial. It’s a distinction that should never have been erased from Australia’s highest honours and awards.
Thirdly, establish separate medals as recommended in previous reviews for leaders who distinguish themselves in war-like operations although not in action.
Fourthly, the Defence Minister and Chief of Defence should not have the power to cancel other people’s medals without any right of appeal. The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal must have the power to review decisions to cancel medals.
Fifthly, government must make clear announcements and implement policy to establish command responsibility as a binding doctrine in the Australian Defence Force. At relevant times in relation to the Brereton Report allegations, General Campbell held significant, senior command roles over those forces. If the allegations rise to the point that soldiers under his command must lose their medals, many rightly question how General Campbell can be entitled to keep his medal awarded for “distinguished command and leadership” of those same forces.
It’s ridiculous to claim that as Commander one can have both enough command and control over forces to entitle him to an award, yet not enough to make him responsible for allegations on his watch.
We need to clean out the abuse and corruption of the honours and awards system.
One Nation will always back our troops getting a fair go, especially the people who put their lives on the line.
Using ‘child safety’ to restrict social media is a dangerous path for Australia
There are some policies so unworkable, so obscene, and so detached from reality that the public may be forgiven for thinking they will never come to pass – even after the Senate approves a bill.
Banning Australians under 16 from social media was an idea pitched by former Liberal Leader Peter Dutton and formalised by Prime Minister Anthony Albanese before the Federal Election.
Then it was forgotten…
The policy had a strange birth, following a tiny frenzy of media articles which sprung up out of nowhere describing a ‘social media bullying epidemic!’ A ‘crisis’ that vanished from the headlines once digital censorship had been cheered into the agenda by politicians desperate to talk about anything other than energy, migration, or debt…
These articles briefly reappeared when criticism against the original bill reached its peak, painting those who dared to oppose online censorship and intrusive biometric identification as being insensitive to the ‘plight of children’.
It’s not clear who is pulling the strings.
However, on more than one occasion the media has pitched a ‘crisis’ peddled by ‘experts’ that was ‘solved’ at a politically opportune time.
Call me a cynic, but something’s up. Another agenda disclosed to a select few, perhaps?
The under 16 ban will enter the real world in December, with children already being advised to ‘download their profiles’ and delete social media apps.
Some parents believe having the strong-arm of government in the living room will help, although it is more likely this interference will create an acrimonious social rift between generations that is far worse than the ‘you don’t understand my music’ sentiment.
‘I used the government to ban you from talking to your friends…’ is hardly expected to help strained relationships between parents and children.
Every generation has a desire to preserve the world they grew up with, and I understand a lot of people are hostile to social media and its uncertain future.
This is often because media entities describe the online world as a ‘sewer’. To them, X, Facebook, and YouTube represent an army of keyboard critics and free market competition.
The media present a narrow view of a sprawling advancement which has become as integral to civilisation as the roads our truck drivers use to deliver food.
Social media is one technological creation to which we must adapt – or accept – as we did with the invention of the internet itself.
Banning children from what has become a fundamental tool for future business could saddle them with a disadvantage on the global scale and deny them opportunities.
Australia’s eSafety Commissioner has evolved from the late Christopher Hitchens’ warning about ‘who gets to decide what I can read’ into the more sinister ‘we will decide which libraries you can enter’.
While regulator might not be burning books, they are definitely smacking children that try to read them.
Worse, this expensive regulatory mess will solve nothing. It may even be used to create additional restrictions on adults as part of a larger crackdown on freedom.
Certainly, it is already spawning censorial bureaucracies to watch over us…
As the eSafety Commissioner menacingly advises, ‘We’ve only used our formal powers 6% of the time.’
The demonisation of the digital world is a philosophy the major parties share.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley made her position clear at the National Press Club:
‘Another area that demands stronger government intervention is the protection of our children from devices and technology. We have allowed the smartest people in the world to make billions of dollars by peddling addictive technology to children and it is shortening their childhoods. Parents need government in their corner.’
Do they?
Do parents want government in their homes, holding the strap?
That is not something I hear from the community.
I’ve never had a parent lean on my shoulder and exclaim, ‘Gosh! If only we had MORE government!’
It is terrible to watch the Labor and Liberal parties treating young people like helpless sheep – herding them into government-moderated holding pens until they have endured 16 years of uninterrupted brainwashing from the education system.
Re-making bright, eager, healthy children into docile sheep.
These are children who know more about the Digital Age than every single adult drafting the under 16 ban.
Not a ‘ban’, apparently…
‘Calling it a ban misunderstands its core purpose and the opportunity it presents,’ said the eSafety Commissioner.
‘We’re not building a Great Australian Internet Firewall, but we are seeking to protect under 16s from those unseen yet powerful forces … it may be more accurate to frame this as a social media delay.’
Later she contracts herself and adds: ‘Children have important digital rights to participation.’
This is not only about Australia. The eSafety Commissioner was adamant that this regulation was both ‘bold’ and ‘leading the world’.
‘Global collaboration is what we have to be doing. The internet’s global. We know laws are national and local and that’s why we’re the founders of the Global Online Safety Regulators Network – as we’re much stronger together. A lot of these companies are as large and wealthy as nation states so we need to band together with like-minded countries.’
A ‘United Nations’ of Digital Censors operating above government to control global speech…?
Astonishingly, that did not make it to the headlines.
Cutting Australian children off from the outside world leaves their minds to be poisoned with government-scripted paranoia. These are the fears and terrors of Parliament. Once mistrust has been sown against alternative media sources that contradict policy – only then, apparently, can young Australians be ‘safely’ released into the digital wilderness to become crusading activists policing the digital realm on behalf of the government.
This is how you create neurotic, ideological busy-bodies championing government policy.
It is not how you support young Australians in their experience interacting with and shaping the digital realm.
Listening to the eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, give her recent speech at the Press Club in Canberra, it appears her ‘advice’ is being crafted from two positions: a grievance regarding her brief employment at Twitter (now X), and the belief that a global framework of eSafety bureaucrats should control the flow of information online.
Julie Inman Grant, who once introduced herself as the ‘censorship commissar’ (quoting Elon Musk) described her interaction with the tech giant as a ‘war’.
‘I made a strategic decision to withdraw here … let’s face it, the war is going to be much longer and more extended.’
That was in 2024.
As an elected Senator, I find it extremely concerning and distasteful to hear the eSafety Commissioner openly pitch the regulation of digital media as a ‘war’ which insinuates that social media platforms are hostile foes rather than private companies providing an extraordinary advancement of technology and – for the first time in human history – a global platform for real-time speech between the peoples of the world.
While speaking to the Canberra Press Club, the eSafety Commissioner pitched her argument by comparing social media to a beach.
‘There are indeed treacherous waters for our children to navigate, especially while their maturity and critical reasoning skills are still developing. And this is where we can learn so much from tried and tested lessons of water safety that Australia pioneered. From the backyard pools to the beach, Australia’s water safety culture is a global success story.’
Pardon me, but the eSafety Commissioner appears to be confused.
Australian children under 16 are not banned from pools and beaches. Nor are they indoctrinated into a cult of terror surrounding water.
‘A mixture of regulation, education, and community participation that reduces risks and supports parents keeping their children happily and safely frolicking in the sea. Picture any major beach in Australia and [it] will likely include the familiar sight of yellow and red flags fluttering in the breeze, children splashing in the waves, and lifeguards standing watch. Parents keep a watchful eye too, but are quietly confident in the knowledge that their kids will be okay. Not because the ocean is safe, but because we have learned to live beside it.’
Aside from the insult of using an Australian beach scene to sell censorship to children, her focus on community adult presence as a safety measure side-steps wildly from her comments later where she says: ‘…the difference will be that they are grouped more with their peers rather than – you know – billions of people around the world that are adults and kids and strangers.’
Are communities good or bad?
The eSafety Commissioner doesn’t know because she cannot get her messaging straight from one breath to the next.
Too much focus has been placed on the (manageable) problems unavoidable in a revolutionary technology development and not enough said about the extraordinary benefit that comes with opening up the world’s information, opinion, debate, and minds.
Of course, there will be a period of adjustment.
For children and parents.
That is not an excuse for regulators to reach into the cradle and suffocate social media in its crib.
This attitude would have seen Rome’s stone tablets smashed, Alexandria’s libraries burned, and the printing presses of Europe fall silent. All to ‘protect’ people from unregulated knowledge.
And it is not as if the internet is an unregulated ‘Wild West’ as claimed. There are many laws – most of which go unenforced for reasons that remain a mystery to the public – that deal with most of the examples the eSafety Commissioner offers as justification.
Deep fakes, blackmail, underage sexual content, harassment – these are all crimes.
We would support an investigation into how many of these reports authorities leave unanswered.
These failures are domestic. They are related to Australia’s weak criminal justice system, not Silicon Valley CEOs who are being used as scapegoats to disguise the irresponsible failure of ‘soft-touch’ sentencing.
Peer-based bullying, which makes up the bulk of tragic youth suicides, is largely due to school peers known to both the parents and teachers. These terrible stories almost always reveal the systemic failure of the education system which has shied away from punishing bullies and removing them from the school environment.
Before banning children from the internet, we should find out why schools have lost control of students.
Banning under 16s from social media also has the potential to turn the government into the worst schoolyard bully.
Imagine a class where only one person is under 16. All of their peers are on social media – except them. Differences are what drives exclusion, and in this case the government is creating an insurmountable social divide that will expose untold thousands of children to a friendship disadvantage.
And what of children who struggle with school?
The eSafety Commissioner said at one point, ‘…a vision the Prime Minister had of seeing more kids kicking the footy. That’s what we plan to help measure in…’
Not all kids ‘kick the footy’.
The children who do not fit in with their school peers often engage with small international niche creative communities. These children make school bearable through their social media friendships in the same way my generation had pen pals or friends in other clubs and areas.
Cutting children off from their best friends online is worse than bullying. It is cruelty.
Despite what is suggested by regulators, these children will not ‘just move to other platforms’. One Australian child cannot compel international children to change to another unregulated social platform because that is not how reality works. They will simply be excluded and forgotten.
This is before we consider sick children who live at home or in hospital and for which social media is the thread that connects them to the world.
Social media lived peacefully side-by-side with the Millennial generation, who are now in their 30s-40s.
How is that possible?
No doubt it had something to do with the rigour of their education and domestic environment which provided the balance lacking in schools which routinely engage in public activism – dragging children onto the streets as pawns in adult political games.
When the education system decided to focus on politics, it began to see free speech and the platforms that facilitate critical thinking, live news, and global knowledge as ‘dangerous’.
School eSafety programs spend much of their time obsessing about which sources of news can be ‘trusted’, although it is never made clear when educators were handed the task of ranking news organisations in the minds of children.
Who gets to decide which news outlets are ‘trustworthy’?
The hypocrisy of National Press Club host Tom Connell informing the audience that they could watch YouTube and follow the conversation on X cannot be overstated.
In 2025, the news unfolds on social media – much to the frustration of the legacy media.
World leaders correspond via Truth Social and X.
The eSafety Commissioner is effectively banning children under 16 from the news – from the world – and from their friends.
Imagine if she had insisted children be banned from reading newspapers ‘for their safety’.
It’s the same thing, yet the danger is easier to recognise in the latter.
Our children deserve protection – protection from the expansion of government into the role of parenting.
The eSafety Commissioner has gone too far by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Using ‘child safety’ to restrict social media is a dangerous path for Australia
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/7f69e525-6660-434b-83a2-24e4ddebf828_720x960.jpg?fit=720%2C960&ssl=1960720Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-01 16:01:192025-07-01 16:01:23The eSafety Commissioner Has Gone Too Far
Nigel Farage’s unapologetically anti-Net Zero #Reform party is making headway in Scotland.
This sounds strange.
Scotland has always been a rather left-leaning, working class, union-centric nation so for Net Zero to suddenly become a defining feature of a minor-right movement is worth a second look.
The answer is simple.
Jobs.
By 2030, it is expected that 58,000 jobs in North Sea oil and gas will be gone.
Replacing them is a meagre (and as yet unproven) 29,000 jobs in offshore wind.
There’s a real and serious concern about how many of these jobs will be filled by foreign nationals, especially as this was already happening before loopholes were closed. If offshore wind cannot convert workers locally, businesses will hire internationally.
Bureaucrats seem to believe that all forms of energy production fall under the same portfolio and that workers can wander between oil rigs and wind farms…
The truth is, just because the two industries revolve around ‘energy’ it does not follow that those employed in the oil and gas industry can change their qualifications to work in offshore wind.
Oil rig workers are highly specialised, well-trained, and experienced. Throwing their livelihoods into the dustbin in pursuit of an increasingly dodgy-sounding ‘decarbonisation’ project is starting to turn voters away from environmental fascism.
Most oil and gas workers know they’ll be forced to retire.
This is a truth Australian Unions refuse to acknowledge.
They remain prepared to throw Australian workers under the Net Zero bus.
The UK is ten years ahead of Australia when it comes to the energy ‘transition’ – and they are in a serious mess.
Net Zero has become the failure that unites Labour and the Tories.
Reform saw the truth early, and maintained its position in support of reality, workers, and sensible energy. One Nation saw the truth years before Reform even existed as a movement.
Of all the parties in the Western world on the centre-right, we were the first to warn about the dangers of Net Zero.
There is nothing modern about Net Zero. If anything, it’s an idea past its use-by date which is starting to fester and grow all sorts of nasty things.
Under Sussan Ley and David Littleproud as leaders, the partly repaired Coalition has shied away from rigorous support of Net Zero, yet they are defending ‘climate goals’ and ‘decarbonisation targets’ with the same zeal that Treasurer Jim Chalmers eyes-off super balances.
Which is the same thing.
When the next election rolls around, we will have an agreement from the major parties that Net Zero is law and the ‘transition’ is unstoppable.
Sadly, we’ll also see voters with little understanding about the source of civilisation’s trappings telling tens of thousands of young Australians who work in the coal and gas industry that they are dirty, evil, and unwanted in the ‘modern’ world.
This is not their fault. Inner-city voters have been lied to by the whole damn system, and they often lack real-world experience to combat these cruel untruths. Nor can they see the families being hurt by green policy.
The Australian Greens, for instance, want to stop fossil fuels.
Except, of course, for the coal, gas, and oil mined and shipped offshore to generate cheap energy for China so they can make solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries used in the so-called green energy revolution.
Green energy is built on fossil fuels.
This is a wasteful way of utilising Australia’s natural resources while saddling the highly skilled men and women who mine them as the villains of history.
Well, I refuse to believe that, and I refuse to allow Australian miners to be thrown out by ideologues in Canberra chasing inner-city seats.
There are 94,400 workers in the sector under 35 and 52,600 under 30.
The Greens, Labor, the Teals, and a majority of Liberals, all claim to be against this industry and yet the truth is they want these mining jobs to be shipped offshore to places like China, Africa, and the Pacific. They want someone else to benefit economically from the creation of energy and for Australians to circle the drain of consumerism until this nation becomes so dependent that it can’t so much as manufacture the shovel to dig itself out of the mess.
This is the dirty side of carbon trading.
One Nation supports Australian workers. We do not demonise them.
Our party wants young Aussies to have the same opportunity we had to turn the natural gifts of this country’s soil and rock into cheap, reliable energy for other Aussie families – including those who live in the city.
From miners to retail workers, energy is the foundation of a safe, affordable, and prosperous country.
94,400 young Aussie miners at risk by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This article was first published on my Substack. If you enjoy in-depth content like this, consider subscribing to get future posts delivered straight to your inbox.
Australia has abundant natural resources, yet the Labor-Liberal uniparties want to DESTROY our prosperity with Net Zero policies!
One Nation says NO to this madness. It time our resources were used for cheaper energy and Australian jobs! It’s time to end this attack on Aussie families!
I spoke with Brent on 2SM about to the recent and concerning medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots and the disturbing lack of accountability from CASA regarding the impact of vaccine mandates on aviation safety.
We need proper cardiac screening and transparency about potential vaccine injuries among pilots. The public deserves to know the truth about what’s happening in our skies.
CASA’s wilful blindness to these serious safety issues must end.
Transcript
Brent: I said we were going to be talking to Malcolm Roberts this morning. He is on the phone. Two recent medical emergencies involving commercial airline pilots, one who collapsed in the cockpit, another who suffered chest pains mid-flight, have sparked fresh questions around aviation safety and pilot health post-Covid. Now, pilots, if you remember, were required to be vaccinated during the pandemic. Remember, no jab, no job. That’s what they were saying. No jab, no job. But could there be lingering medical issues going undetected? And are the regulators doing enough to stay ahead of it? Senator Malcolm Roberts raised the matter during Senate’s estimates. He joins me now. Good morning, Malcolm.
Malcolm Roberts: Good morning, Brent. How are you?
Brent: I’m well. Thank you for taking the time in your busy schedule. We really appreciate it. Okay?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re welcome. Pleasure.
Brent: When you asked about these incidents in Senate estimates, what was CASA’s response and did you get the sense that they’re really taking it seriously?
Malcolm Roberts: No, they’re definitely not taking it seriously. Their response echoed or exuded the word indignant. They’re indignant. I’ve asked them many questions about the vaccine injuries, the jab injuries, Fred, and they have been willfully blind, in my opinion. That’s my honest opinion. They have given me nothing. When I first asked about the jabs being mandated by Qantas and Virgin, they said, “Well, that’s their business.” They are responsible for any new medication coming into the airline sector to be tested at low altitude. That has not been done. When I asked them on whose advice they ignored Qantas and Virgin’s jabs, they said, “The experts.” On whose advice did you basically approve the vaccines? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The experts. Which experts? The international experts. I never got a name. They will not take responsibility, that’s why I say they’re willfully blind. And we know from pilots, Fred, that there are many with serious problems.
Brent: Pilots already undergo regular medical checks, but is there a case for adding cardiac screening now, just as a precaution, given what we know post-Covid?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, and we know that in states, the United States of America, the screening levels were increased considerably just to get more people through. I know from talking to a lawyer who’s helping a whistleblower prosecute Pfizer, that he was told by a Southwest Airlines pilot and Southwest Airlines is the biggest domestic carrier in the United States with about 23% of the market, almost a quarter. They tell me that 1,000 Southwest Airlines pilots failed their medical.
Brent: A thousand?
Malcolm Roberts: A thousand. We worked that out on back of envelopes stuff to be about 5%.
Brent: Gosh.
Malcolm Roberts: 1/20th. So there’s a serious issue, and we’ve heard from Australian pilots that there are people who are damaged who are flying, but they won’t report because they could lose their jobs.
Brent: The U.S. Defence study back in 2021, it raised concerns about myocarditis in young fit people including pilots. Shouldn’t that have been a trigger for more action here? Malcolm?
Malcolm Roberts: Definitely. But no matter what we raised with CASA, they just ignore it. They ignore the regulations about testing, requiring testing of new medications at low pressure, low and [inaudible 00:03:25] high altitude. These are significant rules that they’re just ignoring. They’re not taking responsibility for doing their job. I find CASA and in particular, it’s chief expense to be uncaring, and I don’t think they’re doing their job properly. That’s my honest opinion. They just seem to run away from their responsibilities. She is the top of the heap when it comes to airline safety in this country and she, in my opinion, she’s not behaving responsibly.
Brent: U.S. flight surgeon, Teresa Long sounded early warnings about health, heart risks with these mRNA vaccines. Malcolm, has there been any similar discussion or concern raised by aviation doctors in Australia?
Malcolm Roberts: Pilots have raised it with me. Former pilots who refused to get the jab who still stay in touch with their former colleagues have raised it with me. They’re very, very concerned about this. Very concerned. There have been doctors and pilot officials who’ve raised it with me, as well.
Brent: Do you think the public would be reassured if little word, big meaning, CASA simply looked at a short-term cardiac screening programme for pilots just to be on the safe side of things?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And what’s the fear about this? If a pilot is found to be liable or more prone or has a heart problem, then the public is going to be safe, safer by giving him treatment. That’s the first thing. If they find no one at all, and I don’t think that’ll be the case, then at least we’ve had that confirmed and the public can be at ease. But one of the things is they’re afraid to the whole, when I say they, it’s not just CASA, it’s the whole health establishment are afraid to do that because once they find the data themselves, they can’t ignore it, then they’d have to admit to what they did was inhuman by mandating untested, not properly tested vaccines in this country. So people are just burying it. I mean that sincerely. People in the health departments there at state and federal level, health agencies like APRA they’re burying this. They don’t want to.
Brent: So is it fair to say that CASA-
Malcolm Roberts: I hope we’re not going to be burying passengers soon.
Brent: Is it fair to say that CASA is just deliberately covering up myocarditis cases?
Malcolm Roberts: I would say that they’re in group think, they don’t want to admit it and it’s willful blindness. So you interpret that as deliberate in my view, they’re being deliberately negligent, which is deliberately not wanting to look at it because of what they might find, and I don’t think they know it, but medical authorities know that there’s a lot of heart problems with the vaccine with those vaccinated with the Covid shots.
Brent: Senator, this isn’t about panic, is it? It’s about trust.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely. It’s about trust, responsibility, and accountability. And the federal government, state government, we have got a problem in this country. The number one issue in this country, Fred, is that there is very low level of accountability. When I square up at Senate estimates, I’m holding them accountable and the liberal and labour governments, which I’ve had experience with both, they’re not on the side of the public. The number one problem in this country is shoddy governance that is based on ignoring the hard data, the hard evidence,
Brent: Trying to dust it away, hide it under the rug, as they say. Look, more transparency and a few extra checks would go a long way in keeping people confident when they simply step on a plane.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, we’ve had senior pilots telling us that they admittedly retired rather than face the mandates or who voluntarily just refused to accept the mandates. They are very, very concerned and we know that the heart injuries globally from these shots, and it’s not just Astrazeneca, it’s also Moderna, also Pfizer. They have seriously raised a sign, raised the incidence of heart problems.
Brent: No jab and no job. That was the saying during this whole thing. No jab, no job, so we lost lots of excellent pilots. May I ask you, in your experience and the people that you talked to, have you found that because pilots lost their jobs, there’s a shortage of good pilots? Are pilots that didn’t take the jab, are they now getting their jobs back?
Malcolm Roberts: I don’t know. I make statements only based on data and I haven’t got the data with me on that, but I do know, I know the data that we have lost many, many fine nurses, paramedics, ambulancemen, doctors, firees, police officers. We have got some people who deliberately avoided the mandates and stood down or resigned or worse, stood down. We had a bloody nurse pregnant, stood down in January. Some of these places have still got mandates on and it’s basically inhuman. They didn’t test the shots properly, Fred, we know that they didn’t test them, yet, they mandated them and they said basically to people employed in all those industries and services that I just listed, they said basically, “If you want to feed your kids, you’ll get the shots.” That is inhuman. That is just disgraceful.
Brent: Did you say you had a nurse? I just want to repeat this, you had a nurse in January of 2025, she lost her job. Is that right? Because she hadn’t had a jab in 2025.
Malcolm Roberts: Sorry, January, 2024. My mistake. January, 2024.
Brent: Okay.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And she was basically suspended at work, off work suspended at various times in the previous three years since the jabs came in, the mandates came in and then they sacked her.
Brent: Gosh, we’ve just got to get rid of these mandates.
Malcolm Roberts: And the injections that were approved provisionally for people in this country, the medical authorities in this country are now saying healthy infants, children’s and adolescents aged less than 18 years of age are not recommended to receive Covid-19 vaccine.
Brent: Absolutely. They’ve changed their mind.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah, so we’re going to see the TGA, we’re going to see APRA blacklisted from social media like I was suspended for saying exactly that healthy infants, children, adolescents should not be given the shots, I was blacklisted, suspended from social media. Are they going to be suspended? There’s not even a fuss about it. We know that Astrazeneca’s been withdrawn because of the court decision in the United Kingdom.
We need a royal commission. We need a royal commission to get to the bottom of this because there is a lot of lies being told, a lot of inhuman decisions, and now we find out that so many things, the premiers are telling us so many things in the Covid response, a fraudulent Covid response, are wrong and they’re not based on the science. They’ve admitted that, and we knew that because the different states had different approaches and some states had different approaches from one day to the next. They didn’t follow the data. There is no scientific evidence, empirical hard evidence. There’s been no serious testing. Pfizer cancels its tests early because they were killing people in their own test group who’d got the shots, and I asked the TGA, the Therapeutic Goods Administration responsible for provisionally, approving the shots in the first place, what testing they did. Oh, Senator Roberts, we didn’t do any testing. We relied upon the FDA in America, the Food and Drug Administration, which does America’s approvals.
And we knew at that time, Fred, at the time, the TGA told me that, we knew that the FDA had not done any tests and relied purely on Pfizer’s evidence. Pfizer’s evidence, and Pfizer is now being questioned seriously about the efficacy of the test. We’ve had tens of thousands of, let’s be blunt homicides, they are homicides, in this country and millions worldwide homicides because the testing has not been done properly at all. What testing was done was not proper at all. It was very, very brief.
Brent: All right, Malcolm Roberts, we’ll leave it there today. As always, thank you for making yourself available to talk on the Chris Smith morning show. Chris will talk to you again. No doubt. Keep up the good fight, Malcolm.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/2vWM0fq7VzI/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-06-26 17:34:402025-06-26 17:34:59Time for Transparency: Aviation Safety Demands Answers from CASA
Politicians get told not to react like this on live media …
When a member of my team slipped a note across the desk while I was on a podcast, I just couldn’t contain my excitement.
The news was that One Nation had been declared the winner of a Senate seat for New South Wales, confirming we had doubled our representation from just Pauline Hanson and I to four senators including WA.
This was my reaction as I found out for the very first time.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bIwIZBUSshE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-06-26 15:00:002025-06-26 17:35:53I Found Out We Won—on Air!
Milk’s up. Eggs? Up. Lights on? Might cost a kidney! Coffee’s $6. A sandwich? $50.
It’s not one big hit — it’s death by a thousand dollars.
Labor’s cost-of-living crisis is eating Aussie life, one small joy at a time.
Transcript
The price of milk is going up, The price of eggs is going up. The cost of freight is going up. Turning the lights on means selling a kidney on the black market. Everything’s expensive.
Want a Uber Eats sandwich these days? Well, there’s 50 bucks. A quick coffee to warm you up from whatever mini Ice Age we’re shivering in right now – there’s 6 bucks. It all adds up.
Now I like coffee, some days 2. $12.00 in coffee to stay alive. That’s $4,368 in coffee in a year.
Little things add up. 10 years ago it cost $1456 a year in coffee, the odd dollar here and there.
That’s what this cost of living crisis is built on. It’s eating away at the things Australians used to enjoy – one by one.
Even heading down to the pub with your mates for a couple of beers is a luxury expense.
I heard tolls were going up across Sydney – again! Drive across the bridge or have an extra cup of coffee? Turn the lights on or skip lunch? Use the air conditioning? Plug in an electric car to charge?
Are you crazy?
Every Labor tax hike, every bit of kindness to fund Treasurer Jim Chalmers latest thought bubble, every cent squeezed out of you adds up to a personal crisis.
So when we buy our eggs, we buy our milk, we take a detour to avoid a toll or walk past that coffee we can’t afford? Remember Labor’s greed added those costs. One man – $1.00 at a time.
The Treasurer, Jim Chalmers, with a little help of course from Chris Brown and his mad, elusive cheap energy.