Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Killing the Environment to Save It, Again – Sea Dumping for Net-Zero

Whether it’s called “under seabed injection of carbon dioxide” or any other ridiculous name, this latest carbon capture scheme is really just about making climate scam billionaires even richer. It’s all in the name of ‘Net Zero’ with exactly zero known about the consequences.

The fake environmentalists can’t leave nature alone – just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines, or the damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways.

Net Zero lunatics are once again intending to harm the environment to save it. Yet it’s all for nothing. We DO NOT and CANNOT, in any way, significantly affect the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide over and above the natural variation.

As seen throughout history, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine temperatures. In addition, increased industrialisation does not herald increased carbon dioxide, nor does a global lockdown result in a cut.

Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum, the net zero pipe dream and all its insane offshoots, including the Environment Protection Sea Dumping Amendment Using new Technologies to Fight Climate Change Bill 2023.

Transcript

As a servant to the fine people of Queensland and Australia, I want to ask a question. If you want a perfect example of how insane the UN’s net zero pipedream is, look no further than this bill, the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. Why? We’re going to spend billions on pulling natural trace gas out of the air and then spend billions more to try and inject it under the seabed and hope it stays there. Science and nature show that it cannot. 

You may have heard of the concept of carbon capture and storage, commonly abbreviated to CCS. The climate activists claim we need carbon capture and storage to save the world. That’s a lie. I’ll get to that later. But no-one really talks about what storage means in these schemes. It seems our government and bureaucrats and our opposition don’t want to talk about the details, because anyone who explains carbon dioxide storage out loud will immediately realise the concept is stupid and dishonest. 

One might think that a bill titled ‘environment protection sea dumping’ would be an amendment saying, ‘You can’t dump things in the sea to protect the environment.’ Think again! The fake environmentalists have decided that the best way to protect the environment is to dump stuff in the sea. Just like the koalas being euthanised to make way for wind turbines or damaged solar panels leaking toxic heavy metals into waterways, the United Nations net zero plan again involves killing the environment to save it. 

Carbon capture and storage can be summarised by the following steps: carbon dioxide—a harmless, colourless, odourless, tasteless, natural trace, atmospheric gas that is generated from the burning of materials containing carbon atoms, including digesting food in animal guts and including our own guts, burning trees and bushfires and burning coal in power stations to produce among the cheapest forms of electricity available for human progress. In the case of carbon capture and sequestration or storage, carbon dioxide is captured at the point of production. Carbon dioxide is transported then via ship and/or pipeline to a storage location. The carbon dioxide—wait for it—is injected underneath the seabed via drilling for storage, theoretically permanently. It’s theoretically permanent because there is no guarantee that the carbon dioxide will stay there. 

History is full of episodes of spills where companies couldn’t contain the oil they were drilling for. Natural leakage from reservoirs has been the case for nature since time immemorial. Even if it were necessary to bury carbon dioxide—and it’s not—there’s no guarantee it will stay there after being hit by some type of undersea seismic activity or even a very common underocean earthquake.  

It’s worth remembering that carbon dioxide makes up just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s atmosphere. Human beings are responsible for just three per cent of the annual production of carbon dioxide, and Australia contributes just 1.3 per cent of that three per cent. Yet the net-zero advocates tell us that, if we take a fraction of our carbon dioxide and pay an oil-drilling company to dump it in the ocean by injecting it under the seabed, we can save the world. Wow! Amazing! Obviously it’s a bloody lie, an absurd lie.  

Carbon capture and storage is just another scheme designed to make some multinational companies rich at the expense of Australians, and you lot are falling for it, while adding huge costs to power bills that will needlessly continue increasing, killing standards of living and raising the cost of living needlessly. That’s what gets on my goat—you’re doing it wilfully. 

The second part of this bill deals with allowing permits for research into ocean fertilisation. Ocean fertilisation is an untested, radical experiment with our planet’s natural environment. It involves dumping elements like iron, nitrogen or phosphates into the ocean in the hope that stimulated phytoplankton will take more carbon dioxide out of the air. They’re shutting farms down in Queensland, where I come from, because they say farmers are putting too much nitrogen into the ocean. 

One Nation supports research—scientific research, empirical data driven research. We’ll never make any progress unless we test new ways of doing things. Research must be balanced though between the potential risks and the potential benefits. When it comes to ocean fertilisation, an untested form of geoengineering, the potential risks are too great and the benefits are non-existent. 

Let’s be clear what we are talking about here. Ocean fertilisation is the wholesale dumping of chemicals into the ocean with the intention of creating systemic changes to the ecosystem, creating unplanned systemic changes to the ocean—unknown. Unintended consequences are almost guaranteed. If it works, we have no idea how a huge systemic change will affect the environment and the ecosystem. The potential risks are unquantifiable and frightening.  

The supposed benefit—sequestering more carbon dioxide out of the air—is negligible. We do not need to remove more carbon dioxide out of the air. Carbon dioxide is the lifeblood of vegetation on this planet. No-one has been able to prove to me that human produced carbon dioxide affects temperature more than natural variation does, because they can’t provide that evidence. Ocean fertilisation has huge risks and no potential benefits. It should be opposed. 

I’ll sum up this bill for the Australian people. The UN’s net-zero lunatics are yet again saying they need to kill the environment to save it. The Greens; the teals, including Senator David Pocock; the Liberals-Nationals; and Labor all blindly sign up and hurt families, industries and national security. Australia must ditch the United Nations World Economic Forum net-zero pipedream and all of its insane requirements, including the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment (Using New Technologies to Fight Climate Change) Bill 2023. One Nation will be opposing this bill designed to enrich predatory globalist billionaires who donate to the Greens and the teals. Every senator, by the way, should do the same—oppose this bill.  

Now I turn to the bill’s underlying premise. I’ll go through the carbon dioxide reality. We’re exhaling it. Every one of us in this chamber is exhaling it. Every human and every animal is exhaling it. When we breathe all animals, including koalas, multiply the concentration of carbon dioxide 100 to 125 times. We take in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere at 0.04 per cent and we exhale it at four to five per cent. We increase the concentration 100 to 125 times.  

Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on earth. This is a fact sheet on carbon dioxide. It’s just 0.04 per cent of the Earth’s air—four-hundredths of one per cent. It is scientifically described as a trace gas because there’s bugger all of it. It is non-toxic and not noxious. Senator Hanson-Young called it toxic. That is straight out wrong! It’s highly beneficial to and essential for plants. Greenhouses inject the stuff into greenhouses to stimulate the growth of plants. In the past, when carbon dioxide levels on this planet were four times higher than today—and they have been 135 times higher than today, naturally, in the fairly recent past—it has resulted in earth flourishing as plants and animals thrive with the benefits of carbon dioxide. 

Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless. It’s natural. Nature produces 97 per cent of the carbon dioxide produced annually on our planet. It does not discolour the air. It does not impair the quality of water or soil. It does not create light, heat, noise or radio activity. It does not distort our senses. It does not degrade the environment nor impair its usefulness nor render it offensive. It’s not a pollutant. It does not harm ecosystems; it is essential for ecosystems. It does not harm plants and animals; it is essential for plants and animals. It does not cause discomfort, instability or disorder. It does not accumulate. It does not upset nature’s balance. It remains in the air for only a short time before nature cycles it back into plants, animal tissue and natural accumulations—and oceans. It does not contaminate, apart from nature’s extremely high and concentrated volumes close to some volcanos, and then only locally and briefly. Under rare natural conditions, when in concentrations in amounts far higher than anything humans can produce—that we can dream of producing—temporarily due to nature, that’s the only time it can harm. It is not a pollutant. 

As I said a minute ago, in the past it has been up to 130 times higher in concentration in our planet’s current atmosphere than today. It’s not listed as a pollutant. Prime Minister Gillard invoked the term ‘pollutant’, ‘carbon pollution’—it’s not even carbon. It’s carbon dioxide; it’s a gas. President Obama then copied Prime Minister Gillard on his visit to Australia during her tenure. That’s where we got ‘carbon pollution’. It doesn’t exist. So koalas exhaling carbon dioxide are polluters. 

We do not control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We couldn’t even if we wanted to. In 2009, after the global financial crisis, and in 2020, during the COVID mismanagement, we caused severe recessions around the world. In 2009, we actually didn’t have one in Australia because we were exporting coal and iron ore, but, nonetheless, there were global recessions in 2009 and 2020. All of a sudden, the use of hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—decreased dramatically. Exactly what we’re being told to do by the teals, by the Greens, by the Labor Party, by the Liberal Party and by the National Party. What happened to the level of carbon dioxide outside in the atmosphere? Did it start going down? No. Did it even inflect slightly and decrease the rate of increase? No. It continued increasing. Why? Because nature controls the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. 

According to the UN IPCC, the fraudulent climate science mob, the oceans of the planet contain 50 to 70 times the amount of carbon dioxide in dissolved form than in the earth’s entire atmosphere—50 to 70 times as much than when you invoke Henry’s law of chemistry, which has been known for a couple of hundred years, and the level of carbon dioxide in the air depends on the quantity dissolved in the oceans and varies with the temperature of the oceans because solubility of carbon dioxide in the oceans varies with temperature. In the annual graph of carbon dioxide levels, you can see the seasonal variation in the Northern Hemisphere and in the Southern Hemisphere. Carbon dioxide levels follow the temperatures of the ocean, especially the sea surfaces. We do not significantly in any way affect the level, and we cannot affect the level over and above natural variation due to nature. 

The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not determine the temperature, unlike what the Greens, the teals, Labor, the Liberals and the Nationals are telling us. There has been massive increase in human production of carbon dioxide from China, India, Brazil, Europe, Russia, Asia and America, yet temperatures have been flat—flat!—for 28 years. Not warming; not cooling; flat. The trend during the massive industrialisation during the Second World War and the post-war economic boom saw temperatures from 1936 to 1976 fall. Over 40 years of massive industrialisation, the longest temperature trend in the last 160 years was cooling. Remember the predictions that we were going to be in for an ice age? In the 1880s and 1890s in our country, temperatures were warmer by far. 

Variation in everything in nature is natural. There’s inherent natural variation within larger cycles of increasing and decreasing temperature, rainfall, drought cycles and storm cycles. The CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the United Nations have failed to show any change in any climate factor, just natural variation. It’s not climate change; it’s climate variation. Every uptick is heralded as catastrophic and every downtick is silently ignored. 

What’s driving this political scam, this climate fraud? Ignorant, dishonest and gutless politicians are enabling scammers making money from it. Consider John Howard. In 2007, I sent him a letter of appreciation for his role as Prime Minister before I started researching climate. During his term, he introduced the National Electricity Market and the Renewable Energy Target, the first emissions trading scheme policy for a major party, and his government stole farmers’ rights to use their property. He admitted in London in 2013 that he was an agnostic on climate science. Then we have parasites like Holmes a Court, Twiggy Forrest and Turnbull keeping it alive, relying on the subsidy. What’s keeping it alive? Teals such as David Pocock and Greens such as Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Hanson-Young, invoking fear and doom, yet never providing the logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence. I encourage people to watch their speeches and see the dearth of scientific evidence. 

/6 Comments/by

Government Covering up for Airline Duopoly

I spoke in support of the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition Bill 2023) introduced by the Coalition.

The Morrison Government first put airline monitoring in place in June 2020. For some reason, the Albanese Government decided not to continue this monitoring. Yet, the ACCC’s own reporting has identified ongoing issues due to the lack of competition in the industry — issues with the quality of service, running behind schedule and cancelled flights are becoming far more common.

Qantas and Virgin are failing to keep to expected standards of operation while exploiting their market power to protect their market share. This is crony capitalism and indefensible. Only healthy competition will ensure the airlines maintain their standards.

We have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation. Restoring and defending competition in oligopolistic markets is a government obligation, an obligation that One Nation will work to ensure the government fulfils, for the benefit of airline passengers and the whole country.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak to the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Continuing ACCC Monitoring of Domestic Airline Competition) Bill 2023, and I commend Senators McKenzie and Smith for advancing this bill. The bill amends the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to direct the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC, to continue its monitoring program of prices, costs and profits in the Australian domestic airline industry. 

The Morrison government initiated this monitoring on 19 June 2020, and it sunset in June this year. The Albanese government decided not to continue the monitoring. Perhaps former Qantas CEO Alan Joyce asked the Prime Minister in one of their many meetings for a favour, a favour for Alan Joyce and his masters, Qantas’s shareholders BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. All love monopolies and oligopolies! This Labor government seems to have opened more doors for captains of industry than it does for everyday Australians. 

The ACCC’s Airline competition in Australia report from June 2023 identified ongoing issues connected to insufficient competition within Australia’s domestic airline industry. The lack of competition has led to higher airfares and a decline in service quality. Cancellations have increased from one per cent before COVID to six per cent now. On-time running has fallen from a high of 92 per cent before COVID to just 70 per cent now, which, admittedly, is an improvement on the 64 per cent Qantas and Virgin were managing just a few months ago. By any measure, this poor performance is unacceptable. I remind people that the word ‘Joyced’ has entered the Australian vernacular to describe having one’s travel plans shafted due to Qantas’s incompetence, arrogance and greed. 

The reason Qantas and Virgin are still occupying a position of total market dominance—94 per cent of the market—is that they don’t have any competition. I recall being in a hearing on industrial relations in Rockhampton recently with Qantas government relations people sitting in front of us. I expressed my safety concerns because Qantas’s culture has deteriorated despite having outstanding staff at all levels, from pilots to ground staff to stewards to bookings clerks, all thoroughly competent, committed people. That deterioration has come from the top. The staff are wonderful; the leadership is poor. 

Look at the ‘yes’ campaign livery of an airliner—a 60-metre flying billboard costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to paint the ‘yes’ livery. That shows the arrogance of the Qantas executives because they know that they have domination of the market. They have market control, and market control brings arrogance. They’re also pushing for short-term gains for executive management under their compensation schemes, and then the former executive, Alan Joyce, serves the government politically, in many ways, and he’s done that repeatedly. My big concern is that, when the culture deteriorates—from Qantas’s fine culture of a few decades ago—safety can unwittingly be compromised. That is a vital concern for me. I’ll point out that it’s not regulation that creates a customer focused operation; it’s a competitor running a customer focused operation. 

James Strong did a marvellous job at Qantas—and TAA—before it was privatised. Short of having another wonderful executive come along, it is a competitor running a customer focused operation that creates a customer focused operation and will restore Qantas and Virgin. Free market competition will deliver the lowest price with the highest service and safety every time—if it is allowed to! Sadly, Australia is a small market, and many industries have, over time, become oligopolies. Grocery retailing is another example of a market gone bad into an oligopoly.  

Bonza airlines to took 14 years to get in the air over Australia because of our airline industry’s barriers to entry. Six months after their first flight, the Albanese government terminated the ACCC project that helped Bonza finally get into the air in the first place. Perhaps the final ACCC report from June spooked the government’s big business mates, Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street, Goldman Sachs and their cronies. That final ACCC report found that, while the emergence of small carriers has opened possibilities for increased competition in the domestic airline sector, these airlines would need significant growth to genuinely challenge the dominance of Australia’s largest two carriers. There’s no real competition, even with Bonza in. Restrictions remain favourable to Qantas and Virgin to protect them from direct market competition and force the Australian flying public, the consumers, to pay more than they need to. 

Over the past 20 years, 90 per cent or more of domestic passengers have opted to fly with Australia’s two largest carriers. As of April 2023, these two airline conglomerates accounted for 94 per cent of all domestic passengers. Former Qantas Group executive and Jetstar chief Jayne Hrdlicka is now head of Virgin. So it’s a nice, tidy little cabal. They force regional flyers to pay exorbitant fares. Regions are the bedrock of Australia, and yet we’re asking them to support a monopoly. This bill largely replicates the previous direction. Monitoring will take into consideration the need for commercial confidentiality. The ACCC must publish each report on the website, and the minister must cause the report to be tabled in parliament. In the House Standing Committee on Economics hearing into promoting economic competition in June 2023 Tim Jordan, the Chief Executive Officer of Bonza Aviation, made this statement: 

… the path was lengthy. This project took from late 2009 until early 2023 to come to fruition. That tells you the barriers to entry in Australia— 

14 years— 

It is a sad indictment of the existing duopolistic environment that, although we would have very positive conversations with potential Australian investors, they would conclude— 

‘they’ being the investors— 

‘This sounds great, and we believe in the scale of the opportunity, but unfortunately the incumbents will not allow you to prosper.’ That is a sad indictment of the competitive nature of this market segment. 

I feel Mr Jordan’s pain and the flying public’s pain. 

I know those proposing a new Australian steel industry in North Queensland and northern Western Australia are, despite promising news for the project, hearing exactly the same thing from some investors. The sums add up for an Australian steel industry, adding tens of thousands of breadwinner jobs and national security, yet government incompetence and the woke agenda means these companies will consider investing in foreign markets instead. The actions of the Albanese government in refusing to extend the monitoring are another example of a government that has no clue how to create real jobs and how to lower prices for everyday Australians—at a time of high inflation, high cost of living and high energy prices: stick it to the Australian consumer. 

Mr Jordan went on to say: 

Going back to your point about the barriers to entry, when you have constrained slots— 

That’s the airport gates— 

and other entry issues, such as access to a choice of suppliers, it slows down growth and the ability to accelerate and achieve economic efficiencies so as to continue to be viable. 

The ACCC has much work to do here. Qantas and Virgin must not be allowed to exploit their market power to protect their market share in a manner that is legally indefensible and thereby force Bonza to fail. Bonza must be allowed access to airport gates, access to maintenance shops and access to suppliers at fair market price. Anything else is crony capitalism. 

For those who have been ‘Joyced’—shovelled off to a hotel in the middle of the night instead of sleeping in your bed, had luggage disappear and later return damaged, or missed international connections and been told, ‘Not Qantas’s problem’—no-one could argue we don’t need more competition. No-one could argue that increased competition in the airline industry will lead to increased efficiencies right across the country. Bonza raises the hope of keeping these bastards honest and, at a time of high cost of living and inflation, giving consumers relief. It’s the ACCC’s job to give Bonza every opportunity to do just that. 

I thank Senators Dean Smith and McKenzie for their bill, which One Nation will be supporting. We have one flag, we are one community, we are one nation. Restoring and defending competition in oligopolistic markets is a government obligation, an obligation that One Nation will work to ensure the government fulfils for the benefit of airline passengers and the whole country. 

/2 Comments/by

Australian Defence Force – Less Money on Gender Advisers, More on Ammo!

After questioning members of Defence during Senate Estimates, I spoke in the Senate Chamber in support of Senator Lambie’s Motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue.

With more leaving than joining our defence force, putting our ability to defend Australia at risk, there is no denying the ADF is in crisis. As Senator Lambie rightly pointed out, this is a national security issue. We need a ready, able and capable military force. It’s not enough to sit back and hope that the United States will come to our aid. We must ensure we are self-reliant in this country for our own defence.

Given his track record so far, it’s clear that until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post, we will not have the defence force we once had. We must recognise our diggers for who they are – the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending this country.

Spend less money on “gender advisers” and more on ammo for training and diggers might just want to stick around.

Transcript

As a servant to the many fine people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on, and strongly support, Senator Lambie’s motion that the ADF recruitment and retention crisis is a national security issue. Senator Lambie, Senator Shoebridge and I spent a lot of time questioning Defence last week at Senate estimates. It was revealed at those h4earings that, despite all of Defence’s glossy recruitment brochures—as Senator Shoebridge accurately described them—there’s almost no mention of the fact that the headcount of defence personnel has gone backwards. There are more people leaving defence than joining, despite large recruitment and retention targets and huge expenditure. 

The responsibility for this utter failure sits squarely with Defence’s upper brass and with the politicians, for failing to keep them in line. The branch chiefs are all led—and I use that term loosely, when it comes to this man—by the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell. He is paid more than $1 million a year at a time when defence personnel receive a real wage cut. It’s difficult to find a KPI or a metric that General Campbell hasn’t failed on in his time as head of the Defence Force: recruitment and retention goals—failed; Taipan helicopters—failed; the Hunter class future frigates—failed. There are questions over whether a medal that General Campbell wears on his chest today—the Distinguished Service Cross—was given to him legally. 

Over 100 active special forces soldiers have discharged from the force after General Campbell threw them under the bus at a press conference in 2020, tarring them with accusations of war crimes before a single charge had been laid. One of the most elite fighting forces in the world—the Special Air Service Regiment, or SASR—is reportedly facing a complete capability crisis as operators leave Defence because their supposed leaders don’t care about their welfare. The chair of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, Nick Kaldas, has been scathing of Defence and its leadership. He specifically called out the successive failure of governments, the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to adequately protect the mental health and wellbeing of those who serve our country. 

Our defence force is in crisis on many fronts. The ability to defend this country is at risk, and it’s a national security issue, as Senator Lambie rightly points out. We cannot just close our eyes and cross our fingers and hope that the United States will turn up and help us out. We need a ready, able and capable defence force as much as ever. Given his track record so far, it’s clear we won’t get one until the Chief of the Defence Force, General Angus Campbell, is removed from his post and until we start treating the diggers as the people they really are: the people who care about our country and who are putting their heart and soul into defending his country. 

/4 Comments/by

Australians Don’t Need & Don’t Want to be Welcomed to Their Own Country

If you still call Australia home, then you probably join the majority of Australians in being over the virtue-signalling ‘Welcome to Country’ ceremonies that are happening with tedious frequency these days.

It was Voice campaigner, Marcia Langton, who promised no more ‘welcomes’ to country if the Voice was rejected. Let’s hope this promise is kept.

This indigenous cultural ceremony is being misappropriated, misused and it’s definitely divisive, as Senator Price says.

I call on this parliament and all other parliaments, government departments and local government to stop welcoming Australians to their own country.

Transcript

As a servant to the great state of Queensland and Australia, I stand to speak to this matter and to again congratulate the Australian people on their overwhelming rejection of the divisive Voice to Parliament at the October referendum. It was more than a rejection of the Albanese Voice referendum. It was a rejection of the entire Uluru statement—all 26 pages of it. It was a rejection of a treaty and so-called truth-telling—or, more accurately, a rewrite of history with an eye on financial settlements funded by non-Indigenous taxpayers. It was a rejection of identity politics, grievance politics, virtue signalling and the activist cult of victimhood. Primarily, it was a rejection of racial division. 

One of the most racially divisive features of modern discourse in Australia is welcome to country ceremonies, along with acknowledgements of country. Australians, including many Indigenous people, are sick and tired of them. We’ve had a gutful. People are sick of being told Australia is not their country, which is what these things effectively do. Supposed welcomes and acknowledgements deny the citizenship and sovereignty held equally by all Australians. They perpetuate the falsehood that nations existed on this continent prior to 1788. They didn’t. This is a foreign notion, an activist device imported from Canada that does not reflect the reality of Australian history. The High Court confirmed that with a similar statement in 2020. 

I remind the Senate of the promise made by leading Voice campaigner Marcia Langton: no more welcomes to country if the Voice was rejected. We can only hope this promise is lived up to. Federal taxpayers forked out at least $45,000 for these rituals in the previous financial year, although I understand the figure could be much higher, as not every government department has come clean on what they spend. It’s not even a pre-settlement ritual for most Aborigines. It was invented in 1976 by Ernie Dingo and Richard Walley. I acknowledge Narungga elder Kerry White, from South Australia, a great contributor to the ‘no’ campaign, who said these rituals are not even being used correctly. She said last year that they should be reserved for Indigenous people welcoming other Indigenous people to local country and that their use by non-Indigenous Australians was just virtue signalling. She wasn’t wrong about the virtual signalling, that’s for sure. Ms White said: 

… they’ve taken our ceremonial process and demeaned it by throwing it out there every day in every aspect of what Australian people do. And I think that is culturally wrong. 

That was an Aboriginal woman saying that. She even said welcomes to country were an attack on Indigenous culture and disrespectful of Aboriginals and their culture, and that it was patronising and paternalistic to adopt them without understanding them. People saying this do not even understand what it means. I also acknowledge another Indigenous leader of the ‘no’ campaign, Senator Nampijinpa Price, who said recently that welcomes to country were ‘definitely divisive’. Those are her words: ‘definitely divisive’. I’m confident there’s a complete lack of care and a contempt for Aboriginals. People are too lazy to bother to listen and understand the needs of Aboriginals. That has to set back the Aboriginal movement. I am confident I speak for the majority of Australians in saying I wish Professor Langton had included acknowledgements of country too. They’re recited at the beginning of every parliamentary sitting, every council meeting and every Zoom meeting held by public servants. We hear them at the conclusion of every domestic flight. You can hear the groans in the cabin every time. They have effectively lost all meaning for their constant repetition. At a conference in Mackay, an interstate speaker stood up and said a welcome to country for the people in Canberra because she came from Canberra and a welcome to country for the people in Mackay. 

To foster national unity and to help put an end to racial division in this country, it’s time to leave Aboriginal rituals to Aboriginal Australians. One Nation is supremely confident we speak for the majority of all Australians, regardless of race, when we call for an end to welcomes to and acknowledgements of country. We know that, for many, the promise of an end to them motivated their vote in the Voice referendum. We call on this parliament, all other Australian parliaments, all government departments and every local government in this nation to stop signalling the virtues you don’t possess and stop dividing this country by abusing these Aboriginal rituals. Start showing respect for the Aboriginal culture in Australia. Australians don’t want this virtue signalling. Australians don’t want racial division. They said that most emphatically on 14 October at the referendum. Let’s move forward together under one flag as one people in one nation. 

/12 Comments/by

Government Running a Ponzi Scheme

Labor is running a Ponzi scheme covering up a per capita recession. It’s bringing in huge numbers of new arrivals to increase spending to hide the per capita recession. They are running Australia’s economy like a Ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers with their spending. That increased spending adds to inflation and that contradicts the Reserve Bank’s (RBA) strategy of raising interest rates to cut spending in an attempt to stop inflation.

The government’s high level of new arrivals into Australia goes against the RBA strategy and forces the RBA to further increase interest rates. Albanese’s government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and worst decline in per capita income of all the developed nations.

This is why life for everyday Australians is continuing to get worse. Excluding tourists and short stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country competing with Australians for a roof over their head.

One Nation proposes net zero immigration where Australia only replaces the numbers who leave the country until the housing supply, essential services and infrastructure can catch up with the demand.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to immigration and the economy. 

Instead of cutting the record flood of overseas arrivals, the Albanese government is letting Australians suffer in a per capita recession and the worst decline in per capita income in all developed nations. According to Reserve Bank and Bureau of Statistics June quarter data, Australian residents’ spending fell, with the overall total spending driven positive due only to increased demand from tourists and international students. The government is running Australia’s economy like a ponzi scheme, relying on a flood of overseas arrivals to prop up GDP numbers. Meanwhile, for the typical Australian, life continues to get worse. 

Excluding tourists and short-stay visas, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country likely to need a home right now. In one year, the Albanese Labor government issued a record 687,000 student visas—687,000! We only have 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Yet Treasurer Jim Chalmers went on national TV and deceitfully told the Australian people the level of net overseas migration is ‘not something the government determines’—blatant misinformation. It’s no wonder the government have exempted themselves from their proposed misinformation and disinformation bill. 

The government claim their housing bill will fix everything. What they don’t tell Australia is that we are short hundreds of thousands of homes yet their bill will only build a maximum of 6,000 homes a year. Any Australian who can’t afford a house or who can’t afford rent—if they can find a rental—knows Treasurer Chalmers lied when he said the government doesn’t control how many people come into Australia. The Labor government is letting overseas arrivals— 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart had a point of order. I think it was around the use of the word ‘lie’. Can we just— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw that word and substitute ‘misinformation’. The Labor government are letting overseas arrivals run out of control and don’t even know how many will arrive this year. The government are making a deliberate choice to let Australians suffer so that their big business mates and the banks can profit from a cheap workforce and high property prices. We need to stop this crushing flood of overseas arrivals that are here purely to hide a per capita recession. Our first duty is to take care of people who are here already. 

Question agreed to. 

/6 Comments/by

Only Zero Net-Immigration Will Solve the Housing Crisis

With 2.3 million new visa holders in Australia this year (excluding tourists) it’s no wonder we have a rental crisis. We need to stem the immigration tidal wave to a gentle ebb and flow of replacement. For everyone who leaves, someone new arrives. Net Zero migrants makes sense until we have sufficient housing, essential services and infrastructure to cope with more people.

Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut.

Instead of putting banks and big business first, let’s put people first.

Transcript

We agree with part of this Greens matter of urgency—that we are in a rental crisis, with more people experiencing rental stress and unable to afford a home due to Labor government policies and deceit. We disagree on how to fix it. There’s absolutely nothing that can be done to fix the housing and rental crisis until we cut the absolutely insane numbers of overseas arrivals this government is letting into our country. Excluding tourists and short-stay visa holders, there are 2.3 million visa holders in the country right now. Every single one of them needs a roof over their head, and that’s leading to record house prices and the lowest rental vacancy rate in history. Housing is tight and therefore expensive. It’s impossible to build enough houses or freeze enough prices to fix the housing problem until this immigration tidal wave is cut. What the Greens propose is going to increase rental costs. Instead of putting banks and big business first, put people first. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator McGrath): Thank you, Senator Roberts. Senator Allman-Payne. 

/3 Comments/by

Australia’s Moral Obligation to End Child Labour

Child labour hinders a child’s physical and educational development. It reinforces the vicious circle of poverty and affects children across the developing world. No child should have to sacrifice their childhood to work.

I’m proud to announce that I will be introducing my Bill, The Custom’s Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023, at the next sitting. This Bill introduces escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply, leading eventually to a complete ban. Using a stepwise approach gives offending suppliers time to move away from employing children to employing adults instead. Imposing an immediate ban on these suppliers would be disastrous to the economies of the countries involved. These children would be in school and their parents in jobs if wealthier nations had not turned a blind eye for so long to the problem.

It’s Australia’s moral obligation to help end the cycle of child labour.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I proudly advise the Senate that on the next sitting day I’ll introduce One Nation’s Customs Amendment (Preventing Child Labour) Bill 2023. There have been many attempts to ban products with child labour in their supply chains—all have failed. The reasons were always the same. Including adult slave labour and child labour in the same Bill ensures failure. These are two different problems needing two different solutions. Adult slave labour is a contentious issue which has always failed on the definition of slave labour. It’s best dealt with politically. Child labour, on the other hand, has a clear definition from the International Labour Organization. If a child misses school, or would miss school if school were available, in order to engage in work, that’s child labour.

My Bill imposes escalating penalties on products with child labour in their supply chain, leading eventually to a complete ban. This approach gives companies time to fix their supply chain, and it allows ethical companies time to ramp up production and meet increased demand. It gives offending suppliers time to move from employing children to instead employing adults from the same area. However, a knee-jerk solution to immediately ban products with child labour in their supply chain would be disastrous for the economies of the countries hosting industries currently using child labour. This is why governments in these countries have had little appetite to address the issue. These children would be in school and their parents in a job if it were not for rich Western countries looking the other way because everyone loves cheap electronics, clothing and coffee. I ask all senators for their support when the Bill is brought to a vote early next year. I would welcome discussion with the minister on a government led solution.

/2 Comments/by

Labor Cover Up Emu Swamp Dam Cancellation

Labor is hollowing out the bush and lying about it. I asked why the Emu Swamp Dam near Stanthorpe in Queensland was cancelled and Minister Watt responded that it was the road that was cancelled. What Minister Watt did not admit was that Labor had cancelled the dam last year and had recently cancelled the infrastructure around the dam, just to make sure it never gets built.

During the recent drought, Stanthorpe, famous for its apples and grapes, had to resort to water tankers to keep it’s residents supplied. Access to clean water is a basic human requirement. The Emu Swamp Dam was a modest solution to water shortage in the Southern Downs of Queensland. Labor are refusing to build dams for drinking water and instead plan to use treated recycled water for drinking water. I will speak more on that next year.

Labor destroy where One Nation would build.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Senator Watt. Minister, why is the Australian government no longer proceeding with construction of the Emu Swamp dam and pipeline located near Stanthorpe in our state of Queensland?

Senator Watt (Queensland—Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. I welcome a question about Queensland infrastructure from a Queensland senator on the other side of the chamber. It’s a shame people like Senator McGrath didn’t manage to get a question up about these important issues. Senator McGrath, of course, is just reduced to interjections, rather than asking serious questions about these matters.

The President: Senator Watt.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator Watt: You don’t want to hear that? You don’t want to hear about your failures on infrastructure? If you’ve heard what I’ve had to say this week, Senator Roberts, you’ll know that the infrastructure budget that we inherited from the coalition was hopelessly overblown. There was a budget blowout of $33 billion.

Senator Birmingham: I rise on a point of order. This is actually a good example of the type of point of order that I made before. Senator Roberts asked a question about a particular infrastructure project, the Emu Swamp dam. That should not then be a licence for the minister to go off talking about infrastructure projects in general, or the former government in general. It was clearly a question specific to a particular project, and the minister should be drawn to answer on that project.

Senator Wong: On the point of order, I can recall many times when coalition ministers went much farther than 41 seconds in before they even got close to the question. I’d remind you of Senator Brandis. We all remember Senator Brandis when he was sitting in this chair.

Senator Birmingham: And I can remember you sitting in this chair and what you had to say.

Senator Wong: And I never got very far with that argument, but hope beats eternal.

Senator Rennick interjecting—

The President: Senator Rennick!

Senator Watt: Poor old Gerard. You’re not going to be here long, though, are you? Enjoy it while you’re here, Gerard.

Senator Henderson: That is really nasty, Senator Watt. You’re a nasty piece of work.

The President: Order across the chamber! Senator Henderson, I ask you to withdraw that remark.

Senator Henderson: Can I take a point of order?

The President: I’ve asked you to withdraw the remark, Senator Henderson.

Senator Henderson: I wish to make a point of order, President.

The President: Senator Henderson, I’ve asked you to withdraw your remark.

Senator Henderson: I withdraw, but can I take a point of order?

The President: If you sit down, I will entertain a point of order—as long it’s not on me asking you to withdraw. Thank you. Senator Henderson.

Senator Henderson: I rise on a point of order. Senator Watt just made a very uncalled for and offensive remark in relation to Senator Rennick, and I would ask him to withdraw it.

The President: Senator Henderson, I didn’t hear any remark. The chamber was incredibly disorderly at the time. All I can do is ask Senator Watt, if he made a personal reflection on Senator Rennick, to withdraw that.

Senator Watt: I’m happy to withdraw. Senator Rennick has a lot to say. I’m happy to withdraw.

The President: Senator Watt, before I call you again, I will draw your attention back to Senator Roberts’s question.

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I was explaining the basis for the decisions. The particular project that you’re talking about that won’t be proceeding is a road to a dam that is not proceeding. This government thinks that it’s a good idea, if you’re spending infrastructure money on a road, that it should be a road that leads to something that is actually happening and exists. That dam was a promise that was made by the former coalition government that never had the funding, wasn’t properly planned and is not proceeding. Senator Roberts, I know you’re someone who cares very much about the appropriate use of taxpayers’ funds. You would agree, I’m sure, that it’s not a good use of taxpayers’ funds to build roads that lead to dams that don’t exist and won’t exist.

But, Senator Roberts, I’m sure you’d also be pleased to have heard me talk about some of the projects in Queensland that are getting funding and that are only possible because of those sorts of decisions about the responsible allocation of funding. Because of that we can now fund the cost increase in the Rockhampton Ring Road project with an extra $348 million in addition to the money that the federal government had allocated. I know Central Queensland is an area that you’re interested in, Senator Roberts. By cutting projects that won’t exist and that aren’t needed, we can fund other things like that. (Time expired)

/2 Comments/by

Minister Uses Question Time to Pass the Buck on New Arrivals and Housing

I asked questions about the staggering numbers of new visa holders flooding into Australia — 5.8 million tourists visas issued in the last 12 months and 1.1 million work, student and permanent visas.

The Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs used up his allotted response time in a performance that involved pretending he didn’t really understand my question. He worked hard to reassign blame for the current situation, ignoring that it’s happening under his government’s watch.

He promoted Labor’s Housing Fund, which One Nation opposed. The scheme is a con that will build a few thousand homes in total and allows the Government to pretend the housing needs of the millions of people they are letting in can be met.

Labor is flooding the country with millions of new arrivals, and pretends housing is taken care of. It is not. The only way to fix the housing crisis is to turn the visa tap off until the housing stock catches up.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt. Australia has 300,000 hotel rooms and 140,000 Airbnbs. These are, of course, turned over many times. There are 26 million Australians as well using these rooms for their own holidays. Into this small stock of rooms the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that in financial year 2022-23 there were 5.86 million arrivals staying, on average, 14 days. Minister, has this almost 500 per cent increase in tourists under your government motivated landlords to move their property from long-term rental accommodation for everyday Australians to short-stay accommodation for hotel overflow? 

Senator Watt (Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and Minister for Emergency Management): Thank you, Senator Roberts. There’s a lot in that. It seems to be as much about tourism and housing as it is about migration, but I will attempt to answer the question. The figures that you quoted there—I can’t verify whether they are accurate or not. I presume the five million number that you said would include a substantial number of tourists. But, if your question relates to migration figures, the government has obviously already announced a number of measures to fix what is a hopelessly broken migration system that we inherited not just from the opposition but from the minister responsible for it: one Mr Peter Dutton. Mr Dutton was the Minister for Home Affairs for the bulk of the former government and oversaw the migration system that we’ve inherited, which allowed for rampant exploitation and allowed for abuse of the migration system in some cases by education providers that we see now, and we are taking steps to try to address that.  

It’s a shame that the opposition, who have got a lot to say now, didn’t do a single thing about these issues when they were in government. We’ve ended the pandemic event visa, we’ve ended unlimited working hours for international students and work exemptions for working visa holders. We’re increased the temporary skilled migration income threshold, which is the first increase in a decade. These are some of the steps that our government has taken to fix the hopelessly broken migration system that was presided over by Mr Dutton as the home affairs minister. I don’t know, Senator Roberts, whether that directly addresses your question because, as I say, there was a lot in it. But we’re taking steps to try to fix the migration system once and for all.

First Supplementary Question

The President: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: According to departmental data in the 2022-23 financial year the department issued a record 687,000 student visas. Not many have departed because, due to COVID, most have only been here less than a year. Minister, Australia has 100,000 dedicated student accommodation beds. Where are the other 500,000 or so students staying?  

Senator Watt: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I don’t think you’d expect that I’d be able to give you a precise address for every single international student who is living in Australia at the moment. But, as I say, if those opposite had complaints about the number of international students who are in Australia at the moment, perhaps they could have done something about the system when they were in government for 10 years. Perhaps they could have done that.  

Opposition senators interjecting— 

Senator Watt: So now you’re not supporting him. Senator Canavan is supporting Senator Roberts, but the Liberals aren’t in agreement. Where are the coalition on these issues? Nationals are saying one thing, Liberals are saying another, and here is one of them. 

The President: Minister Watt, please resume your seat. Senator Hughes, on a point of order? 

Senator Hughes: Perhaps you could encourage Minister Watt to direct his answers through you rather than people who didn’t ask the question.  

The President: I will certainly do that, Senator Hughes, and I will also direct, particularly those on my left, to stop interjecting with their comments. It is disrespectful. Minister Watt, please make your remarks through the chair.  

Senator Watt: President, it is interesting to see that there seems to be a split between the Liberal and the National parties on this issue. Senator Canavan and the other Nationals are backing in One Nation, and the Liberals are wanting to run a mile. But, of course, apart from fixing the migration system, this government is doing more than the former government ever did when it came to the provision of housing, and, just to remind you of one measure, Housing Australia— (Time expired) 

Second Supplementary Question

The President: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: In the last financial year the department issued a record 441,000 business visas plus a record 195,000 permanent migrant visas plus another 10,000 humanitarian visas plus another 47,000 temporary work visas. After departures, the net increase here was another 500,000. Minister, where are these 500,000 people going to stay, and is this insane level of intake the reason that Australians can no longer find an affordable home?  

Senator Watt: In your previous question, Senator Roberts, you did acknowledge that one of the reasons that we have seen a spike in migration is that there has been a return to Australia of international students and workers—and tourists for that matter—since COVID, so it’s no surprise that we have seen an increase in migration numbers, given there were at least a couple of years when people basically couldn’t come to Australia, and there was always going to be a degree of catch-up in there. You ask what we are doing about housing, and again what I say is that this government has done more certainly than the last coalition government and probably more than any other Australian government to fix the issues that we do have around housing—and they are very real. We didn’t see investment from the former coalition government in public housing for nearly 10 years, and we are fixing that. We’re delivering the Housing Australia Future Fund, which, Senator Roberts, I remember you voted against last time. You cared so much about housing that you voted against a fund that was going to build more homes! We’re also providing more money for social housing and rental assistance. (Time expired) 

 

/5 Comments/by

Double Jeopardy in Tax Unfair

One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system.

A fair tax system is one where tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged.

They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Measures No. 1) Bill 2023. One Nation supports an efficient, honest and fair tax system. An important aspect of a fair system to is to make sure tax is not double-charged. That’s what franking credits do. They make sure a tax is not double-charged. They ensure that Australians don’t pay income tax on the parts of dividends on which the government has already collected company tax. That’s fair. There’s no reason to allow the government to double-dip on Australian profits and then again on Australians’ income.  

In the 2019 election campaign, Labor proposed changes to the franking credits system. Australia completely rejected those thought bubbles. Labor learnt from that lesson and for the 2022 election, promised there would be no changes made to franked dividends if Australia voted them into government. Yet, now that Labor is in government, schedules 4 and 5 make a number of wholesale changes to how the dividend, share buyback, and franking system currently works. It is a broken promise, yet another to add to Labor’s list of broken promises. Just like when they promised to reduce your power bills by $275, Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t touch franking credits was a lie. As always, the government claims that these are simply modest changes. They’re anything but modest, with large implications for companies and for capital markets. The government hasn’t been able to articulate the need for these changes, nor quantify how big an impact they will have. They’re doing it, and they don’t even know what will happen. We cannot legislate on a hope, a vibe or a wish that it will be okay. While that is, according to some in government, Prime Minister Albanese’s modus operandi, it’s not a responsible way to steer a $1.7 trillion economy. It’s highly irresponsible. One Nation will be opposing these changes in schedules 4 and 5 and cannot pass the bill if they remain part of this package.  

Schedule 2 lays the groundwork for standards that align money to climate goals. This would presumably be to create alignment with the greatest scam in finance: ESG standards—environment, social and governance. The powers that be call them ‘sustainability standards’, yet there’s nothing sustainable about them. In fact, UN sustainability policies survive only as parasites on subsidies from the real economy—subsidies: that makes them unsustainable. So-called sustainability standards talk about protecting the financial system from risks. Yet they cannot quantify what those risks are. The idea that the government or, worse, a single bureaucratic department can ever predict and quantify risk to the financial system is sheer lunacy.

A brief analysis of history shows that. Did the government and regulatory agencies see the risk of the dot com bubble coming in the 2000s? No. They had no idea. Did the American regulators see the risk of subprime mortgages leading to the global financial crisis? No. They arguably participated in and make it far worse. Did any regulator around the world predict the risk of almost every government in the world going certifiably insane in response to COVID, a bad flu? No, they did not. Over the last three years, the Reserve Bank created $500 billion in electronic journal entries, money concocted out of thin air. Did any regulator predict the risks that would lead to the skyrocketing inflation that we’re still trying to get under control? No, they did not. Actually, some did, and we were ridiculed by the experts. The point here is very simple. The government and the regulators cannot quantify the risk of financial system shock. History shows governments are hilariously bad at it. They certainly won’t be able to do it for supposed climate risks that are nothing more than fabrications concocted from inherent, natural, cyclical variation. By the way, everything in nature—everything in existence—varies, yet understanding of variation is not taught in schools and rarely taught properly, if at all, at university. That’s why Green, Labor, Teal and, sadly, some Liberal-National members and senators spout nonsense in this parliament and in public, concocting and spreading imaginary fears of climate apocalypse, when reality shows simply inherent, natural, cyclical variation. 

They cannot even come up with the only sound and essential basis for policy—that is, they’ve never quantified the specific effect of carbon dioxide from human activity. That means they have no basis for climate and energy policy, no specific quantified goals for climate and energy policy and no means of measuring progress towards those goals. We’re flying blind. Australia is flying blind. Energy costs and climate policies are out of control and needlessly imposing huge costs on families, small businesses, our country and our nation’s future. Anyway, the only thing we can do to protect against systemic risks is to make sure that financial intermediaries are well capitalised and diversified to survive any risk that comes to fruition. Doing anything else encourages a lack of diversification and actually increases risk. 

I don’t believe in this climate apocalypse nonsense, this climate fraud, yet even for those who do fall for this illusion there’s no serious risk to anything. Let’s look at the supposed science around climate risk. When I ask the government why we need to cut human production of carbon dioxide, they point me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN IPCC. They’re a dodgy bunch—proven over 40-plus years—yet I don’t think anyone in here has actually read the IPCC reports they claim as proof the climate is going to collapse. If you go to the IPCC’s assessment report 6, you’ll see chapter 12 is the summary of Working Group I, who looked at the actual science around natural disasters. Table 12.12 summarises all of the available evidence on the frequency of extreme weather events. Let me read out the types of natural disasters where even the United Nations has said there has been no detectable increase in the number of natural disasters. I repeat that: no detectable increase in frost, river flood, rain measured in terms of mean precipitation or heavy precipitation, landslide, drought, fire weather, wind speed, windstorm, tropical cyclone, dust storm, heavy snowfall, hail, relative sea level, coastal flood, marine heatwave—and on and on. Although I do not put any trust in the United Nations, government claims it does, and the United Nations says there has been no increase in severe weather events in those categories—none. 

Even better, table 12.12 in the IPCC’s AR6 says the United Nations doesn’t expect to see any detectable increase in those categories in the next 80 years under its worst-case scenario. There’s no risk to the financial system from climate change because there’s no need to cut human production of carbon dioxide—end of story. 

As an aside, I ask: on what basis does Minister Watt get his frequent fanciful, scary claims of increasing extreme weather events? Wild imagination, Senator Watt? From where do the Greens get their dishonest claims? From where does Senator Pocock get his pseudoscience to support his Kermit green fantasy policies? Is it the family money of Simon Holmes a Court, who now relies on the millions of green subsidy dollars that support otherwise unsustainable and failing wind and solar net zero projects—parasitic subsidies from energy users and taxpayers who pay through needlessly higher prices. 

Recently in this chamber I heard Senator David Pocock cite scientists who said they have fears for the climate. Significantly, he did not provide any science to back it up, apparently because he seems to just swallow their words because they claim to be scientists. That’s what’s happened repeatedly in this chamber. People don’t produce the science; they say what scientists conclude and don’t analyse it. Those scientists are on major grants to push the climate fraud. Real scientists don’t peddle unsubstantiated fears. Scientists present science, presenting the empirical scientific data as evidence within logical scientific points, proving cause and effect. Never has anyone done that. Senator David Pocock never presents any such science nor references the specific pages providing such logical scientific points—never. Extreme weather has always been with us. It remains with us and will always be with us. It’s natural and often cyclical.  

So what’s the real reason for implementing so-called sustainability standards and ESG? The Assistant Treasurer, Stephen Jones, said it in his second reading speech to this bill: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’. I’ll say it again: the purpose is to ‘align capital flows towards climate and sustainability goals’—political goals, not scientific. Those are the goals of predatory globalist billionaires and the rent seekers who are flogging wind, solar and battery products, billionaires peddling parasitic mis-investments in solar, wind and batteries and transferring wealth from families, small businesses and employers to billionaires, often overseas. 

Despite claims that these solar and wind products are the cheapest, the free market has utterly failed to adopt them, because they simply cannot survive in the wild on their own, without subsidies. In other speeches in recent weeks, I’ve documented the huge number of failures in wind and solar projects overseas and here in Australia. They’re falling over like flies. Billionaires behind the climate push are panicking now that their parasitic investments won’t get the return they need. The teals’ sugar daddy, Simon Holmes a Court; Andrew ‘Twiggy’ Forrest; Johnny-come-lately to climate fearmongering Mike Cannon-Brookes; and old stagers Alex Turnbull and Ross Garnaut—having failed with climate scams in the free market, these climate doomsayers now need the government to direct money their way through implementation of ‘climate standards’—they’re going to standardise the climate!—to, as the Assistant Treasurer said, ‘align capital flows’. This is more of the crony capitalism that has ruined Australia. If it weren’t so serious, it would be laughable. This is why I’ve circulated an amendment to strike out schedule 2 of the bill. There’s no reason to even start down this path of folly and pretend that, hidden away in the cupboard somewhere, the government have a crystal ball they can use to predict the future. If they do, they clearly haven’t used it before. 

A final concern I’ll raise is with schedule 1, part 2, of the bill. This gives ASIC the power to use ‘assisted decision-making’ processes. That’s their label. This amendment is incredibly broad and vague, and we can assume this will involve some level of automation and, eventually, the implementation of AI, artificial intelligence. It’s incredibly concerning that the explanatory memorandum includes, at 1.24: ‘ASIC may change a decision made by an assisted decision-making process if it is satisfied the decision is wrong.’ Can you believe it? This very heavily implies that a human will not be involved in the decision-making process. An assisted decision-making process should only be in place to assist a human in making a decision. There should not be a robot using artificial intelligence to make the decision itself. The fact that Labor would introduce this blank cheque to the new robot overlords in the wake of a royal commission they called into robodebt is a stunning revelation. If the robots get it wrong, there’s no clear avenue of appeal for a person who is subject to the wrong decision. They’ll simply have to rely on ASIC deciding to look at it on their own motion and finding out it’s wrong. Good luck with that. This change is too broad, and One Nation is raising its concerns now so that these issues can be monitored in future. 

To summarise, the government would be better off going back to the drawing board on this con hiding behind the label ‘Treasury laws’. 

/6 Comments/by