Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

Labor Proposes to Tax the Shirt off Your Back

,

During Question Time, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher twice failed to rule out adding a tax to clothing.

This tax will be passed on to you and I at the checkout, making clothing more expensive and adding to the cost of living. The excuse for this tax is to reduce climate change by reducing the amount of clothing being manufactured. The wealthy wont reduce their purchases for the sake of a tax, yet everyday Australians will have no choice.

This exchange shows the Albanese Government really is considering taxing the shirt on your back, so you buy fewer clothes. Welcome to life under a Labor/Greens/WEF government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Gallagher. Last week the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tania Plibersek MP, stated that Australians were throwing out too many items of clothing, and manufacturers should sign up to a government-backed scheme called Seamless to recycle and not dump used clothes. Clothing can and should be recycled into new clothing and other fibre products. One Australian company operates an upcycling scheme that has dozens of manufacturers, trade linen suppliers, recycling companies and retailers as members, and has taken 100 tonnes of clothing out of landfill. Minister, why is the government reinventing the wheel, creating its own favoured solution and imposing that instead of working with the industry to help them upscale their existing solution?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. From what I’ve seen from the minister and the work that she has been doing in space, she has been working with industry and relevant businesses on the development of this policy. That has been critical to the work that she has been doing and it has certainly been under way for some time. I know there was talk before there was a summit and there was talk of a voluntary code, but it is an important part of ensuring that we are protecting the environment from the amount of waste that is going into landfill—and a big contributor of that is clothing. I don’t know, maybe I have misunderstood your question, Senator Roberts, but while there are manufacturers and industries in place that are already doing this, this is about building on that and making it more across-the-board, particularly for those that aren’t doing that, to make sure we are lifting our game in relation to recycling, and preventing the huge amount of clothing material going into landfill. If there are manufacturers or businesses that you think are feeling out of the loop of that consultation I’m sure the Minister for the Environment and Water would be happy to reach out.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS: Councils do not currently include clothing on the list of things people can put into a yellow bin. Most suggest giving used clothes to charity shops, very little of which can be resold. Most of that ends up in landfill at the charity shop’s expense. Isn’t the first step here sorting out the system for recycling and processing, then working with councils and retailers to encourage recycling through yellow bins? Is your government putting the cart before the horse?

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that, Senator Roberts. Where we can, we do work with councils and we work with businesses—we’ll work with anybody who wants to help protect the environment and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. From my reading—and I was not here last week—of the work that Minister Plibersek was doing, it was about encouraging the voluntary cooperation or involvement of businesses in Seamless, in that program, to build it from there. So I would think, yes, you have to work with all of those people, including the councils that run the recycling facilities, whether it be the tips or whether it be what is called the Green Shed here. People donate to Vinnies. There are clothing bins. There are all of those options. Many of those are run by local government. But the Commonwealth government should provide a leadership role and provide that stewardship, where we can, and work together with everybody involved.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Plibersek threatened that if the industry did not accept the government’s superfluous Seamless then a 4 cent waste levy should be imposed on clothing manufacturers. This proposal will increase the cost of clothing at the checkouts. Minister, will you, right now, rule out taxing clothing? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Minister Plibersek has been working with the industry to reduce the amount of waste. Clothes are cheaper than they have ever been—this is part of the problem. Anyone with teenagers or anyone who goes on some of these websites knows that you can replace your whole wardrobe, very cost-efficiently, because of the nature of people’s buying habits and the ability to get clothes from overseas. We are seeing that the average Australian sends almost 10 kilos of clothing waste to landfill every year. So it is a big problem, and it’s a problem that we need to work across industry to fix. 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance: I asked, ‘Will the minister now rule out taxing clothing?’ 

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator GALLAGHER: I am explaining what the government is doing. You might want to take it somewhere else, which we have no plans to do. We are talking about what we are doing now with Seamless, which is: working with industry to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. And we will work with anybody who wants to work with us on that.

Following Question Time, I moved to take note of the Minister’s response to my questions.

When did it become appropriate for the government to decide how much clothing you own? Minister Tania Plibersek is repeating World Economic Forum rhetoric designed to widen the gulf between the haves and the have nots. It’s terrifying that Minister Plibersek should recycle WEF talking points to the Australian public.

The real failure however is that many people aren’t aware that clothes can be recycled. Councils and retail stores don’t offer recycling options, and although the fashion industry has started recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, more is needed.

Instead of taxing clothing, how about working with the industry to expand capability and encourage the clothing industry to tag items for recycling instead of throwing them out. The government could do with ignoring the WEF and its CCP-style rules and instead think for itself on behalf of Australians not globalists. How about less stick and more common sense?

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the government’s proposed tax on clothing. 

We are told the proposed tax on clothing is to encourage recycling. The proposal from the Minister for the Environment and Water was floated over the weekend. This was not some random thought bubble. The World Economic Forum and its acolytes have been saying for years that everyday citizens are buying too much clothing. Minister Plibersek repeated those World Economic Forum talking points in the same press conference. This begs the questions: What’s the correct amount of clothing a person can own? Who decides how much clothing we each get to own? Is the intent to remove colour and style options so that a few approved uniforms are all we need? Didn’t China try that already? 

This proposal sits alongside the World Economic Forum policy that I spoke to last sitting, calling on people to wear clothing for a week and jeans for a month before washing them. It’s true that laundering clothing does wear it out. To get by with fewer items of clothing, one has to wash them less often. At least they thought this through. 

It’s terrifying that a minister of the Crown would repeat World Economic Forum talking points designed to ensure that everyday Australians have less. The failure here, though, is this: the reason we throw out so much clothing is that Australians don’t know clothing can be recycled. Councils don’t have clothing on the lists of things you can put in a yellow bin. Retailers don’t have recycling bins in stores, and they don’t attach a tag to a garment saying, ‘You can recycle the product in a yellow bin.’ The industry already has recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, which is a good start. 

Here’s an idea: instead of taxing clothing to create a new recycling system, as the Labor Party is considering, how about working with the industry to expand capability and then encourage the public to recycle clothing instead of throwing it out? This government needs to use less stick and more commonsense. It needs to use less control and do more listening and consulting. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

Inquiry Into Wind and Solar Urgently Needed

,

During my recent visits to constituents across Queensland, there has been a consistent request for an inquiry into the wind and solar scam. Jobs are being destroyed and exported overseas where there’s cheaper energy. Cheaper and reliable energy means a more productive country. Australia is turning its back on what we have in our ground for expensive and unreliable technology that we are buying mostly from China. 

No wonder this Labor government is so unpopular. It is doing exactly what the globalists want and wrecking the Australian bush. Our coal production is up and it’s being burned by other nations. China uses 55% of the world’s coal and is approving new plants at the rate of two a week. Australia is sacrificing itself for global climate goals, which are being trashed by India, China and others who are free from the insanity of the solar and wind dog and pony show. 

Chris Bowen and his Ministry for Misery is shutting down agriculture and replacing it with the desecration of nation-killing, environment destroying ‘renewables’. There’s no data to back up this climate fraud. Solar and wind is not the cheapest energy at all. GenCost data is based on false data.

Companies are starting to wind back their commitments to Net Zero. Many people are waking up and seeing the truth and speaking out against the Net Zero scam. 

Some Senators are receiving funding from Climate200, which represents billionaires interested in “climate change” issues. These senators turn a blind eye to what’s happening in pursuit of Net Zero. This total disregard is leading to the destruction of forests and farming communities, as well as escalating energy prices, all of which amount to a troubling transfer of wealth to the already wealthy.  This needs to stop.

Transcript

This is not the first time the Senate has debated the need for an inquiry into the effect of industrial wind, industrial solar and transmission lines on rural and remote Australia. The reason is simple. As I travel through Queensland listening with my constituents, they let me know in very clear language that there must be an inquiry into this scam, into this destruction. 

I want to name and honour and express my appreciation for the people from Victoria through to New South Wales through to southern Queensland and central Queensland and north Queensland for standing up, in rural communities in particular but also, increasingly, city folks. I want to single out two names in particular: Katy McCallum and Jim Willmott. People in this protest movement know of them, and I thank them for their outstanding work. Katy has been a real dynamo, full of information. Thank you so much. 

Australia’s net zero energy transition is a complete disaster. These things are destroying Australian’s productive capacity, taking a coal powered generation capacity that offers cheap, reliable, affordable, accessible, secure, stable energy to industry and to homeowners and families and turning that into a catastrophe—an economic catastrophe, an unreliable catastrophe. Jobs are being destroyed and exported to China. In January, Alcoa announced the closure of the Kwinana aluminium smelter, with the loss of 850 staff—850 jobs!—and 250 contractors. The closure was caused in part by Australia losing its competitive advantage in power. And that’s extremely important. The cheaper and more reliable the energy, the more competitive and productive a country is, and the higher the standard of living and the higher the wealth for everyone. That has been the message of the last 170 years of history. And we are committing economic suicide. 

A report into Victoria’s renewable energy and storage targets, released and then withdrawn last month, stated the following: ‘Achieving net zero requires the construction of unprecedented’—there’s that word again—’amounts of renewable energy in Victoria, more than 15 times today’s installed renewable capacity, according to the current best estimates.’ It continues: ‘Analysis indicates that to meet net zero targets using onshore renewables could require up to 70 per cent of Victoria’s agricultural land to host wind and solar farms.’ Those are their words: 70 per cent. Well, good luck with that, because you’d be starving, watching the wind turbines not even turning and the solar panels cooking the earth. Finally, the truth is out there. 

No wonder this Labor government is buying back water and eliminating major infrastructure in regional and remote Australia—in short, making life tougher and tougher for the bush, and hollowing out the bush. No wonder approvals are being guided through for bug and lab-grown protein. These will be our food sources, once the net zero agenda is completed. If you don’t believe me, go and listen to the parasitic globalists. They’ve said exactly that. 

This Labor government has every intention of turning the bush into one giant industrial landscape of wind, solar, batteries, transmission lines and pumped storage. It’s anti human. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking the bush. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is wrecking Australia. The minister for misery, Mr Chris Bowen, is killing people’s lifestyles in this country and killing our futures. We’ve just enough land left over now to grow beautiful quality beef and agricultural products, for the billionaire parasites the Prime Minister is so fond of hobnobbing with. So they’ll shut down agriculture, except for that small quantity for the parasitic billionaires—produce that will, of course, be available to the nomenklatura: the class of bureaucrats, journalists, academics and politicians who promote these measures, with the understanding that they will never be restricted by them. This is the truth of the net zero agenda. 

Now, I travelled through Far North Queensland in January and visited the areas to be desecrated with wind turbines. I learned about the aquifers that run from the beautiful, amazing Atherton Tablelands—amazingly productive land—out to the Great Barrier Reef, taking water under the sea and then feeding it under the reef as far as 50 kilometres offshore. That’s a fact. These ancient aquifers will carry any pollutants—including naturally-occurring arsenic—out to our beautiful Great Barrier Reef. Pollutants are being disturbed by construction of these wind turbines. 

I saw the rock slides that occurred during the recent cyclones, which residents reported as being the worst they could remember. Climate hasn’t changed. That’s natural, up in North Queensland, because of the wet summers. These rock slides extended from the top of the mountains to the road at sea level. This is natural in North Queensland, with beautiful mountains and lots of rain. This devastation is in an area that is part of the same mountain range where wind turbines will be erected. So they’re going to loosen the mountain tops. If the government is not getting up there with seismologists and surveyors to see what caused these rock slides, then the outcome will be more devastation. 

There has been too much looking the other way or turning a blind eye, and too much wishful thinking, in the planning for net zero. There’s been too much blindness—people groping around in the dark, ignoring the data. This inquiry will be a chance to ask hard questions about the real environmental and financial cost to Australia and the real impact on regional and rural and remote Australia. 

I want to read from some notes. I want to honour and appreciate Steve Nowakowski. He was in bed with the Greens. He’s a dedicated conservationist, which made him wake up to the fact that the Greens are not conservationists; they’re just anti human. He had courage. He was a booth captain with the Greens during their election campaigns, very much pushing their agenda, but he had the courage to inquire, to ask questions, to change. He had the courage, once he woke up, to oppose, to get the data and tell the truth. Steve Nowakowski had the courage to speak out. 

There has never been any data from any government agency anywhere in the world, nor from any institute or university, that shows the underlying logical scientific points and empirical scientific evidence to justify this climate fraud. There has been no data for solar and wind. The CSIRO’s GenCost, as other senators in this parliament have attested, is a complete fraud. It is fraudulent. They’re basing their conclusions on false evidence, false data. They’ve fabricated it. They’ve omitted solid cost data. That’s because what they want to show is that the government’s policy of solar and wind is the cheapest. Solar and wind are not the cheapest; they’re by far the most expensive. First comes hydro, second comes coal, third comes nuclear, and then way, way behind come solar and wind. 

I’ll read some of the things that are happening because some people in the world are waking up. This is from an article by Chris Mitchell in the Australian yesterday: Some environment journalists are blind to what’s really happening globally in fossil fuel use and the renewable energy transition. This certainly seems to suit Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen, who is failing to meet his government’s commitments on the electricity network rollout and power price reductions. 

These were promised by the government, but so far prices have risen, and they will continue to rise. 

He goes on: On almost every energy issue, Bowen and his media cheer squad ignore setbacks in the northern hemisphere where coal and gas are being burned at record levels, the US is winding back EV mandates, two of Europe’s biggest carmakers, Volvo and Renault, are reducing EV investment and the EU looks likely to start to unravel its commitment to achieve net zero by 2050. 

Mercedes is cutting back. Toyota and Honda were never committed anyway, and now they’re openly talking about it. He continues: Thermal coal use globally reached an all-time record in 2023. Global coal exports topped one billion tonnes and coal-fired electricity generation between October 2022 and October 2023 was up—up, up, up—1 per cent to 8295 terawatt hours. Emissions from coal-fired power last year topped 7.85 billion tonnes of CO2, up 67 million tonnes. 

They’re up because they don’t see this problem, because they know the data. Mitchell continues: While coal use fell in Europe and North America, that was more than offset by coal burnt in Asia. Indonesia was the world’s biggest exporter of thermal coal last year— they’ve passed us; we used to be— at 505.4 million tonnes and Australia number two at 198 million tonnes— 

40 per cent of what Indonesia exported, and our production is up seven per cent. But we can’t burn it here. We can give our wonderful energy to other countries and let them burn it and make cheap energy. The article continues: Use of gas globally rose 0.5 per cent last year as China emerged from lockdowns. That growth is expected to increase to 3.5 per cent this year. 

… Hydroelectric generation and biofuels, which can count as renewable energy, exceeded wind and solar in the renewables ledger. 

So the renewables ledger is rubbish; it’s mostly hydro. Even so, renewables globally rose but wind and solar accounted for only 12 per cent of all power used. Further, he says: The Doomberg energy news letter that publishes on Substack went through the latest International Energy Agency coal numbers. It points out China now uses 55 per cent of the world’s coal— 

And we sell it to them. They now produce 4.5 billion tonnes and want to get to five billion tonnes. We produce 560 million tonnes, one-eighth or one-ninth what they produce. He says: … coal makes up 70 per cent of China’s CO2 emissions. 

Who cares, because CO2 emissions we don’t control as humans. The level of carbon dioxide is controlled by nature. I’ll continue with the article: Even the Guardian now acknowledges China is approving new coal power projects at the rate of two a week. 

Yet in much of the Australian media, China is regularly described as a green superpower. Sure, it exports wind and solar components made in China with coal-fired electricity! 

That sabotages our energy, because we have to subside the solar and wind. The article goes on: Writes Doomberg, China is “more than happy to profit from countries willing to sacrifice themselves at the Altar of the Church of Carbon and even happier to recycle those profits into securing coal at prices lower than they would otherwise be if so much international demand hadn’t been voluntarily removed from the market”. 

China is being helped because other countries are taking coal off the market, so China pays a lower price. The article goes on: India, the number three CO2 emitter, pledges to hit net zero in 2070 – “the functional equivalent of never”, Doomberg says. India has announced an extra 88GW of capacity by 2032— eight years away— up 63 per cent from the projections released in May. 

Solar and wind are basically just for show, and they’ve basically admitted that. They’re not going to commit suicide, because they’ve seen us liberate our people with hydrocarbon fuel—coal, oil and natural gas. The article goes on: The world has little chance of meeting net zero by 2050: figures released in December at COP28— the UN’s gabfest— in Dubai showed CO2 emissions up 1.1 per cent last year despite a fall of 419 million metric tonnes outside China and India. China’s emissions rose 458 million tonnes and India’s 233 million. Predictions EVs will conquer the motoring world are proving just as inaccurate as peak coal forecasts.  

That is, terribly inaccurate. The article goes on: Both Porsche and the EU are pushing for delays to Europe’s commitment to phase out internal combustion engine (ICE) cars. 

Porsche chief financial officer Lutz Meschke told Bloomberg last month he believed the EU’s 2035 deadline for stopping ICE manufacture could be delayed. Politico reported on January 18 that the manifesto of the European People’s Party, the continent’s largest conservative political force, wanted the unwinding of the 2035 ICE ban. 

They want it undone, reversed. The article goes on: Volvo, which has been telling the world— bragging to the world—it is moving to electric only, last month said it would no longer provide financial support to the loss-making Polestar electric vehicle maker and would look at selling its 48 per cent stake to Chinese parent company Geely. 

French giant Renault has “scrapped the separate listing of its EV unit Ampere”, according to London’s The Daily Telegraph on February 2. 

Toyota, which environmentalists last year were criticising for being a laggard on EVs, again looks to have made the right call on continuing to invest in hybrid technology. 

I want to point out that the German government, the EU and the UK government to some extent—largely, in the UK—have cut their net zero ambitions in half. Some have even called them off. 

In the time remaining, I just want to point out that people in this Senate receive money from Climate 200, which is funded by Simon Holmes a Court, who is making money off solar and wind subsidies. Teals people in the lower house and teals senator David Pocock get money from Climate 200. They’re getting money from parasitic billionaires to push the agenda for making these parasitic billionaires billions more in subsidies. That is a fact. Then they blindly turn away from looking at the devastation that solar and wind are causing. No wonder people in rural communities and right across Australia are tired of the higher prices for solar and wind, higher prices for electricity and the devastation on our forests and our farming communities. We need an inquiry. 

/6 Comments/by

Labor Abandons Miners

,

Labor voted down my amendment that would backpay miners who have been ripped off by dodgy union deals signed off by the government.

This is what I’m doing about it: senroberts.com/48vbjqm

Casual Coal Wage Theft

/by

Labor’s Tax Changes Do Nothing for Cost of Living and Bracket Creep

,

Soaring cost of living, massive mortgage, rent hikes and inflation meant Australian households suffering the fastest income collapse in the world last year. Labor’s tax changes will benefit some Australians, a measly $15 a week to make up for this.

Labor are out of touch.

This legislation will barely make a dent in cost of living and the government admits as much by claiming these tax cuts will make no measurable difference to the amount of money Australians have in their pocket to spend. Meanwhile, they are silent on their secret money maker – bracket creep. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets while only being able to buy the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax. This little trick means government has collected an extra $44 billion in taxes from Australians, thanks to inflation over the last decade. Because it hasn’t been fixed, Australians will be paying an extra $38 billion in the next four years alone.

I moved an Amendment that would change the tax rates to keep up with inflation and eliminate bracket creep. If Liberal and Labor are genuine about real tax cuts, they’ll vote for this Amendment and let Australians keep billions of dollars.

One Nation has been talking about the Liberal-Labor government’s secret tax loophole of bracket creep ever since this debate on the Stage 3 Tax Cuts started and we are doing something about it with our proposed amendment to this bill. We need proper tax reform urgently.

Transcript

I rise to speak to the Treasury Laws Amendment (Cost of Living Tax Cuts) Bill 2024. Like most of the words Australians hear out of Liberal and Labor mouths, the title of this bill is a false promise. It’s a lie. It’s almost a sick joke from the Labor government to even put the words ‘cost of living’ in this bill. Let’s talk about the cost of living. Compared to what was already legislated, these tax changes are $15 a week different for the average Australian. For many that’s significant because of Labor’s huge cost-of-living increases. In four years, Australians have been slapped with some of the worst declines in economic circumstances in decades internationally. Australian households suffered the fastest income collapse in the world last financial year, under Labor. Inflation has sent Australian wages—real wages—back to a point not seen since 2009. That means that Australian wages have gone nowhere in real terms for 15 years. The average mortgage has gone up $1,210 a month—a month! Australia’s average rent has hit a record $601 a week, up from the August 2022 median of $437 an astounding 37 per cent. Fifty dollars doesn’t get you far at the supermarket anymore. Petrol is now considered a bargain at $1.80. How far we’ve fallen! 

As billions in government coupons and rebates expire, power bills will rise even further. Despite Labor’s promises to cut electricity bills by $275, Australians have never paid more to keep the lights on. We’ve never paid more. We have the highest electricity prices in the world. We used to have the lowest—until Labor and the Greens and teals came along. 

What is the government’s solution to these skyrocketing costs of living? To fix your problems with groceries, your mortgage or rent, power bills and more, the Albanese government is going to give some Australians—some Australians—$15 a week and expect you to bow down and thank them for it. 

Like the governments before it, this Labor government is all spin and no substance. In fact, it’s all theft. They will put a fluffy title on a bill, like they have here: ‘cost of living tax cuts’. Oh, really! In reality, this won’t make a dent in the cost of living most Australians are suffering through. The costs Labor is imposing are far, far higher than the minor changes they’ve made. This bill is a perfect example of how out of touch this Albanese Labor government really is. Their priorities are in the wrong place. They’re more interested in looking good than actually doing good. 

In his speech about this bill, Treasurer Jim Chalmers just couldn’t help himself. He needed to invoke identity politics and explain that these tax cuts were so much better for women. I checked the Taxation Office website, just to make sure nothing had changed, and it hadn’t. Someone might want to let Treasurer Chalmers knows that Australia doesn’t charge different tax rates based on what’s between our legs. There’s no table that says, ‘If you earn $60,000, as a man you’ll pay, say, 32.5c per dollar, and, if you’re a woman, you’ll pay 35 cents.’ That’s probably lucky, because Labor can’t even answer the question: ‘What is a woman?’ If the Treasurer can’t make a speech about tax without invoking gender political correctness, you have to wonder what hope they’ve got. What hope have we got? Here’s a tip for Labor: regardless of what Australians have between our legs, life is tough right now; the economy sucks; and $15 a week will barely make a dent in the extra costs you have imposed in just 18 months. 

Now, I’ll never oppose Australians getting a tax cut. Yet calling these tax changes ‘cost-of-living relief’ is like claiming you’ve fixed a raging bushfire after throwing cup of water on it. 

These tax changes won’t do anything while government policies make Australia’s cost of living even worse—far, far worse. There’s energy. They’re killing agriculture. There’s immigration. They’re hiding per capita recessions. There are house prices and rents. The government response to COVID created the inflation problem that has wrecked Australian households. And Labor was all the way with Prime Minister Morrison. 

The government’s net zero policies are increasing power prices, making it harder for households to keep the lights on and businesses to keep their doors open. That’s a fact. Only this week, the government is discussing putting an extra four per cent tax on clothes, to comply with United Nations/World Economic Forum policies—four per cent on clothes, in addition to the 10 per cent GST on clothes. The government will be putting an emissions tax on vehicles, forcing Australians’ favourite utes off the road and making any other cars far more expensive. That’s from a Labor government. All of the pressures facing Australian households are a result of government policies, and Labor’s response is a measly $15 a week. 

The Liberals do not get a free pass on this. The only reason we’re in this situation is because of the Liberal Party’s gutlessness in parliament. Many will notice that the original tax changes were called ‘the third stage’. All three stages were announced by the Liberal coalition government in 2018. Why, then, was stage 3 left until 1 July 2024 to come into effect? I’ll tell you why: the truth is the Liberals wanted to leave stage 3 as a trap for Labor, who have always been opposed to them. If the Liberals were genuine about stage 3, why didn’t the changes come into effect five years ago? That didn’t happen because the Liberals wanted to play cynical political games and trap Labor. Neither Liberal nor Labor are interested in genuine tax reform; they’d rather play games with it to get a headline—play games with people’s livelihoods, lives and futures. 

The crown of destroying Australia sits on the heads of both the Labor party and the Liberal party. They both have gutless policy on everything in our country, especially tax. They run away from the real issues facing Australians. The Treasurer and the government claim that these tax changes won’t add to inflation—that’s shooting themselves in the foot. If that’s true then the government is admitting these changes won’t do anything. They’re saying it won’t make enough of a difference to the amount of money Australians will have to spend to even be measured. Maybe the government is lying, and these changes will make inflation worse. That would be embarrassing to admit, given Treasurer Chalmers says our No. 1 priority should be ‘to finish the fight against inflation’. Labor appears to have put themselves between a rock and a hard place, a situation all of their own making. Australians have got used to this Labor government speaking out of both sides of their mouth—this tax bill is no different. 

Now, I’ll never oppose tax cuts for Australians. These tax changes, however, are just fiddling around the edges. Instead, we need real tax reform. Real reform is in the amendment I have proposed on sheet 2342. This would index the income tax thresholds to inflation and eliminate bracket creep. This is genuine tax reform. Bracket creep is the government’s dirty little secret. Inflation means Labor will quietly pocket tens of billions of dollars in extra taxes by simply doing nothing. As wages increase with inflation, they go into higher tax brackets, you’re paying higher tax rates and no one says a thing. We are going to say something. We’ve been saying something about this ever since this debate started, and we will fix it by putting an amendment in there. 

It’s a stealth tax. As wages increase, Australians move into higher tax brackets, while being able to buy only the same things due to inflation, yet they’ll be paying more tax, so they’ll have less money to spend on groceries effectively and less money to spend on disposable income. Bracket creep amounts to a secret tax that the government are keep collecting to pay for their pet projects of questionable benefit. If the Liberals and Labor want to increase taxes, they should put in a bill or take it to an election and be honest with Australians, rather than quietly rely on bracket creep to secretly plug their budget holes and ratchet up income tax receipts. 

Bracket creep should’ve been fixed a decade ago. Analysis from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that Australians have had to pay an extra $44 billion over the last decade because of bracket creep. Shh, don’t tell them! Because we didn’t take that action and fix this 10 years ago, over just the next four years bracket creep will mean Australians will pay more than $38 billion extra in taxes. You thought you were getting a tax cut. If the government gets inflation under control, fixing bracket creep won’t cost the budget anything. Australians don’t deserve to pay for inflation twice because of government mistakes, and the budget shouldn’t benefit from out-of-control inflation. Here’s how you’re paying twice: firstly, inflation because of an out-of-control government—higher prices; secondly, the higher wages that come with inflation put you into a higher tax bracket—bracket creep, higher taxes. You have less real money overall. Now, I note that the Liberals have made many comments about the scourge of bracket creep. This is your opportunity to fix it once and for all, and I urge all senators to stop the taxation increases-by-stealth and index the tax thresholds—the brackets. 

If Labor need any suggestions on areas of spending to fix it so they don’t have to keep secretly stealing more money from Australians, they can consult One Nation’s extensive work at Senate estimates for a few tips. There are lots of tips in there. We exposed so much: the flawed $65 billion Hunter frigate program they fiddled with and didn’t cancel; the NDIS being on track to cost $100 billion every year; and up to $8 billion a year in Medicare fraud. They are all some good places to start. 

We support this bill. It’s being dishonestly represented by Labor as a tax cut; it’s a tax fiddle. We can change that by passing my amendment to remove bracket creep. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I recommend that, instead of fiddling with the tax system, we fix the tax system. Reform the tax system for the benefit of all Australians, all families, our economy and our grandchildren’s economic future and security. 

I will just make some comments about tax reform, in connection with this bill. The tax system is complex, wastes enormous resources and is destroying economic productivity. Tax is essentially necessary because it’s a cost of government. It has become the cost of unaccountable waste over government needlessly micromanaging and controlling people’s lives and destroying economic initiative, hope and security. That’s what our tax system has become. It’s necessary as a cost of government, but it has now gone overboard. The tax act is immense—thousands of pages, a feast for lawyers and accountants. 

In a highly competitive international market, our resources are being wasted. Instead of our best and brightest accountants helping us to be more competitive in facing our international competitors, companies in Korea, Japan, China, America, Indonesia and Asia—instead of facing them and being more competitive by putting our best people to work, we’ve tied them up in the tax system trying to dodge tax because it’s so damn complex and so inefficient. Jim Killaly, the deputy commissioner who was responsible for international matters and large companies, who was second in charge at the Australian Taxation Office and in charge of large companies and international matters, said twice, in 1996 and 2010, that 90 per cent of Australia’s large companies are foreign owned and, since 1953, have paid little or no company tax due to the Liberals introducing legislation exempting foreign companies back in 1953. 

The tax act enables companies to use tax tricks such as transfer pricing to eliminate book profits and tax being paid in Australia and take it all overseas. In 1987 the Hawke Labor government introduced a petroleum rent resource tax that effectively exempted the world’s largest tax evader, Chevron, from paying tax. They steal our gas and export it to other countries, and we don’t get much for it at all. The Liberal-Labor party, the uni-party, are working for their global corporate masters. Exempting corporations from paying their fair share of tax means the burden falls on us, the people. To the people in the gallery: you’re paying for these uni-party rorts. 

Aussies are paying far too much tax already. Former Treasurer Joe Hockey said that typical Aussies work from January to June paying tax. Half of the year paying tax, effectively a 50 per cent tax rate—that’s what Joe Hockey said. And then we get to keep the rest from July to December. Industry figures calculate that almost 50 per cent of the price of a house is tax, meaning an effective tax rate of 100 per cent. Brisbane accountant Derek Smith said that 50 per cent of the price of a loaf of bread is tax, meaning the effective tax rate is 100 per cent. Seventy per cent of the price of fuel is tax—or it used to be; the price has gone up even higher now. Essentially, workers have to pay double and they’re getting ripped off. They pay income tax, and, with what’s left, they pay taxes on everything they buy. We need tax reform urgently. 

/by

The $500 Million Anti Tobacco Industry That Doesn’t Want to Quit

I asked questions on the latest Public Health Tobacco Bill and the $511 million the government wants to spend going forward towards a range of measures calculated to help reduce smoking and vaping. I want to know what data the government has to demonstrate these measures work or whether this is an industry that has settled into existence and refuses to budge.

Although One Nation does acknowledge and support the work involved in bringing this Bill to regulate smoking together from many different bills, my questions go to the actual measures being promoted in this Bill and its agenda. The government seems to be adopting a counterproductive strategy that undermines health and trust.

Australia is the most expensive place to buy a pack of cigarettes in the world, which seems to have been the one constant factor to drive down smoking.

I want to know what the results of the quit campaigns and the price increases on tobacco really amount to in light of this half a billion dollars in annual public expenditure? And I want to know why this Government is denying the effectiveness of vaping as a means of quitting smoking.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, at the outset, let me say that One Nation does support the hard work that’s been done to bring this together from many different bills, regulating smoking into one piece of legislation, and I compliment those who have produced a bill that includes the previous coalition government that started the work, yet that only extends to consolidating existing governance. Today my questions go to the actual measures being promoted in this bill. In my opinion we need to pick up the health agenda. I need to understand why the government is adopting a counterproductive strategy that undermines health and trust. My questions go to four topics—quitting smoking, the results of quitting-smoking campaigns, price increases on tobacco and vaping. First question, Minister: the previous Labor government introduced measures that were designed to reduce smoking. These were putting scary photos on cigarette packs, reducing pack sizes, banning advertising and sponsorship and using plain packaging. Minister, what data do you have to support the idea these measures actually reduce smoking rates and that amplifying those measures will cause more people to quit smoking faster? 

Senator McCARTHY : Thank you, Senator ROBERTS, for your question. The measures in the bill do aim to encourage people to give up smoking and to discourage people from taking up smoking in the first place— I think that’s really important to remind the Senate about. These measures are just one part of the comprehensive, evidence based approach to tobacco control in Australia, which includes the 2023-24 budget commitments to support education campaigns, improve cessation support and extend the successful Tackling Indigenous Smoking program. 

Senator ROBERTS : I asked for the data. You didn’t give me any. You said though, as quite often happens in this House, your policy is ‘evidence based’. So let me ask a second question which relates to the effect of selective perception in respect of the use of scary photos to dissuade smoking. For clarity, selective perception is defined as: the process by which we focus our attention on certain stimuli while ignoring stimuli that … contradicts our values and expectations. According to selective perception theory, we consciously and unconsciously filter out information. Minister, when scary photos were proposed there was a strong academic argument against their use on the basis that people would filter them out. Here we are, ten years on, promoting an extended use of scary photos—that’s basically what your bill does. Minister, what work has the department done to prove scary photos are not being filtered out? Can you prove scary photos are not useless? I would like some data. 

Senator McCARTHY : Did you say: ‘scary photos are not useless’? Was that the last bit of your question? 

Senator ROBERTS : I said the scary photos have not been productive so far in accelerating any quitting smoking campaign. 

Senator McCARTHY : Thank you, Senator. I could use personal anecdotal responses—but I won’t—especially coming from our First Nations communities, about the impact that it has had on family members and others who have stopped smoking as a result of what they’ve seen. The impact of the bill will be evaluated in line with the Commonwealth Evaluation Policy. Evaluation measures are set out in the impact analysis prepared for this bill and will seek to measure declines in overall consumption. Consideration of tobacco prevalence data—and I know you’re always interested in data—is data from the National Health Survey, the National Drug Strategy Household Survey and the Australian Secondary Students’ Alcohol and Drug Survey. I’m just reinforcing some of the data that I know that you’re interested in. Other available sources may also be considered such as the data from Customs and the Australian Bureau of Statistics’s state and territory government smoking cessation surveys conducted by or for public health experts. 

Senator ROBERTS : Thank you, Minister. You said, ‘seek to measure,’ implying in future. I asked for the past data on which this is based—current data. A literature review conducted by my staff has found many papers show a link between scary images and smokers being more scared. So far, so good. They find that nonsmokers react to the images as expected while smokers filter the message, reducing the fear factor in whole or in part. This proves that selective perception is at least in play if not undermining the whole concept of scary pictures. In other words, smokers don’t see the scariness in the scary pictures. None of these studies show a direct causation between scary photos and smoking reduction. Minister, is this measure something that sounds good in theory but actually doesn’t work in practice? Or hasn’t anyone bothered to do the work to prove that it works? 

Senator Pratt: I seek the call and say in answer to Senator ROBERTS that— 

The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Grogan): Thank you, Senator Pratt. Please resume your seat. Minister? 

Senator McCARTHY : Senator ROBERTS, these are probably some of the best questions I’ve had all day on this bill, so thank you for your interest in that. Scary photos: I think this is really important, because it comes to the heart of what this piece of legislation is all about—plain packaging, and the concerns that have been raised throughout the Senate inquiry. Perhaps I could refer to the previous answer, where I talked about the Australian Bureau of Stats as one of the areas that we go to for data. With scary photos, young people were less likely to be current daily smokers, at a rate of 7.1 per cent. Then in 2011-12 it was 16.5 per cent. Plain packaging came in in 2012, so we are conscious that there is strong correlation there. 

Senator ROBERTS : Let’s get to the meat of the question, now that I understand that there is little data to back it up. The committee report makes this statement: ‘According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 11 per cent of Australians smoked tobacco daily in 2019, which is a decrease from 12.2 per cent in 2016.’ This the same claim the minister made in his second reading speech. However, the 2019 National Drug Strategy Household Survey found that the figure for ‘smokes every day’ was 12.8 per cent, not 11 per cent— no drop. That data further shows that the figure for people who consider themselves to be a current smoker is 14.7 per cent. This is an increase in smokers, not a decrease. The minister may be using the 2020-021 survey, which does show that figure. However, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, from which you sourced a minute ago, has a qualification on the 2020-21 data which reads: ‘The National Health Survey 2020-21 was collected online during the COVID-19 pandemic’—their word, not mine—’and is a break in time series. Data can’t be compared to previous years.’ I’m concerned that this bill uses invalid data to justify an expansion of measures introduced by Labor in 2012. The messaging around this bill has a misinformation feel to it. Minister, is the actual rate of smoking in Australia 11 per cent or 12.8 per cent? 

Senator McCARTHY : As I said in my summing-up speech today, when the Hon. Nicola Roxon introduced plain packaging, around 16 per cent of Australians smoked, and today that rate is down to just under 11 per cent. 

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, my data is contained in a paper that was last updated in June 2023 by the Cancer Council of Victoria and is their dataset titled, ‘Tobacco in Australia: facts and issues’. The dataset is funded by the Australian government Department of Health and Aged Care; this is your data. I’ll keep talking about your data out of this data source, and hopefully someone over there has it to hand. One would have thought it useful in the committee stage of a bill about tobacco in Australia. Moving on to graph 1.3.1, this graph shows a perfect exponential decay in the rate of smoking every day, suggesting that the quit rate is slowing. What this data calls for is new ideas, not more of the same ideas that are currently not the reason for the reduction in smoking. Minister, what else have you got? What other ideas does your department have to reduce smoking rates? And why are they not in this opus of a bill? Clearly scary photos are not working. The quit rate is decelerating, decreasing. 

Senator McCARTHY : I believe I’ve answered the questions. 

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS : Minister, can I now refer you to graph 1.3.7, which shows the prevalence of current smoking in Australia, the United States, England, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Canada. This graph shows that a steady—not accelerating—reduction in smoking rates has occurred not only in Australia but in other Commonwealth countries and at about the same rate. Minister, is this more proof that scary pictures are a stunt, and something else is behind the reduction in smoking? 

Senator McCARTHY : I refer to my previous response. 

Senator ROBERTS : Let’s change topic, then. In review, the government has no idea what works and what doesn’t and has no new ideas—just more of the same, which, of course, keeps public servants and non-government organisations in taxpayer-funded jobs for another year. Minister, you have no new ideas. It’s more of the same failed policy approaches. How much does this cost taxpayers? How much is spent on the antismoking industry in Australia every year? 

Senator McCARTHY : I totally reject the senator’s accusations that we have no new ideas, when we are trying to improve the lives of Australians in this country, especially youth—children. We see this in our schools, Senator. So please do not come in here and say we have no new ideas. We know from the cancer rate inthis country that smoking is the leading cause of disease. We know that lung cancer is the lead cancer for that. These laws, let me remind the Senate, are about plain packaging. They’re about ensuring the safety of our young children— our young Australians—so that they do not get caught up in a world of smoking tobacco, which is quite easy to get caught up in. We have to be sure through this legislation that plain packaging makes a very real difference to the lives of our fellow Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS : Thank you, Minister. I happen to like you and respect you, but your use of emotion and young children does not cut it. This is my point. The government has committed $511 million over the forward estimates and $101 million ongoing towards a range of measures calculated to help reduce smoking and vaping. These consist of $264 million over four years and up to $101 million per year, ongoing, to establish and maintain a national lung cancer screening program, through which at-risk Australians will be able to get a lung scan every two years. There will be $141 million over four years to expand the Tackling Indigenous Smoking program to include tackling vaping. There will be $63 million over four years for national public health campaigns to discourage people from smoking and vaping, including additional funding provisioned in the contingency reserve for a targeted youth campaign. There will be $30 million over four years to increase and enhance smoking and vaping cessation support. And there will be $13 million over four years for legislative and regulatory reform, as well as testing tobacco products for prohibited ingredients and increasing inspections of manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers of tobacco and vaping products. Wow! That’s an industry—$500 million over the forward estimates, or half a billion dollars. It’s an industry, and it’s being protected by worthless measures like the ones this bill is proposing. Thousands of bureaucrats, nongovernment organisations, not-for-profits and miscellaneous opportunists are kept in a job by the size of government’s spending. This will do nothing to reduce smoking. We’ve already seen the data from your own department, which says it’s just decelerating at a steady rate. It’s not accelerating. It’s just decreasing at a steady rate—the same as in countries overseas. Will this bill guarantee all these other measures? Will it be funded for another four years, despite doing nothing to reduce smoking? Was this bill designed in the knowledge that it would keep the antismoking industry in work for another four years? 

Senator McCARTHY : I totally reject, from the outset, your accusation that this will not do anything to assist our fellow Australians. The fact that we are putting $253.8 million into a new national lung cancer screening program should say something in this debate, shouldn’t it, Senator? And the fact that we’re putting $238.5 million into supporting the Aboriginal and community controlled health sector is not, I would say, a worthless approach and initiative in trying to decrease the rates of cancer and smoking among First Nations people in this country. I totally reject your allegation. 

Senator ROBERTS : An emotional argument does not take the place of data. I have never had a cigarette in my lips—never. My children have never had cigarettes either. Let’s move to what really drives decreases. The excise on tobacco products has been steadily increasing every year, coinciding with the reduction in smoking rates. Senator Canavan talked about it. Turkiye, which I mentioned before, has the highest smoking rate in the developed world. A pack of Marlboro cigarettes costs US$1.62. That’s for a whole pack of 20, not for a cigarette. In Australia the same pack is $25.88 on a best-price comparison basis. The next dearest country for smoking is the United Kingdom, where that same pack costs $15.83. We are more than 50 per cent dearer for cigarettes than any other developed country, and the price has been going up steadily in proportion to the reduction in smoking rates. Minister, isn’t it true that the real reason smoking rates are falling is that they get dearer every year, and the real reason that the number of people giving smoking away is decreasing slowly is that those smokers who are left can afford it more? 

Senator McCARTHY : I’d just remind the Senate and the senator that this is a public health policy and we are talking about plain packaging. 

Senator ROBERTS : I’m talking about the industry that the bill will feed and continue to feed. Minister, I note that the explanatory memorandum and the second reading speech both try to make the point that Australia is falling behind other nations. Actually, amongst developed nations Turkiye has the highest smoking rate: 41 per cent amongst males. Australia, with 12 per cent, is 29th. Only eight nations have a lower smoking rate than we do. Only two—Iceland, at eight per cent; and Norway, at six per cent—are significantly better. Clearly, the contention that Australia is falling behind the world is outright misinformation. We are close to leading the world. For clarity, we are close to leading the world because we have priced cigarettes into the stratosphere, not because of scary pictures on boxes or the other Roxon measures. Minister, is this legislation just more of the same to keep the Labor aligned antismoking industry going while at the same time allowing your government to go to the electors and pretend to have done something about smoking? Is this why you exempted yourselves from your own misinformation bill? 

Senator McCARTHY : In 2011, under Nicola Roxon, we did lead the world with the reforms that went through both his house and the other house. For the past nine years we’ve needed more work done, and that’s why we’re bringing in this next critical step in the fight against tobacco and nicotine addiction. I urge the senator and the Senate to remember that this is why we’re here. This legislation is about plain packaging, so that we can once again be world leaders in the way that we conduct ourselves in terms of this public health policy. 

/by

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by

It’ll All Come Out in the Wash

,

The World Economic Forum seeks control over the most mundane aspects of our lives, even how often you wash your jeans. While the temptation is to laugh at the hubris of these people, there is a genuinely evil agenda in place that theatre around frequency of washing is designed to distract us from.

Today I spoke about the interference of the globalist billionaires in our food production. This is disturbing. The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the mainstays of life. It is a campaign about control through a false scarcity of food.

The UN and the WEF seek control not only over food production, but energy and ultimately, global finance. It’s time the Australian parliament stands up for farmers and the rural communities. After all, no farmers no food. Only bugs and lab-grown ‘meat’.

Transcript

When the World Economic Forum launched their social media campaign in 2018 carrying the slogan, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,’ I thought that finally the predatory billionaires who try to run the world had shown their hand. The public could finally see their fate if the World Economic Forum are allowed to succeed. That didn’t happen. The media, who have the same owners as the World Economic Forum, persisted with calling the World Economic Forum’s evil agenda ‘a conspiracy theory’. Even in this place there are only a handful of senators with the courage to call out the agenda for what it is: economic exploitation and social control. 

Over the break, the World Economic Forum revealed another aspect of their plan and they launched a campaign against laundry. Yes, really—laundry! They said jeans should not be washed more than once a month and most other clothes washed once a week. You will wear dirty clothes and be smelly and happy, apparently.

The temptation is to laugh at their desire to control even mundane aspects of our lives, yet the truth is much more frightening than that. The World Economic Forum have now turned their evil agenda to food.

The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the necessities of life—food. Predatory, parasitic billionaires, owning near urban intensive production facilities, are producing food-like substances for the masses, forcing the public into acceptance of the World Economic Forum’s fake global warming scam. These are their own stated motives: control food and control people. Whoever controls the food supply controls the people. Whoever controls the energy can control whole continents. Whoever controls money can control the whole world. The World Economic Forum and the predatory billionaires they represent are currently trying to do all three.

The Greens, Labor and the globalist Liberals will, of course, support the World Economic Forum. It is time the Australian parliament stood up for farmers and rural communities and for all Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

WEF Control of Money — “The party seeks power purely for its own sake” (George Orwell, 1984)

,

The World Economic Forum is not just an economic ‘think tank’. It isn’t just some bizarre entity that tries to insert itself into our lives with rules about how often we wash our jeans, drive our car, or eat red meat.

It’s the mouthpiece of the unseen hands manipulating world events.

All WEF vassal states, including Australia, are working on central bank digital currencies (CBDC) while simultaneously closing bank branches, eliminating cash and negatively influencing independent crypto currencies. By manipulating the price of Bitcoin (pump, dump, repeat), the unseen hand destroys trust in the non-CBDC. Explicitly, these governments are doing to nothing to protect or regulate crypto because the want private crypto currencies to fail.

How does this affect you? CBDCs are the ultimate control tool for governments. Censorship of free speech using misinformation laws is even more easily achieved when people’s finances are tied to a digital currency controlled by the government. A government promoting a dystopian future.

One Nation stands strongly opposed to the Labor party, the globalist Liberals and Greens promoting this dystopian future and coveting the power that comes with it. The choice for voters is clear.

Transcript

A popular quote reads: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control a whole continent. Who controls money can control the whole world.’ Only the ignorant could possibly look at the world as it is in 2024 and think, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Farmers who are having their land confiscated under net zero measures are spraying effluent at politicians. Immigrants complaining about their handouts are causing violence across the West, including in our own Queensland communities. Anyone who sees our stagnant national wealth growth being divided among 10 million more people over the last decade knows there is less for everybody. Apparently no-one, having done the sums [inaudible], can deny this. War has broken out in multiple locations, and the mainstream media are doing their best to fan those flames into a third world war. 

The unseen hands that guide these world events have shown themselves via their mouthpiece, the World Economic Forum. Yesterday, I spoke of how the World Economic Forum was trying to control the world’s food and energy supply. Today, it’s the third element of the doctrine of global control: money. At the recent World Economic Forum Davos meeting, Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a digital currency for the European Central Bank to ensure they remain the anchor of the European financial system to protect their power and control over money. All World Economic Forum vassal states, including Australia, are producing a central bank digital currency while at the same time closing bank branches, eliminating cash and manipulating nongovernment crypto. By 2030, the only payment mechanism will be their own digital currency and digital ID. It’s control of money. 

Then there’s a final element: a set of misinformation and disinformation laws that will ensure any attempt to speak as I am speaking here today will result in having my digital ID and digital currency turned off for misinformation. The ALP, globalists, the Liberals and the Greens are promoting this dystopian future, coveting the power that comes with it. One Nation stands strongly opposed. The choice for voters is clear. 

/3 Comments/by

More Hypocrisy From the Greens

,

I was unable to conclude my speech on the Green’s Motion regarding the age of criminal responsibility, which is why the video was cut short. You can read the rest of the speech below. I hope my speech sheds some light on the complexities surrounding this issue.

I spoke against Greens’ Senator Shoebridge endorsing the Australian Capital Territory’s increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12 years of age and then in 2025 to the age of 14. It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting that a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions.

Caring for and loving children must encompass instilling in them a senses of responsibility. Failing to hold children accountable for their actions and the consequences does them a disservice.

The Australian Capital Territory is not alone in taking action to increase the age of criminal responsibility. The Northern Territory and Tasmania took similar steps.

For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. In ‘Greens Land’, a child of 13 is deemed incapable of legal responsible for their actions, yet is expected to be mature enough to make significant life decisions regarding gender identity and sexual activity. This disparity underscores a problematic viewpoint which encourages children to engage in activities deemed “mature” by Greens’ standards, yet are shielded from the responsibility that accompanies their actions should they break the law.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I speak against Senator Shoebridge’s motion endorsing the ACT’s recent increase in the age of criminal responsibility from 10 years of age to 12 and then, in 2025, to 14. Care for children starts with love, and part of love is responsibility. It is not being kind to children to not be responsible. The Australian Capital Territory is not the only jurisdiction taking this action. The Northern Territory recently increased the age of criminal responsibility to 12. Tasmania increased the minimum age for detention to 14. For the Greens, age is a problematic concept. They just don’t seem to understand that care involves responsibility. In a ‘Greens land’, a child of 13 cannot be held legally responsible for their actions. Yet a child that age can choose their gender, change their gender and read instruction manuals in adult sexual practices years before they are legally old enough to engage in that activity. Indeed, in ‘Greens land’, a child of any age can do those things. A 10-year-old can. An eight-year-old can. 

It’s perplexing to see the Greens suggesting a child under the age of 14 is not mature enough to be held accountable for their actions. This issue comes down to a simple legal principle: do they know the distinction between right and wrong, and can apply that distinction to their own actions? As long as there is no factor other than age that impacts on their capacity, they are criminally liable. Those factors could include autism, fetal alcohol syndrome or drugs. There’s merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I’ll say that again: there is merit in the idea that a child of that age is better diverted than convicted. I agree that diversion programs should be the first option for any child coming to the attention of the police or the courts. I have issue with children being held accountable for the sins of the parents, and so many of the children that come to the attention of law enforcement at this age are there because their parents have failed. There must be a point, though, where the person is responsible for their own actions. A young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. I’ll say that again: a young person can use a bad start as an excuse for the rest of their lives, or they can use a bad start as motivation to succeed. This legislation allows the excuses. One Nation supports helping a child succeed. Karly Warner, the CEO of the Aboriginal Legal Centre (NSW/ACT), made the following comment on the legislation: 

“In the extremely rare instances when a child does something seriously wrong, it’s because they’ve been let down and need our help. By failing to raise the age to 14, the Australian Government is failing Aboriginal children, who are over-represented at every stage of the system, from police to court to prison. The ACT imprisons Aboriginal children at 12 times the rate of non-Indigenous children. 

It’s Aboriginal kids … 

[Debate interrupted]

 

Complete Speech on Criminal ResponsibilityDownload

/by

Smart Meters … It’s No Longer a Conspiracy Theory!

,

Smart Meters cutting off your power is no longer a conspiracy theory. It’s already here! The Queensland Government reached into people’s homes to take control of 170,000 air-cons in the last two months.

Wind, solar and the demonisation of coal is destroying our once reliable power supply, turning Australia into a third world country, despite our vast natural resources.

Only One Nation will stop the Net Zero insanity and bring back cheap power bills.

/22 Comments/by