Malcolm’s Official Speeches in Parliament

THIS IS NOT A PARLIAMENT: IT’S A CRIME SCENE

,

Sports rorts, carpark scandals, corrupt water trading, crooked disaster funding projects, AusPost CEOs being forced out for not pleasing government party hacks. This government disrespects the people of Australia so they can look after their corporate mates.

Transcript

Earlier this month in my flag speech I spoke of parliament’s duty to serve the people. Today I’m asking: who does this parliament really serve? I’ll review the Morrison government’s actions and this parliament’s actions that carry the stench of cronyism and corruption.

I’ll start with changes to water policy that Malcolm Turnbull and John Howard introduced in 2007. Those changes turned ownership and the trading of water rights into a $20 billion industry. Large corporate interests, trade union bosses controlling industry super funds and National Party powerbrokers have rushed to take advantage of this new wealth. And by taking advantage, I really mean make out like bandits at the expense of family farms that can no longer afford water for their crops. I’m raising this issue first up because it illustrates how things are done in federal parliament.

The Water Act requires a transparent water-trading register. The government tried to introduce one in 2012, stuffed it up and then gave up. I thought asking the government to take another run at it—to reveal who was lining their pockets with the proceeds of water speculation—would be straightforward. How naive was that! My amendment was opposed. The same parties, the Liberals and Nationals, that passed the legislation in the first place requiring a water-trading register, opposed my amendment that sought to ensure compliance with the parliament’s legislation. The Senate, with Labor’s support, passed my amendment. It proceeded to the lower house, where Labor rejected it. What happened in the 100 metres between the Senate and the House of Representatives? The fix happened—the fix to protect corporate water traders. Labor agreed to cover for its Liberal and Nationals mates and they returned the favour. That’s how this parliament works. Cronyism is an art form.

The same pattern of immoral behaviour occurred with the legislation One Nation introduced to stop banks bailing-in depositors’ funds to save banks in a crisis, stealing customers’ hard earned deposits. In 2018, parliament passed legislation to allow a bail-in as part of emergency financial measures. The Labor, Liberal, and National parties teamed up to oppose my bill and justified that action with a complete lie: that the emergency provisions did not give APRA the power to order a bail-in. My legislation to protect the one trillion dollars in bank deposits of everyday Australians was defeated, despite the Treasury admitting, in a briefing to my face, that those emergency provisions do allow a bail-in. The Liberal-National and Labor duopoly lied so their donors in the major banks can keep the right to steal your money to save themselves.

The same cronyism was in place over the Christine Holgate watch scandal at Australia Post. As we now know, those watches were given to management as a reward for completing a very profitable deal for Australia Post. Australia Post executives accepted the watches and agreed to forgo much larger bonuses. Why would the Prime Minister and the parliament misrepresent a measure that saved Australia Post money? It’s because Christine Holgate had negotiated a fee with the banks of $20 million a year for the provision of banking services through licensed post offices, but the banks wanted a bigger share of those profits. Christine Holgate made the mistake of costing the big four banks money, and an example had to be made of her. What a show Scott Morrison put on! After Ms Holgate was sacked, and Australia Post was placed back into the hands of friendlies, the deal was renegotiated. The banks are now only paying half that, $10 million per year, and 4,000 licensed post office franchisees got screwed. How much did it cost the banks to get the outcome they wanted from this parliament?

In the last election cycle Australian banks donated $500,000 to the Liberal and National parties and $400,000 to the Labor Party.

There’s more. The Australian people can see that cronyism extends to pharmaceuticals. Most people don’t know who funds the body that approves pharmaceuticals in Australia—the Therapeutic Goods Administration, known as the TGA. The big pharmaceutical companies applying for approvals themselves fund the TGA. The expert committees that advise the TGA on what to approve are comprised largely of university academics, whose departments receive funding from pharmaceutical companies. That doesn’t pass the pub test, nor does this. In the last election cycle the pharmaceutical industry donated $276,000 to Labor and $400,000 to the Liberals and Nationals.

Earlier this year One Nation combined with the Greens to extend the licences of community TV stations C31 in Melbourne and Channel 44 in Adelaide, after Malcolm Turnbull in 2012 confiscated those free-to-air transmission rights to force viewers back to commercial TV owned by his mates. C31 and Channel 44 survived on the back of large public campaigns. Why was it so hard to get an extension for community TV to use a spectrum that’s not needed until 2024? Could it be because the commercial stations, through Free TV Australia, donated $17,000 to Labor and $13,000 to the Liberals? That, of course, is the problem.

Yesterday in the Senate the Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly teamed up to stop the measures that One Nation and Senator Rex Patrick jointly proposed to make Woodside Petroleum pay for the $2 billion cost of cleaning up their environmental damage in the Timor Sea. Woodside easily evaded its responsibilities to the people of Australia. It simply sold the little bit of extraction left in the gas field, including its clean-up liability, to a small company for a few million dollars. That company was then wound up. Taxpayers are now on the hook for the clean-up. One Nation’s amendment would have restored the liability on Woodside. The crossbench supported that. Labor and the Liberals and Nationals opposed it. Then I discovered that Woodside donated $135,000 to Labor and $148,000 to the Liberals and Nationals. What a surprise!

Then there’s the Beetaloo basin. It’s in the news this week because the government passed legislation to allow cash payments to its mining mates to frack the Beetaloo basin. Guess who funds the cost of the exploration—some $7 million per well? Taxpayers via a grant, yet the gas extraction company owns the well and keeps the profits from the extraction. This little earner is called socialising the risk and the costs while privatising the profits. The first recipient of this cronyism was Empire Energy, a Liberal Party donor. But you didn’t hear this from the opposition, because Empire Energy donated $25,000 to the Labor Party. In echoing Senator Hanson’s repeated calls, Senator Patrick rightly pointed out that the oil and gas industry exported $62 billion in 2018-19 and paid taxpayers just $1 billion in royalties. The taxpayers are getting royally screwed by this crony capitalist approach to government.

One Nation support free enterprise; we do not support cronyism. Earlier this year One Nation introduced a motion to refer to a Senate inquiry the misuse of federal government disaster relief funds. Millions, possibly billions, of dollars are being misappropriated, with no suitable work being conducted. The Liberals-Nationals and Labor duopoly rode to the rescue of their mates and voted down our motion—no inquiry.

The car park scandal has seen the Morrison government give $420 million of taxpayer money for commuter car parks in areas that don’t need commuter car parks, including three in the Treasurer’s electorate and one for a train station that’s closing. I assume that even this government is not stupid enough to build a car park at a train station that is not there anymore, so I wait to see which of the government’s mates just got free car parks. The sports rorts scandal, the Inland Rail infrastructure grants, the Kimba radioactive waste dump, the Murray-Darling Basin’s upwater program and ‘watergate’ are all corruption scandals that a federal corruption commission, if we had one, would have dealt with. Parliament rubberstamps decisions and policies, costing the people trillions of dollars so mates can feed off taxpayers, bludge off taxpayers and transfer wealth from taxpayers. The people are rightly angry.

Decisions taken in the parliament must not only be honest, they must be seen to be honest and be justified with hard, solid data.

Australian voters will shortly be asked to pass judgement on this sorry parliament. Make no mistake, voting for the Liberal Party with their sellout sidekicks, the Nationals, or voting for Labor and their ticket to power, the Greens, will represent business as usual for the Liberal-Labor duopoly that has ruled this parliament for decades. It’s now time, at the next election, to break this cycle of abuse. Stop repeatedly alternating Liberal-Nationals with Labor and expecting anything to change. It’s now time to change the parliament.

There are many third parties putting their hands up in this election, and none have a track record of achievement greater than One Nation. I’m very proud of the contribution Senator Hanson, Mark Latham, Steve Andrew, Rob Roberts and I have made and are making to restore governance to Australia. Despite the Liberal, Labor and Nationals parties’ many dishonest attempts to destroy her, for 25 years Senator Pauline Hanson and One Nation have remained true to the Australian people, and we will continue to be so. In conclusion, I make an observation regarding the perspex security screen that now protects the Leader of the Government in the Senate from the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and vice versa. This screen sends a powerful message to the Australian people: the Senate chamber now resembles a visitation centre at one of Her Majesty’s prisons. How very appropriate! This is not a parliament; it’s a crime scene.

/1 Comment/by

Government declares war on peaceful protests

,

Earlier in the pandemic, State Premiers let Black Lives Matter protests happen without a whisper of criticism. Now that protests criticise their attempts at tyranny, they crack down on them. Banning protests has been a hallmark of dictators for all of history. Let’s not follow them down that path.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, my remarks will be on the most basic of human rights: freedom to protest. State premiers have declared a war on peaceful protests against their policies, including the ‘freedom day’ rallies, yet they allow protests they agree with such as Black Lives Matter.

An ethical nightmare over human rights is brewing between the parliaments and the people. It’s the fault of blind political ambition, leveraged off a virus that has turned out to be, according to government health experts’ own data, no more harmful than a bad flu. It’s time we cancelled the COVID apocalypse. It’s time to end the use of COVID as an excuse to implement all-powerful legislation that exempts itself from proper scrutiny. Both the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Emergency Declaration Act 2020 make a mockery of 120 years of legislation and 800 years of common law. Both pieces of legislation are being used in ways never put to the people. Together, these acts trespass unreasonably on the rights and liberties of everyday Australians.

No parliament that wishes to call itself a democracy can grant indefinite, absolute and unscrutinised power. State premiers have entered into a COVID arms race with each other, leaving Australians trapped in the middle of the crossfire—huge increases in suicide attempts, children phoning helplines in unprecedented numbers and small businesses in ruins. And what created this? Federal parliament’s failure to hold the line against fear and misuse of power.

‘Emergency’ should not mean a dissolution of rights, especially when a state of emergency can be stretched out for months, years or even indefinitely. COVID policy has turned into a parallel legal system, embraced by a Prime Minister that has encouraged health orders that permanently alter the landscape of work and travel. Death has become a matter of politics and mismanagement, used to prevent the sacred freedom to assemble and protest peacefully. If Australians cannot protest, parliaments will never be held accountable for errors in judgement.

One of parliament’s many mistakes is in the presentation of COVID data. Given without context, they tower over us. Viewed in context, COVID harm barely deviates from normal. Parliaments cannot promise safety. Safety is an outcome of parliaments following policies that protect our freedoms and our rights. Instead of handling COVID with a view to these important guiding principles, politicians have suffocated Australia under the weight of biosecurity powers, resulting in displays of cruelty that have shocked the whole world.

The fact is we are not safe. We are not safe from our own parliaments. Freedom protests are a criticism of COVID policies and parliaments’ atrocious governance. Like the manufacturers of vaccines, parliaments do not want to hear any complaints about the quality of their work. Despite this parliament’s best attempts to control people, we are blessed with a nation full of people who refuse to live under the coercion of fear. This may be considered civil disobedience—I call it commonsense.

The Prime Minister’s role is to perform his duty with pragmatism and calm. Instead, Scott Morrison has rattled the cage of fear and enticed state politicians to do the same. Instead of focusing on trust, this parliament endorses spending tens of millions of dollars advertising COVID fear. Operation COVID Shield is now an attempt to use military to force the behaviour associated with trust without any attempt to create the meeting of the minds necessary for trust. Abused people may well may obey their captors, but they do not trust them. The more rights parliaments steal from Australians, the less likely people are to trust.

Australians asked for choice in COVID treatments, and the government suppressed peer reviewed and internationally accepted alternatives like Ivermectin. Australians asked for vaccine manufacturers to accept liability for their products, and instead were denied any recourse in the event of personal harm. Australians tried to report fatal side effects, and for months the parliament, the legacy media and social media silenced them. Australians took to the streets to tell this parliament and state premiers that the health orders were destroying millions of lives, and the states hunted them down like criminals. To enforce compliance, parliaments will need more policies like Operation COVID Shield, more police and more Defence Force members in our streets. Force will still fail, because fear and intimidation are a terrible plan. The damage done to the sacred trust between the people and parliaments is catastrophic. Parliamentary policy has destroyed trust in vaccines, creating two classes of people in Australia—those who profit from the pandemic and those who suffer from it. Policy, not COVID, has destroyed trust in vaccines. COVID Shield seeks to repair it with the rhetoric of war. Everyday Australians are not buying this nonsense. Australians know what the parliaments, the military and the health bureaucrats do not know—we will not be divided, we have one flag, we are one community and we are One Nation.

/2 Comments/by

Government has destroyed your right to say no

,

Respect people’s rights and restore informed consent—a basic human right. Is it any wonder millions of people now question everything state and federal parliaments say and have reached breaking point?

Transcript

The safety of everyday Australians should never be a race on a political scoreboard. Instead, it must be about health and accountability. Yet this government and most people in parliament hastily rammed COVID injections on people. The vaccines are not fully tested and are only provisionally approved. These are vaccines with serious side-effects—they’re even killing people—and with plummeting efficacy. The injections are already losing their effect. We’ve been told that we do not need 100 per cent vaccination to protect. Why, then, do governments, parliaments and big businesses continue to persecute people rightly concerned about this injection? A constituent, Ben, asked a simple question that many are asking: if your vaccine works, why does he need one, and, if it doesn’t work, why should he get one?

Secondly, Australians have a right to sit this race out. Instead we’re hearing democracy choking—the death of our right to say, ‘No, this is not for me.’ Without blush or hesitation, Qantas CEO Alan Joyce threatens the jobs of people who are concerned about COVID injections. Yet the same man signalled the need for IR reform now, supposedly to protect workers from abuses of power. Respect people’s rights and restore informed consent—a basic human right. Is it any wonder millions of people now question everything state and federal parliaments say and have reached breaking point? No, it’s expected. The ongoing protests must be heard. Australians have legitimate concerns for health and safety, jobs and livelihoods, and rights and freedoms. The unions and Queensland Labor—old Labor—used to defend the right to protest. They’re now a symptom of the problem of taking away people’s freedoms, jobs and livelihoods. In turn, state and federal governments must get back to basics and focus on the virus, not the symptoms. Whether we came here before Captain Cook or came from Europe or from Afghanistan, we Australians have one flag, we are one community and we are one nation.

/2 Comments/by

Government doesn’t create prosperity, free citizens do

, ,

Our country has been ruined by governments trying to pick and choose winners instead of letting people be free to invent new and innovative solutions. We used to lead the world, inventing the refrigerator, electric drill, tanks, pacemakers, ultrasounds and wifi. Not anymore.

The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must be protected.

Transcript

Later this year we will pass an amazing milestone when an Australian designed and made satellite will be launched into space using an Australian designed and made rocket and launch facility. We now have a domestic end-to-end space capability, creating jobs and injecting new wealth into our economy. Government has not achieved this, private enterprise has, proving once again that governments do not create wealth; free personal enterprise creates wealth. For many years, we led the world in innovation, inventing the refrigerator in 1856, electric drill in 1889, military tanks in 1912, pacemakers in 1928, ultrasounds in 1961 and wifi in 1992. But that’s where the list ends, 30 years ago.

Australia once led the world in patents; now China registers four times the patents per capita that Australia does. This is partly the fault of the big banks, whose tight hold on the capital sector funding for business development is throttling investment, suffocating beneath our banks greedy obsession with real estate. The government, through its future growth fund, has taken upon itself the role of picking winners and losers amongst start-ups, making private sector growth beholden to government bureaucrats. Lockdowns have decimated small business and forced medium and large businesses to shelve research and development plans.

Australia is going backwards and is losing the ability for citizens to support themselves through their own hard work and enterprise. Reliance on government handouts appears to be a design feature of Prime Minister Morrison’s socialist version of Australia. Instead, One Nation will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, we will get government out of the way of free enterprise, we will let the Australian spirit out of [inaudible] to then invent and create to carry this nation forward, even to space. We have one flag, we have one community, we are one nation. The right to raise ourselves up through hard work and enterprise is a freedom that must not be compromised. It must remain.

/by

Indoctrination curriculum sent back to the drawing board

https://youtu.be/hXynA4dlLEo

Our education standards have been slipping for years, yet ACARA’s draft curriculum was more focused on erasing facts about our judeo-christian heritage and implementing Critical Race Theory.

Curriculum should be focused on ensuring our kids are skilled in reading, writing and numeracy first, not political ideas.

The ditching of the draft curriculum follows two successful One Nation motions on heritage and critical race theory drawing attention to the draft’s shortcomings.

Transcript

With the steady downward trend of education all standards for reading, mathematics and science for Australia’s children over the last 20 years, ACARA needed to deliver a curriculum review that reflected proven teaching methods.  Rather than provide a robust review that would turn the tide, ideology got the better of ACARA and their efforts have been binned, as it deserves to be.

One Nation put forward two successful motions which highlighted significant fundamental flaws in ACARA’s reviewed curriculum.  Instead of focussing on proven methods for teaching mathematics and reading, ACARA thought it more important to demolish out our Judeo-Christian heritage and the role of Western civilisation in Australian society, laws and customs. 

Australia is proudly a liberal democratic society and these values should be at the very basis of our national curriculum.

I acknowledge that Minister Tudge has ditched the reviewed curriculum.  He has recognised that ACARA has tried to turn our curriculum into a tool for indoctrination for left-wing ideologies that denounce Western civilisation as something to be ashamed of, by promoting notions of imperialism and re-packaging significant and defining Australian historical events.

There is an urgent need to lift the educational outcomes for our children and One Nation will continue to monitor the efforts of ACARA to ensure that our cherished western liberal democracy is enshrined in the national curriculum.

It is not by accident that Australia is one of the most sought after places to live.  Safeguarding our way of life comes from the teachings we give our children, either at home or through the curriculum, which reminds them of what Australian men and women have defended in past decades – our right to a free society with laws and customs of Judaeo-Christian origins, and only when our children know that can they defend and uphold those values.

/by

CLOSING THE GAP HAS IT ALL WRONG

,

A prominent islander who earned my respect through our hours of discussion expressed it well when he said bluntly that “focusing on the gap perpetuates the gap because there is a whole industry that exists only while the gap exists.”

Billions of dollars are poured into the Aboriginal industry every year but we aren’t seeing results on the ground.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I acknowledge all people of our nation. Earlier this month, I returned from more than two weeks listening to the people on the ground in all communities across Cape York—communities like Coen, Laura, Lockhart River, Port Stewart, Bamaga, Seisia, Umagico, Injinoo, New Mapoon, Thursday Island, Saibai Island, Badu Island, Weipa, Mapoon, Napranum, Aurukun, Pormpuraaw and Kowanyama. That followed previous visits to cape communities, to Northern Territory Aboriginal communities and to Aboriginal community gatherings in southern Queensland.

I now turn my comments to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. I acknowledge people like Warren Mundine and Jacinta Price, and Jacintha Priscilla Rose Geia, who has taken responsibility for her life and recently graduated from university after battling with domestic violence. I acknowledge Bruce Gibson, Hope Vale business owner and a leader on the cape. I acknowledge Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the NRL and the AFL, whose participation at elite levels of their sports exceeds their proportion in the general population of all Australians. Aboriginals and Islanders are excelling in this country at times—just like other members of the community. And I acknowledge and wholeheartedly endorse Senator Pauline Hanson’s speech and comments earlier this morning.

Now, I’m no expert on Aboriginal and Islander matters, yet I am a human and I know what I see in any community, regardless of race, colour or religion. Let me share some insights. What is happening on the ground in Cape York are some exciting new improvements, yet there is a perpetuation of the misery and squalor that for too long has characterised some Aboriginal communities.

The first topic is native title. Recognition of previous occupancy is needed. White and black people on the cape speak with a common voice, saying that native title has added another layer to negotiations for development and people largely accept that. What is not accepted is the inability of Aboriginal people to have rights to use their land due to the Native Title Act. I quote from a member of my staff, who visited with me on the cape: ‘An unusual feature found in the preamble to the Native Title Act is a significant overemphasis on the influence of United Nations principles, which do nothing to tangibly benefit Australia’s Indigenous people.’ The Native Title Act, as told to me by Indigenous leaders and community members, is recognition but otherwise offers little more than window-dressing. It is hindering Indigenous people from advancing their interests in our society. Aboriginals are not able to achieve ownership of their own homes if the area falls under native title. It’s hurting the very people it was meant to serve. Maybe the meaning is beyond the Aboriginals and the whites in this country and has everything to do with the United Nations. It’s locking up land. The Aboriginal leaders and members of communities say, ‘What is the point of having native title when Aboriginals lack the right to use the land and cannot use it as collateral for starting a business?’

The next one is closing the gap. In my experience, we tend to achieve that on which we focus. Instead of focusing on a gap, which will perpetuate the gap, we need to focus on standards applicable and expected in every community and measure progress towards that. A prominent islander who earned my respect through our hours of discussion—and he’s involved in government—expressed it well when he said bluntly that focusing on the gap perpetuates the gap because there is a whole industry that exists only while the gap exists. Those people—consultants, agencies, lawyers, politicians and ministers—exist only because of the gap. They have an interest in perpetuating the gap, and they do perpetuate the gap. The money, authority and power needs to be taken out of the hands of the Aboriginal industry and given to the Aboriginals and islanders in the communities. This Aboriginal industry—by the way, Aboriginals use those exact words for the people holding them back—makes money from people’s misery and perpetuates the misery.

The next point is on data and facts. Some in the Aboriginal industry exist because of poor data and the lack of consulting people on the ground in communities. Some exist because they misrepresent the data. Misrepresenting the data, altering the facts, hides the problem, and that prevents a suitable, robust solution. When data is accurate, we need to use it in context and convey it accurately. Above all, we need to dig down to the core problem. That’s where the opportunities for advancement lie. Those who misrepresent data in the belief that they need to exaggerate the misery to get something done about it, in fact, derail efforts and perpetuate the misery because they cause further new miseries. For example, deaths in custody tell a story about our whole nation and need to be dug into properly, not taken out of context.

The core issue on the cape is shoddy governance and a confusing mismatch and alphabet soup of federal, state and local government programs that are riddled with waste, duplication and, from what we’re told—and it seems entirely plausible—corruption. As a result, taxpayer money is wasted. Taxpayers are funding billions of dollars each year for Aboriginal programs, yet only a fraction reaches the Aboriginals and islanders on the ground in communities. Much is lost in waste. Much apparently is stolen or selfishly redirected, as is power, as are resources and as is control, for personal benefit.

We need to improve governance to ensure everyday Aboriginals receive and efficiently use the money and ensure that taxpayers get value for their money. Those funds will be more effective when granted with sound intent, instead of patronising paternalism. We need to give more autonomy to those communities to take responsibility. These people in the communities are crying out for authority over their own lives and communities. I remind the Senate of something I’ve said many times. Maria Montessori said, ‘Whenever one sees a lack of responsibility, there is a lack of freedom.’ Across the cape, to varying degrees depending on the community, people are crying out for self-determination. People and communities need self-determination. Australia needs these communities to have self-determination. Aboriginals in many communities are ready for freedom because that brings accountability.

One further issue needs to be mentioned—past injustice. The murdering of Aboriginals and islanders, the capricious, heartbreaking stealing of land and destruction of houses, and the fracturing, relocating and deaths of families in large numbers, as recently as the 1960s: this is a blight on our history. Yet that is what it is—history. It is to be remembered but not used politically nor to foment guilt today. Guilt is a negative energy and, when used to drive, it ultimately drives negative consequences. In some of the communities, and with some individuals and groups, we could feel and I acknowledged the deep sorrow, continuing sadness and ongoing grief amongst Aboriginals and islanders. While past injustices to Aboriginals still weigh heavily, the current generation of Australians are not responsible for this. We are, though, responsible for the poor state and federal governance. That is our responsibility as voters.

I turn to Indigenous voice. Only one community said that it was adequately consulted on the Indigenous voice to parliament. Others had not even heard of it. Those who had heard of it reported to us that either the consultation was shallow and brief or the proposal will divide communities. Councillors said, for example, ‘That voice will be for Aboriginals and not for islanders.’ That spurred the thought in them that if Aboriginals have a voice then islanders need a voice. They could see what was happening. At its heart, a special voice for a specific group only separates and alienates that group.

I want to talk about culture. The first step in assisting Aboriginals to lift communities is to understand the Aboriginal culture. I do not understand many aspects of Aboriginal and islander culture, yet I can see and know that I do not know and that I do not understand the culture. I can see that cultural aspects are crucial for lasting solutions and progress. This is fundamental. It is the arrogance and ignorance in this building that proclaims solutions without understanding culture. After listening closely to the people across the cape recently I was shocked by the patronising paternalism heard in the other chamber last week. Instead of politics denigrating other parties, or exaggerating and sometimes falsely representing an initiative of the speaker’s party, we need to focus on the data, core issues and solid plans, with unity between state and federal governments that puts people’s lives and livelihoods ahead of the party politics that is again infecting some of today’s speeches. We need a focus on Aboriginal and islander issues with the intent of freeing these people to be accountable and proud. That starts with real listening, real understanding and real involvement with authority. 

/by

The true cost of shoddy Governance

, , , , , ,

Governments have been making policy that is completely out of touch with reality or data for decades. It’s all based on political whims or looking good, not the facts or data. As a result, our country is broken.

We have to return to policy based on tested data, not Labor or Liberal’s feelings on the day.

Transcript

As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I will discuss the cost of shoddy science that is crippling people, families, communities and our nation. One Nation has repeatedly called for and continues to call for an independent office of scientific integrity and quality assurance to assess the science claimed to be underpinning government policy and decisions. We want objective, independent scientific scrutiny that is protected from politicisation. Science is a not a label; it is hard, verifiable, reliable data within a framework that proves cause and effect logically. It is every senator’s responsibility to ensure that she or he makes decisions using such data.

I’ll give you some examples of the cost of shoddy science that has not been scrutinised. Climate policies and renewable subsidies cost Australian households via electricity costs $13 billion per year, every year. That’s $1,300 per household per year needlessly wasted. The median income in this country is $49,000. After tax, that’s around $34,000 or maybe a little bit higher. How can someone on $34,000 after tax afford $1,300 flushed down the toilet, for nothing? The additional costs of climate policies on our power bills is a staggering 39 per cent, not the 6½ per cent that the government claims. Renewables distort the low cost of coal based power and more than double the wholesale electricity price from coal’s $45.50 per kilowatt hour to $92.50. China and India use our coal to sell electricity at 8c a kilowatt hour, while we burn the same coal without transporting it thousands of kilometres and the price of electricity from the coal is three times as much at 25c an hour.

All Australians have the right to benefit from our rich natural resources. The true cost of electricity in this country would be $13 billion per year less if cheap, affordable, reliable coal production was not lumbered with policies that distort the market. We commissioned independent expert and respected economist Dr Alan Moran to calculate those figures, and he used the government’s own data. So it can’t be sensibly refuted. The government stopped presenting it in consolidated form to hide what government policy is doing to everyday Australians in our nation.

Every subsidised green energy job or so-called renewable job, from renewable or unreliable power, such as wind and solar, costs 2.2 jobs lost in the real economy. Parasitic unreliables are killing their host, the people of Australia and the people of Queensland.

We can go further, beyond raw data on energy costs, to look at property rights. Property rights have been stolen in this country in the name of the Kyoto Protocol. John Howard’s Howard-Anderson government started it with Rob Borbidge’s National Party government in Queensland, followed quickly by Peter Beattie’s government and every government since, with the exception of Campbell Newman, who failed to repeal it. Property rights have been stolen with no compensation. That is fundamentally wrong. We see it in water policy, with corruption in the Murray-Darling Basin when it comes to water trading. We see the stealing of water rights, all based on shoddy science. The whole Murray-Darling Basin Plan is based on shoddy science—political science. Instead of having science based policy, we now have policy based science, and both sides of this parliament are responsible.

Senator Carr, who I have a lot of regard for in many ways, raised COVID. We have not been given the scientific data on COVID. We’ve been given models. The scientific data which I got from the Chief Medical Officer points to a completely different picture and to completely different management. COVID is being mismanaged in the name of science. It is wrong. By the way, the costs of all of those examples I’ve given are not in the billions but in the tens or hundreds of billions, and the impact on our country’s economy is in the trillions, with the lost opportunity and the lack of competitiveness.

COVID exposed to us that our country has lost its economic independence. We now depend on other countries for our survival—for basics. We’ve lost our manufacturing sector because of shoddy governance from the Labor, Liberal and National parties over almost eight decades, since 1944. In the last 18 months, we’ve seen the Liberals, Labor and the Nationals squabbling at state and federal level, because there is no science being used to drive the plan. There’s no plan for COVID management. Each state is lurching from manufactured crisis to manufactured crisis, and the federal government is bypassing the Constitution and conditioning them to suck on the federal tit. That’s what’s going on.

Let’s have a look at the science. I have held CSIRO accountable at three presentations from them, plus Senate estimates. Firstly, the CSIRO has admitted under my cross-examination that the CSIRO has never said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger—never. We asked them: ‘Who has said it? Politicians told us you said it.’ They said, ‘You’d have to ask the politicians.’ Secondly, CSIRO has admitted that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented. I’ll say that again—not unprecedented. They’ve happened before in recent times without our burning of hydrocarbon fuels.

Thirdly, the CSIRO then fell back on one thing—one paper, after almost 50 years of research, that said that the rate of warming is now increasing. That too was falsified by the author of that paper. It was falsified and contradicted by other references which the CSIRO had to then give us. There is no evidence for the CSIRO’s sole claim that the rate of temperature rise is unprecedented. Its own papers that it cites do not show that. The CSIRO then relied upon unvalidated computer models that were already proven to be giving erroneous projections. That’s what the UN IPCC relies on. They’ve already been proven wrong many times.

The clincher is that, to have policy based upon science, you would need to quantify the amount of impact on climate variables such as weather: rainfall; storm activity, severity and frequency; and drought. You’d need to be able to quantify the impact on that of carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has never quantified any specific impact on climate, or any climate variable, from human carbon dioxide.

With us, the CSIRO has repeatedly relied on discredited and poor-quality papers on temperature and carbon dioxide. It gave us one of each, and then, when we tore them to shreds, they gave us more. We tore them to shreds. It has never given us any good-quality scientific papers. That’s their science. The CSIRO revealed little understanding of the papers they cited as evidence. That’s our scientific body in this country—they could not show understanding of the papers that they cited.

The CSIRO admits it has never done due diligence on reports and data that it cites as evidence. It just accepts peer review. What a lot of rubbish that is! That has been shown in peer-reviewed articles to be rubbish. The CSIRO allows politicians to misrepresent it without correction. It doesn’t stand up—it doesn’t have any backbone. The CSIRO has misled parliament. Independent international scientists have verified our conclusions on the CSIRO science, and they’re stunned—people like John Christy, Nir Shaviv, Nils Morner, David Legates, Ian Plimer and Will Happer. There is no climate emergency—none at all. Everything is normal. It’s completely cyclical weather.

Now I’ll move to the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, which has turned into a propaganda outfit and a mouthpiece and cheer squad for global policies. Politics has captured it and turned it into a massive bureaucracy that writes legislation rather than checks it. POST, as it’s called, comprises people, as Senator Carr said, ‘consistent with parliamentary composition’. That tells us straight away that it’s not independent. Instead of a body to drive legislation we want a body to vet it. Senator Carr mentioned the Office of the Chief Scientist. I asked the Chief Scientist for a presentation on his evidence of climate change caused by human carbon dioxide. After 20 minutes of rubbish we asked him questions and he looked at us and said that he’s not a climate scientist and he doesn’t understand it. Yet we have policies around this country based upon Dr Finkel’s advice. Some of those policies that I mentioned are based on his advice.

We’ve had activists, such as Tim Flannery, David Karoly, Will Steffen, Ross Garnaut, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Matthew England, Kurt Lambeck, Andy Pitman and Lesley Hughes, being paraded and paid by the government—both Liberal and Labor—and yet they’re nothing more than academic activists. None have provided any empirical scientific evidence in a logical framework proving cause and effect. That’s what has been paraded around this parliament as science for decades now. It’s rubbish. That’s why One Nation opposes this motion. It is wasting committee resources to send them off on a goose chase to adopt something like the UK’s Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology.

We invite Senator Carr to join us in legislating for an independent body of scientists to scrutinise government policy and decisions. Let the government put up the science upon which its policies are based and let the independent body scrutinise it. That requires a few things. First of all, it needs a team funded and set up to oppose the government’s position, and we’ll let them both go at it. Science, fundamentally, is about data and debate. We need the government to put up its science and let a team tear it apart—and be funded to tear it apart. Once that happens, and the science is dismissed, that will save the country billions of dollars. If it withstands the scrutiny, that’s good—we’ll know we’ve got a really solid scientific case. Another way is to have a transparency portal. Put the science out there and let anybody in the public domain tear it apart. If someone finds a chink, fix it. True scientists are not about protecting their egos; they’re about being open to the advancement of humanity. They welcome their own science being torn apart.

We need an independent view. The type of information, as the motion discusses, is simple. All we need is empirical scientific evidence in a framework proving cause and effect. We then need independent scrutiny, and I’ve given you two examples. That will replace policies—as Senator Carr has discussed, and I agree with him—based on ideology, headline-seeking, prejudice, opinions, looking after vested interests and looking after donors. This is what’s driving this country, and the people are paying for it. They’re paying for it through the neck, and we’re destroying our country. We need the ‘claimed’ science to be scrutinised and verified or rejected.

What a shameful, disgraceful incident we saw in this parliament just after midday today. We saw Senator Wong, Senator Watt and Senator Waters engaging in a screaming match. Not once did anyone raise empirical scientific evidence. This is day 701 since I asked the chief proponent of this climate change nonsense in the parliament to be accountable for her data. I asked Senator Waters. I challenged her 701 days ago—almost two years ago. I challenged her 11 years ago. She has never agreed to debate me. She refuses to debate me. She refuses to put up the scientific evidence. She refuses to discuss the corruption of climate science. Yet she espouses policies that will gut this country. Also, we’ve seen Senator Wong quoting a report from the IPCC. That’s not a report from scientists; that’s a report from political activists. She talks about what we are told—insert the catastrophe—will happen in the future. That’s not science. What we need is an honest debate. We need an honest debate to reveal the pure science and to hold people accountable in the parliament. We will not be supporting this motion because it will encourage politicisation.

/3 Comments/by

Iverm*ctin – Why is it banned?

, ,

Transcript

Australians and people worldwide criticise politicians. After three years in parliament, I know why. Yet people allow politicians to rule their lives and allow governments to take control of their lives. Why? I invite people to ask basic questions and to then decide. Consider the drug ivermectin. It’s been given in 3.7 billion doses over 60 years—no adverse effects; safe. Ivermectin is off patent—affordable. In 2013 ivermectin was approved in Australia for treating diseases. In 2014 I took ivermectin after working in India. It cured me—no adverse effects. Australian doctors regularly prescribe ivermectin for illnesses.

Is it effective with COVID? In April 2020 in the Senate, I raised ivermectin’s promising in vitro trials at Monash University. Counties, states and regions in South America, Asia, Africa and Europe have had amazing success with ivermectin for treating, curing and preventing COVID. More than 40 peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published hailing ivermectin’s success in treating COVID. A study among Indian healthcare workers showed an 83 per cent reduction in COVID infections with just two tablets. Ivermectin, overseas, is recognised as a cure.

I’m told that Queensland doctors and dentists are stockpiling ivermectin for their families. An internationally respected Australian specialist recently saved 24 very sick patients in quarantine using ivermectin. All quickly recovered. Two others not treated died. Overseas, ivermectin is a prophylactic, stopping COVID transmission. Where vaccines are failing, ivermectin is succeeding. How many deaths would have been saved if the health minister had acted?

I have prescriptions for ivermectin from two doctors. Why can’t all Australians have that freedom to choose? Why isn’t Australia’s government adopting ivermectin? Why did the TGA threaten and try to silence me with a letter when I discussed ivermectin with constituents as their representative in parliament? I mentioned ivermectin in a YouTube video and was banned for a week. Member of parliament Craig Kelly made statements based on solid data. After speaking about ivermectin, Facebook banned him forever. Why are doctors scared of being struck off the doctors’ registry if they prescribe ivermectin to cure their patients?

Consider the vaccine maker Pfizer’s profits. It’s second quarter 2021 revenue was $19 billion, up 89 per cent. In three months, it made $4 billion profit. The European Medicines Agency discovered a definite link between Pfizer’s vaccine causing myocarditis. In September 2020, our TGA approved Pfizer’s Vyndamax drug to treat myocarditis. Our health department confirmed the AstraZeneca vaccine’s links with blood clots. Pfizer’s Eliquis drug treats blood clotting. Last quarter its sales were up 13 per cent. So are those blood clots rare? Really? In 2019 Pfizer’s Zavicefta drug was approved to ICU patients on ventilators. Is Pfizer making profits making people sick and more profit treating the sickness it caused?

Consider the ownership of vaccine makers. Alphabet owns YouTube and Google. Alphabet owns 12 per cent of Vaccitech, which created the AstraZeneca vaccine. YouTube bans videos mentioning ivermectin as a COVID treatment. Aren’t these conflicts of interest? If ivermectin was approved for COVID, what would happen to big pharma’s hundreds of billions of dollars in profits? These profits are a transfer of wealth from taxpayers to big pharma.

Before becoming health minister, Greg Hunt was the environment minister, where he joined Malcolm Turnbull steering a law through parliament as a basis for a global carbon dioxide tax. In 2000 and 2001, he spent two years at the World Economic Forum in Davos developing strategy. A simple question: did he work on the forum’s great reset? I have already spoken on the government’s lack of a proper COVID management plan. Why has Minister Hunt falsely claimed that the government’s COVID policy is based on science when he is contradicting science? Finally, who owns the legacy media suppressing news of ivermectin’s success? In summary, ivermectin would complement vaccines, give people informed choice, save many lives, end lockdowns—and, in doing so, save more lives—save money, restore our economy to secure future health and end any need for vaccine passports or vaccine prisons. Basic freedoms, jobs and livelihoods could be restored. Why is the government not using ivermectin as a proven, safe, affordable life saver? Feel welcome to share your answers with my office or Facebook page. Finally, I add, I have no financial interest in any drug or medical suppliers or companies.

/51 Comments/by

UN wants to ban more than one bite of meat a day

, ,

The United Nations is demonising our farmers and trying to send our society back to the stone age by taking 2.4 billion kilos of protein off of the market. Despite the UN wanting to destroy one of Australia’s largest industries supporting life as we know it, the Morrison government still gives them $64 million of our money.

Transcript

The United Nations food systems presummit last week in Rome recommended a dietary limit of 14 grams of red meat per person per day. That’s one bite. As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I’m appalled, and I’ll explain how this is an attack on our farmers and on every Australian.

The presummit recommended the introduction of a worldwide environmental tax on meat of $1.60 per kilo for cattle grazing on pasture, yet not for cattle raised in intensive feedlots. That distinction reflects the influence of large multinational feedlot operators and the lack of influence that family farms have in the UN’s eyes. As my colleague Bob Katter rightly pointed out, this UN measure will take 2.4 billion kilos of protein off the market, starving 80 million people of protein. Yes, go the UN!

The third recommendation of the food systems presummit is to move food production within reach of population centres and produce whatever protein and nutrition is possible in that region. It’s called short chain food supply. We did it 200 years ago. People starved. Nutrition was poor. Life expectancy was less than half what we enjoy today. Then along came long chain food supply, allowing countries like Australia to grow crops to feed and clothe those in need. World hunger fell to less than 10 per cent. The only reason there are still areas of poverty and hunger in 2021 is because of war and civil unrest—you know, the things that the United Nations were supposed to solve. World peace has eluded the UN, yet cows have not. The United Nations is proposing to eliminate global food chains that have brought good food to the world for hundreds of years.

I recently spoke about the false water shortage brought to you thanks to the UN’s directive to not build new dams. This is the start of a false food shortage. The motivation is to eliminate broadacre agriculture, eliminate food exports and return all that land to nature.

Rural voters will be annoyed to hear that the Morrison government bankrolled this attack on our farming community with a $64 million donation. The Liberal-National government is funding our own demise—the betrayal and demise of our farmers, of our country. Australian farms employ 326,000 people directly. They contribute $75 billion to the economy and $60 billion to our exports. Without the bush, we’d be stuffed, broke and hungry. These three United Nations proposals will destroy rural Australia, wipe out family farms, crash real estate prices and further hollow out country towns for no benefit to us.

There’s no better source of protein than red meat, yet our supermarkets stock protein and fake food products made from crickets. Why? It’s because billionaires can’t make enough profit out of cattle. It’s a variable industry, with good times and bad. Billionaires can, though, make money on intensive cultivation of bugs for protein. This breaks the reliance on nature’s weather and allows scheduled production of a food-like substance with great profit margins and low fulfilment costs. This satisfies the UN dictate for short chain supply. The United Nations food and agriculture organisation is literally directing the replacement of red meat with bug protein. Sceptics can even attend one of the regular UN bug tastings, where journalists are encouraged to extoll the virtues of bug cuisine.

The CSIRO has fallen in line behind the UN, publishing a 64-page love letter on the delights of eating bugs entitled Edible insects: a roadmap for the strategic growth of an emerging Australian industry. Looking through the glossy pages, we see that the CSIRO advocates our future should include insect milkshakes, bug ice-cream and granola bars made from dried cockroaches.

I’m not making any of this up. It’s real. This is happening, and we taxpayers are paying for it thanks to the Morrison-Joyce government.

For those who think they’re eating an environmentally friendly product, think again A fake hamburger patty using plant or bug protein contains 20 chemicals found in pet food. That’s all the UN and their quislings in our federal government think the public deserve: pet food. How does it make sense to grow good food and, instead of eating that food, feed it to crickets and then eat the crickets?

Fellow Australians, there is no protein shortage. There will be, though, if the UN succeeds in wiping out red meat production so that they can hand the protein industry over to their big business, corporate partners. One Nation rejects this attack on our farming community. We reject state and federal parliaments around our country continuing to demonise and isolate farmers. We will continue to oppose the UN dictating to federal and state governments. One Nation will continue to oppose ideology over humanity. We will continue to stand up for a fair society based on a citizen’s right to exercise free choice about diet, health and business. We have one flag. We are one community. We are one sovereign nation. It’s time to withdraw from the United Nations.

/5 Comments/by

The dream of an Australian family house is dying

, ,

One Nation rejects the dystopian future where all of the peasants live on top of each other in cramped city fringes. This shepherding together is designed to feed massive new urban rail networks to bring workers, or more accurately, feudal serfs, into Central Business Districts.

Transcript

There is no “family home on a block of land” in the future according to the Greens, Labor, the Liberal Party and their sell-out sidekicks the Nationals.

Not even a 5, 4 or 300 square metre block on which to raise a family.

The next generation will lose access to land, entirely.

Town planning now is based on everyday Australians being herded into intensive housing “bands”, located away from the elitist, inner-city bubble.

This shepherding together is designed to feed massive new urban rail networks to bring workers, or more accurately, feudal serfs, into Central Business Districts.

Once workers – or serfs – catch the train home, inner-cities become ghost towns filled with expensive restaurants and rats.

Cars are being phased out. Right now.

New housing precincts do not have roads wide enough for two cars to pass. They are being designed for a world where workers do not own cars.

Proposed building codes include 5 stories with no lift, lower ceilings, thinner walls, narrower corridors. Towers built to the 4 corners of the block, and, zero green space.

Although land is an asset that lasts forever, a cheap and nasty home unit lasts as long as the building does and then owners have nothing.

The Greens, Labor and the Liberal-Nationals say this is all that working Australians deserve!

The Morrison Government is pumping up housing prices to force young families into tiny housing.

How do parents raise healthy, happy children in a tiny unit tower that’s home to 20 other families, on a block of land that used to house one family?

One Nation rejects this dystopian future. This future society of human misery, squalor, oppression, disease, and overcrowding.

One Nation policies will ensure sensible population growth, building of water & energy capacity, and revival of manufacturing for a life worth living for all Australians.

We will not be divided.

We have one flag. We are One Community. We are One Nation.

/by