The UNSW Allens Hub for Technology, Law and Innovation (‘UNSW Allens Hub’) is an independent community of scholars based at UNSW Sydney.
During the inquiry into the government’s Digital Identity Bill, I asked representatives from the UNSW Allens Hub about their submission, which included data from India where digital identity was originally supposed to be voluntary but has become mandatory, and has resulted in restrictions on citizens despite government guarantees at the outset.
Their position is that legislative frameworks and protections should exist to prevent overreach from both government and non governmental authorities. Safeguards should be put in place to protect citizens who are being provided with essential services via digital identity to combat the power creep that we saw with the Director’s ID.
What is becoming clear, and the cautionary tale from India bears this out, both governments and private companies are embracing, with equal enthusiasm, the application of digital identity for all as the most convenient system for their purposes. Yet, what does this mean for Australians’ privacy and data given the cyber-security failures we have already seen from government and the private sector?
Human Technology Institute
At the Digital Identity inquiry I spoke with representatives of the Human Technology Institute, an industry body that promotes human rights in the development, use, regulation and oversight of new technology. Their comments make it clear that there needs to be strengthened legislation to improve privacy and other human rights protections with regards to the government’s Digital ID.
The government’s Digital ID Bill is part of the triad of tyranny, which is currently being whisked with indecent speed through what should have been a more careful scrutinising and debating process.
Surely privacy and human rights were not going to be left out of the new “trusted” digital identity that the Albanese government is keen for us all to embrace?
Australian Banking Association
At the Digital Identity Inquiry in Canberra, I questioned the Australian Banking Association about how Australians who don’t want a digital ID would lead a normal life without one.
I also asked how internet outages would impact on people’s lives when they rely on a digital identity to access their money.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ROeiGNhrEwk/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-13 13:45:482024-04-02 15:06:34Public Hearing | 9 Feb 2024: Digital ID Bill 2023
As a servant to the many varied people who make up our one Queensland community, tonight I address continuing misinformation around the World Health Organization pandemic agreement and associated changes to the WHO rulebook—the International Health Regulations. This information is current as at 28 November 2023—today.
As the chamber is aware, the World Health Organization has proposed a treaty that would make the WHO the world’s health police. The original proposal gave the WHO power to tell Australia how to handle the next pandemic, including the power to mandate forced vaccinations, lockdowns, business closures and even forced medical procedures. As hard as it is to believe, Australia actively promoted these measures at the inception.
The WHO secretary-general is Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus, a former terrorist who led the Tigray liberation front. While the health minister of Ethiopia, Ghebreyesus held back medical aid from areas of the country that did not support the Tigray liberation front, causing a serious cholera epidemic that killed thousands of people. He’s got blood on his hands, this bastard. Under his leadership the WHO were found to have looked the other way while 83 of his staff committed crimes against women in the Congo, including rape, assault and forced abortion. The investigators, who worked for the WHO, declared that, because these people were not punished, the WHO was, in their words, ‘rotten with rapists’.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Grogan): Just one moment. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy: I draw you attention to the language used by Senator Roberts.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, if you could please moderate your language, that would be much appreciated.
Senator ROBERTS: Certainly. I can report that a small number of these workers have been fired in the last few months, a small concession that confirms the accuracy of the allegations. This is the man Australia supports as director-general of an organisation that Australia considers worthy to rule over our health response to the next virus. It’s because people like Ghebreyesus can hold such powerful positions that One Nation has been calling for Australia to exit the United Nations, ‘Ausexit’.
Corporate donors own WHO, including vaccine salesman Bill Gates. The World Health Organization declares pandemics and then recommends mass vaccination, and the vaccines it recommends are the vaccines from WHO’s donors. WHO is not running a health organisation; it is running a racketeering team. They should never be trusted to declare a pandemic and certainly never be trusted to recommend vaccines or dictate Australia’s medical, social or political policy.
Next, I will talk about the deadline for signing off on changes to the WHO rulebook, the International Health Regulations. Social media is saying this week is the deadline for opting out. This is false. The proposed changes to the International Health Regulations will be voted on at the same time as the pandemic agreement, in May of 2024. That time line has been the same all year. The November deadline many people contact my office about is for an entirely unrelated matter.
Small changes made to the International Health Regulations in May of 2022 come into effect this week. Australia considered and ratified those changes in August after consideration through the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, JSCOT. Its report was approved in votes in both houses of parliament. This is the only way a new treaty or international health regulation change can be brought into law. This means Australia has not ratified the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations, and we have not ratified the pandemic treaty.
On a similar matter, the original pandemic treaty included a provision to come into effect the moment Australia signs the document in Geneva. That provision was contrary to international law and has now been replaced with an explicit statement. The treaty will not apply until Australia ratifies according to our law. We have until March 2025 for both houses of parliament to vote on the changes.
It’s true that One Nation has no confidence that this parliament will stand up to the WHO and refuse to sign a bad treaty. Previous governments and parliaments have rushed to embrace globalist control, and this parliament seems worst that most. So it’s essential that the treaty be defeated at the source: Geneva. That campaign has been raging all year and has caused the World Health Organization to blink and water down the treaty enormously. Well done to everyone who has taken a fight to the WHO. The battle is far from over, so please maintain the rage.
The latest discussion draft, released on 16 October this year, is a major reduction in scope and application. Even the name has been busted down to an ‘agreement’, and I thank everyone who’s put pressure on the World Health Organization. I ask social media to use the latest version, titled WHO Pandemic Agreement 16 October 2023. This new document is only 28 pages, and all the provisions that have caused international outrage have been removed. Powers of compulsion are gone, and in their place are frequent confirmations of national sovereignty. The statement of human rights is back in. The bribes for African nations that would have cost Australia billions of dollars for our share have been removed. Mentioned in this document is the UN’s nefarious One Health, which has been spreading through Western nations like a cancer without enabling legislation for years. One Health is a religion amongst globalist health bureaucrats and university academics, who think so little of Australia and so little of themselves they feel the need to hide behind big daddy Ghebreyesus. These pathetic human beings will be the subject of a speech very shortly. Those following along at home can open a browser and search for ‘One Health in Australia’ to see what I mean and check it for themselves. I’ll be clear: I’m not calling this document a win since the WHO are a criminal organisation working for predatory parasitic billionaires who I would not trust to treat a headache. We must maintain the rage all the way through to May next year to ensure these unscrupulous bureaucrats do not think they will get away with sneaking compulsion back in.
Another piece of misinformation I’ve seen everywhere lately is the claim 193 members of the United Nations have approved the pandemic treaty. This is false. What happened is the WHO, unable to get the numbers amongst their members to pass the treaty, asked the United Nations to help. The United Nations then convened a conference of parties to discuss a pandemic treaty and, after two days, failed to reach an agreement. After the meeting was concluded and delegates had gone home, the conference chair released a political statement that claimed the UN had approved a pandemic treaty. Immediately, 13 nations publicly declared this was false and no agreement was reached. This was a deceitful communique, a lie from a desperate United Nations repeated in a video from a desperate Ghebreyesus.
My staff have rightly spent a huge amount of time dealing with public concern on this topic. At every step, my team has been correct, and I thank them for their hard work. I celebrate with everyone pushing back successfully to expose the World Health Organization and to awaken people globally. As the first Australian member of parliament to raise this United Nations-World Health Organization threat back in April 2022, I hope this matter can progress with more clarity and less misinformation.
As a servant to the many and varied people who make up our one Queensland community, I would like to update my constituents on the committee inquiry One Nation secured looking into terms of reference for a royal commission into SARS COVID-19. The committee has set 12 January 2024 as the deadline for submissions. If any member of the public, medical profession, commercial entity or interested party wishes to, they can make a submission. It can be confidential if you want. I’ll post a link on my social media and on my website, and I urge whistleblowers, senior medical practitioners and academics to have their say. I’ve received many suggestions for terms of reference and, firstly, can I say: please tell the committee. That’s the process.
Let me talk about the terms of reference. Firstly, the origin of COVID. An article in today’s Australian by Sharri Markson sets out proof—and I do mean proof—that COVID was engineered as a result of gain-of-function research funded through America’s National Institutes of Health and its former director Anthony Fauci. The research was conducted in China because it was out of reach of America’s regulations, and it was cheaper. Gain-of-function research is supposedly so that health authorities can create new viruses and then an antidote or a vaccine so that if nature supposedly produces that virus, there will be a vaccine ready to go.
Secondly, vaccine indemnity. I spoke this week about a little-known fact: Australia has provided 16 vaccine indemnities in recent years. Now, an indemnity doesn’t prevent a person who has been harmed from suing, it just means any damages are paid with taxpayer money and not big pharma money. Pharmaceutical companies keep the profits and taxpayers pay for the damages. Even more troubling, the Albanese Labor government has provided Moderna with a blanket immunity for every vaccine they make in the new Australian factory. There are 400 mRNA vaccines under development. Not all will be made in this plant, yet many will be. The Morrison and Albanese governments are normalising vaccine indemnity. I want to know why. The terms of our contract with Pfizer must be examined, as we were still signing hidden purchase contracts as recently as last month.
Surely this pattern of adverse events and deaths tracking injections upward and downward proves causation of vaccine deaths by their tens of thousands. The science is now overwhelming. This can’t be ignored and must be investigated.
<Transcript ENDS>
This update published and up to date as of 29 November 2023
I have been calling for Australia to withdraw from the United Nations and the WHO for many years (#AusExit), including during my Maiden Speech in 2016. I would hope that the need for an #AusEXIT would unite conservatives and freedom loving Australians. My approach to this issue has always been to read every document and ensure I have my facts correct.
Today’s update is no different. One Nation has an obligation to the truth and will continue to use facts and data to inform our opinions. There has been some information circulating recently which might be confusing people, so here is a clarification. After that I will give you some wonderful news about how the campaign against the WHO is progressing.
1. There are two documents being considered
There are two documents: The Proposed Pandemic Treaty, now called an Agreement; The changes to the International Health Regulations (IHR)I said in May that it is likely the Agreement will be the overarching document, and the IHR will be changed to reflect the provisions in the Agreement, which in bureaucrat speak is called “harmonising”. I still think this will happen. Until a final version of the IHR changes is released we won’t know, so continuing the campaign against the IHR changes is important.
2. 2022 changes to the IHR Regulations
IHR Regulations were changed at the May 2022 meeting of the World Health Assembly (WHA). These made minor changes to existing amendments, including reducing the time member states have in order to accept or reject changes from 18 months to 10 months. These changes were reviewed in a meeting of the Australian Joint Standing Committee of Treaties (JSCOT) and approved back in August. Continuing to talk about the deadline is moot, the changes have been ratified.JSCOT found that the changes were so minor that they did not need Parliamentary approval and advised Parliament accordingly.
Both Houses of Parliament are required to approve a report, meaning the Senate can block the adoption of a measure (through blocking the report). The Parliament however agreed these changes were so minor that separate ratification was not required. This may be why some people are suggesting the IHR and Agreement do not require Parliamentary assent.
However, any change to an existing agreement, accord, treaty, convention or protocol must be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Both WHO documents MUST go firstly to JSCOT to advise on approval or rejection, then that recommendation must be passed by both houses of Parliament. A new treaty requires a bill dedicated to the treaty (or accord, convention etc)
3. Will Australia ratify these documents?
The fact that the most nefarious of all documents, the ‘zero draft’ of the Pandemic Treaty was championed by Australia would suggest that the globalists in the ALP, LNP, Greens and Teals have every intention of passing it. These parties have a long history of signing away Australian sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucracy. One Nation will oppose this and any treaty that steals Australian sovereignty.
4. What’s new in the latest version of the Agreement?
The debate in the last 5 months has been around the June version of the (formerly) Accord, called CA+. This is no longer the current version. The new version is called the negotiating text and is dated 16th October 2023. Despite the date this has only just been released.
The full name is the ”Negotiating Text of the WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, (WHO Pandemic Agreement), 16th October 2023.”
[Now for the very good news] This document is very good news
As a result of the heat the WHO has been subjected to by elected members of Parliament and from the public, academics, journalists and activists the WHO have re-written the original Pandemic Treaty to remove any suggestion of compulsion.
Congratulations to everyone who has put time and money into this campaign, however we can’t let up. Firstly, the WHO can’t be trusted, and secondly there is still one theme in this document that must be resisted.
Here is a summary of the contents of the Negotiating Text:
The overarching human rights statement which was removed in the zero draft and returned to the CA+ is also in this draft as the very first policy statement: “Respect for human rights – The implementation of this Agreement shall be with full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons.”
I am pleased to see the human rights statement that the WHO has always defended has been returned to this document. The wording is a complete change as well, any use of a word that suggests compulsion has been modified with a statement that member States’ sovereignty sits above WHO requests. For example, these passages around key concepts:
Sovereignty – “States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the general principles of international law, the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies.”
Responsibility – “Governments have a responsibility for the health of their peoples, and effective pandemic prevention, preparedness and response requires global collective action.”
Privacy, data protection and confidentiality – “Implementation of this Agreement shall respect the right to privacy, including as such right is established under international law, and shall be consistent with each Party’s national law and international obligations regarding confidentiality, privacy and data protection, as applicable.”
Preparedness: “Each Party shall, in accordance with its national laws and in light of national context, develop and implement comprehensive, inclusive, multisectoral, resourced national plans and strategies for pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and health systems recovery.”
Research – “The Parties shall, in accordance with national laws and regulatory frameworks and contexts, take steps to develop and sustain, strong, resilient, and appropriately resourced, national, regional and international research capabilities.”
Acceptance: “The WHO Pandemic Agreement shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States … before coming into effect for a member state”
All of the wording that suggested the WHO could tell Australia what to do has been removed or modified to establish WHO directives are subject to Australian law. In short, we decide health policy in Australia, not the WHO. Of course, if those can be agreed as part of western nations working together in a positive way then that’s fine. We don’t need the WHO for that.
It also confirms that the Agreement must be approved by Australian Parliament before joining.
Further background: It was obvious from the progression between the Zero Draft and the CA+ draft that the WHO were in the weeds over assuming a directive role. Their own Review Committee recommended against having these powers, which I have spoken about several times. This is still a current document and explains why the Treaty met the same fate the IHR Amendment changes are currently meeting.
Combined with responses to this topic at Senate Estimates hearings it was clear that the Pandemic Treaty, as originally represented, had no chance of passage. My Office has been right about this the entire time.
6. One Health is still in this document
While abandoning plans to compel is a very welcome development, the United Nations One Health framework is still in this agreement. One Health was first added in the CA+ document. One Health now spreads right through Australian health care — just open a browser and put in “One Health + Australia” to see what we’re up against.
This is a strong reason to oppose the treaty and it should become a distinct talking point – One Health is global health control. This needs to be opposed.
For clarity the Agreement does not establish the powers to compel One Health. However, it is one large step towards doing this, in that it co-ordinates and normalises something which to date has been taking over health policy without any legislative approval.
I will continue to monitor developments in the WHO documents and continue to campaign for Australia to withdraw from the UN, including the WHO.
I’ve got many developments to give you on the World Health Organisation’s proposed Pandemic Treaty (now “Accord”) and International Health Regulations.
The draft has changed, now we must focus the fight on the final version of the Accord.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/fbBn-y25Nv0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-07-26 10:01:402023-07-26 10:01:45NEW Update on WHO Pandemic Treaty
In a rare win, the World Health Organisation has backed down on proposed International Health Regulation amendments for compulsory vaccination and lockdowns. It is a win yet the pandemic treaty, that would do the same thing again, is still waiting in the wings.
Transcript
This week represents a rare victory for Australian sovereignty.
A victory for common sense, decency and humanity.
And a victory against the sprawling monster of unelected, unaccountable foreign bureaucrats at the World Health Organisation.
You will recall the WHO proposed to change their health regulations that guide member states in the event of a disease outbreak, like COVID, from guiding member states to being mandatory on member states, including Australia.
This would have represented a complete destruction of Australian sovereignty, and a fundamental re-imagining of the powers of the World Health Organisation.
Last December the Liberal/National Morrison Government voted in favour of these changes, yet many sensible countries voted against, and the proposal was lost.
Undaunted the World Health Organisation tried again this year.
After months of heavy criticism, One Nation and those opposing these measures have had a big win.
The Final Report from the International Health Regulations Review Committee released this week has dropped the proposed changes.
The World Health Organisation will remain an advisory body.
Dystopian demands, such as allowing the World Health Organisation to make binding health orders overriding state and federal control, have been thrown out.
This includes the proposed powers that would have allowed the WHO to control:
systems for proof-of-vaccination or vaccination status,
quarantine procedures,
citizen travel & mobility,
forced vaccination,
lockouts,
lockdowns,
mandatory detention and,
other unacceptable infringements on people.
Gone is the universal ‘health passport’ – or vaccine passport – that was going to control the ability of citizens to travel between countries in a permanent capacity.
It was decided that this would raise ‘ethical’ and ‘discriminatory’ concerns. A global digital vaccine passport will no longer be developed under the committee’s powers.
For now.
The committee will remain confined to actual public health emergencies rather than ‘potential health risks’ – removing the widely held fear that their scope could be extended to ‘climate lockdowns’ and other human rights abuses.
Which would have been possible because WHO had proposed to remove human rights from the regulations.
After a backlash the committee now strongly recommends the retention of the existing text, which is quote “full respect for the dignity, human rights, and fundamental freedoms of persons as an overarching principle”.
This is a critical back down.
The WHO committee working on these changes has just recommitted to its fundamental human rights pledge in defiance of the proposed amendments.
The findings of the committee agreed with the concerns that One Nation raised regarding threat to sovereignty.
In their final report, the committee said that it was, quote: “concerned that the proposals may unduly impinge on the sovereignty of state parties” and make recommendations “binding” instead of voluntary.
In the end, the committee validated the fears raised on the international stage and within the free press.
Fears I raised and for which I was called a conspiracy theorist.
I was correct.
Their decision to throw out this attempt to grab power from sovereign governments is a crucial first step in stopping unelected global bureaucracies from overstepping their purpose.
Pauline Hanson first raised the UN’s treasonous work in parliament in 1996. In my first senate speech in 2016 I called for Australia to exit the UN – AusEXIT.
We’ve been so strongly outspoken against ceding Australian sovereignty to the unhinged UN-WEF alliance that the WEF recently specifically called us out.
We’re getting under their skin.
This fight is not over.
All of the terrifying proposed powers that have been summarily rejected this week, are duplicated in the proposed WHO Pandemic Treaty.
The Pandemic Treaty is a second attempt to turn WHO into the world health police.
The Pandemic Treaty is alive and well, sitting in the system waiting for our “leaders” to signed.
If the Pandemic Treaty were to be approved, it would enforce all of the binding health powers that others in WHO have just rejected. What a mess.
The World Health Organisation is too big, too bureaucratic, too removed from the people it is supposed to help, corrupt, incompetent, dishonest and above all else, too close to the Pharmaceutical industry.
The next step to protect Australia’s health sovereignty is to make sure that the Pandemic Treaty is rejected and that the Prime Minister does not sign it.
For concerned Australians who have written to their members of parliament and who received a stock reply saying the treaty has to go through Parliament first – that is actually not true.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty includes a provision that it becomes binding on Australia the moment our WHO representative signs it.
Albo is proving he’d rather clink champagne glasses with the elites over actually talking to Indigenous people about the violence they are facing in Alice Springs. It’s just more proof that the Voice to Parliament is just about looking good, not doing anything.
Transcript
Last Saturday Prime Minister Albanese met with billionaire Bill Gates at Kirribilli House to talk about opportunities for Bill Gates’ vaccine lobbying, software, agriculture and energy interests in Australia.
The meeting came as Bill Gates spent US$10bn buying new stock in Microsoft. Perhaps they talked about the use of Microsoft products to run Australian Parliament House secure email and data storage systems.
They did talk about the Albanese Government’s decision to give $230m to the Gates-founded Global Health, bringing Australia’s total contribution to just under a billion dollars.
This is not the first time the Prime Minister has found time to meet with billionaires.
Only two weeks ago Anthony Albanese met for six hours with billionaire Lindsay Fox in his upmarket Portsea mansion, arriving from Geelong in Lindsay Fox’s own helicopter.
What deals were done there one can only wonder.
Anthony Albanese it seems has all the time in the world to meet with billionaires, yet only caves to meeting the residents of Alice Springs after days of relentless national media coverage.
It was the Albanese Government that lifted the ban on alcohol in Aboriginal Communities, now just months later we are seeing why that ban was needed in the first place.
The Government was warned this would happen at the time, and only a month after the ban was lifted the Daily Mail reported on the rising violence in Aboriginal Communities.
These kids are on the streets instead of at home for a reason.
Anthony Albanese has tried to run away from a problem he caused.
Prime Minister get your arse to Alice Springs and take Linda Burney with you, it’s about time she met with real Aboriginals. How about you actually do something instead of virtue signalling about the voice to Parliament.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/-8YOevzoILg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2023-01-24 16:52:492023-01-24 16:52:56Albanese would rather go to Bill Gates than Alice Springs
The World Health Organisation’s pandemic treaty and International Health Regulation amendments are a threat to Australia’s sovereignty. Similar amendments were defeated before but we must defeat them again.
Transcript
There’s plenty of discussion about the World Health Organisation’s proposed Pandemic Treaty and changes to International Health Regulations.
In short, the proposal is a dystopian nightmare.
The World Health Organisation, the W-H-O, is demanding the power to dictate Australian State and Federal health policy, including ordering compulsory vaccination, lockdowns, closures of borders and businesses and, worst of all, detention of anyone not complying with the latest vaccine mandates and forced medical procedures.
Under its arbitrary rules, W-H-O can order a company to stop making drugs – the catastrophic and murderous Ivermectin ban is one example of how this will be used.
Under these changes Australian Health Authorities would report to the W-H-O, not the Australian Parliament, ceding our national sovereignty to the W-H-O.
Killing accountability.
Australia will have to comply with every W-H-O dictate or face crippling export and money market sanctions.
The amendments even remove W-H-O’s overarching principle of “protecting the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of persons” and replace it with a meaningless equity statement. This reflects the intended use of these amendments to act contrary to human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
This power grab is being fine-tuned now in meetings behind closed doors and will be voted on at the World Health Assembly in May 2024.
If passed, both houses of the Australian Parliament will still need to ratify the changes. Yet given the nature of the globalist puppets in power in Canberra’s political parties this outcome would likely be a foregone conclusion.
Included in the current proposal are tens of billions of dollars to pay for pandemic preparedness in Africa, as well as giving W-H-O the ability to force medical companies to make drugs and devices and give them to African nations in a clear bribe to overcome Africa’s reluctance to cede their authority to W-H-O.
The Africans stopped the previous vote so now the UN is trying to buy African votes.
This is communist policy and everyday Australians will have to pay for it.
One Nation calls on the Albanese Government to not sign away Australian sovereignty to unelected, unrepresentative foreign bureaucrats responsible for millions of deaths globally.
My staff and I led opposition in the senate to the CashBan bill that Liberal-Nationals and Labor had pushed through the House of Representatives. Uniting with grass roots members of the Labor and Liberal parties we created so much political pressure that both these globalist parties were forced to drop the CashBan bill.
Together we can defeat the criminal W-H-O.
Reject the World Health Organisation’s grab for dictator powers. And while we’re at it withdraw from the WHO and the UN entirely. Aus EXIT.
Meat and Livestock Australia is meant to fight for cattle producers in Australia, making sure there’s plenty of cheap red meat available for Australians and the world. Instead, they are “aligning” themselves with the “sustainable development” goals of the United Nations. This is the same United Nations whose goals will result in less cattle, less meat and more bugs being eaten. You have to ask why the industry body for livestock isn’t standing against organisations that want to see livestock reduced.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for attending today. Can I start by confirming, Mr Strong, that the sustainability update 2021, this document, is designed to provide an update on the progress of the carbon neutral by 2030 road map?
Mr Stron g : Yes, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. That was quick. I note the new document reproduces the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. So we’re all the way with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. Is Meat & Livestock Australia endorsing the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals relevant to the meat and livestock association, which I believe is eight of the goals? Is that correct?
Mr Strong : No, it’s not our position to endorse those goals. We’re just referencing them in the program so if people are aware of those broader commitments that have been made by the UN, for example, they can see where the activities in CN30 line up with that.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got here, in prime position on page 5, ‘Sustainability—Australian red meat and livestock industry alignment with global goals’.
Mr Strong : It’s a reference. The goal is to be CN30 as an industry. The important part of that document is what’s on the very front page; the statement that says something like, ‘The drivers’—you might even want to read it out.
Mr Strong : The efforts we have in this place and the focus we have in this space are very much driven by the profitability and production of our producers and industry.
Senator ROBERTS: Which of the UN sustainability goals does red meat fit into?
Mr Strong : I don’t have that in front of me. As I mentioned, it’s just a reference. The more important piece are the things that we’re investing in is a research and development corporation to support our producers and the industry to be more sustainable while they can still productive and profitable. That’s the focus.
Senator ROBERTS: You said while they can still be profitable? Sustainability, surely, if it’s genuine sustainability, they would be supported by that. It wouldn’t be opposite. It’s not productivity versus sustainability. If there’s genuine sustainability, that would help profitability. Your language betrays the UN. The UN sustainability goals are not possible without subsidies. So the UN really is about profit or sustainability. Now, what is it?
Mr Beckett : We think it’s both.
Mr Strong : I don’t have a position on the UN’s role. But our view is that you can actually be profitable, productive and sustainable.
Senator ROBERTS: There are eight sustainable development goals, which are not yours, that the MLA have targeted in this document and to which each RDC contributes. They are: zero hunger; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; responsible consumption and production; climate action; life on the land; and peace, justice and strong institutions. Have you got KPIs for each of those eight?
Mr Strong : As I mentioned at the start, that’s a reference to those goals. They’re not goals that we would set.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get on to the nuts and bolts then. What’s the average weekly adult consumption of red meat and red meat products in Australia?
Mr Strong : It depends how it’s measured. Red meat and red meat products, did you say?
Mr Strong : Across all species, I’m not exactly sure. The total protein consumption is nearly 90 kilos, and red meat’s the largest contributor to that. The beef consumption that comes out of the ABS figures—which is as sold—is just over 19 kilos, which is the actual consumed product.
Senator ROBERTS: The United Nations is pushing for a 30 per cent reduction in methane production by 2030. How will that affect Australian red meat production?
Mr Strong : I’m not sure the two things are as closely connected as where you’re heading. The commitments that the red meat sector have, particularly the CN30 commitment, which was made in 2017, are about a path to being carbon neutral, as far as a total contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory is concerned, and about doing that in a way whereby the industry increases its production and profitability at the same time.
Senator ROBERTS: We need to get down to nuts and bolts, because it’s systems that drive behaviour, including farmers’ behaviour. The 2021 update says:
The red meat sector has reduced CO2 emissions by 53.22% since 2005 baseline.
What does that mean?
Mr Strong : The current number is actually 59 per cent, and that’s a number which has been calculated by the CSIRO using the national greenhouse gas emissions—
Mr Strong : In 2005, the contribution that the red meat sector made to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory was just over 20 per cent, and it’s now just over 10 per cent. That’s what it means.
Senator ROBERTS: There are only eight years left. Where are we now, and what measures will be needed to get to 100 per cent?
Mr Strong : Where we are now is that, as you mentioned, there are eight years left on that goal that the industry set in 2017, so we’ve more than halved the contribution to the national greenhouse gas emissions inventory, and we’ve got, as you mentioned, the roadmap that lays out the things that we’ll invest in and develop over the next eight years to take us the rest of that journey.
Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand a bit more. Genetics, feed management, feedlot, and fattening as opposed to grass finishing—that all helps. Right?
Mr Strong : Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: But they’re already doing these things close to saturation, as I understand it. So what else have you got?
Mr Strong : They’re not close to saturation. There’s a long list of things. To date, we’ve invested between $140 million and $150 million in research and development, and there’s a runway roadmap for about the same level of investment over the next few years to head us towards that goal.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it the case that what you’ve really got to do in order to reach a 100 per cent reduction on 2005 levels by 2030 is cut production?
Mr Strong : No, not at all—absolutely not.
Senator ROBERTS: As I see it, this could be another major industry being derailed.
Mr Strong : No, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The UN has put goals out with regard to food, and they’re basically wanting to cut food; they’ve stated that. The UN has put out goals regarding different energy, by which they really mean no energy. The UN has put out different cars, electric vehicles, they really mean no cars for the masses. This is what they’ve said: the UN calls for initially 500g per week of red meat, which is 70g per day. They failed to get an endorsement for much, much lower. That’s what the UN’s stated.
Mr Strong : I’m managing director of Meat and Livestock Australia. We’re a service organisation for the Australian red meat sector.
Mr Strong : We’re committed to the productivity and profitability of the red meat sector, intergenerational sustainability of the sector and leaving the environment in better shape. We are not aligned to the UN goals; we’re not driven by UN goals. We understand individuals concerned with those things; they are not the things driving our decisions or investments, which we make on behalf of the industry and with the industry. Our absolute focus is on the profitability, productivity and intergenerational sustainability of our sector.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question: I understand some of these documents have gone from being fairly prominent on MLA’s website to being obscure.
Mr Strong : No, not at all. I’m more than happy to provide hard copies, soft copies—
Senator ROBERTS: A way to increase profitability for a few is to cut the number and dramatically increase meat prices.
Mr Strong : No. I’m aware of the comments that you made in the Senate about that. It’s absolutely not the truth. The commitment of MLA is about long-term profitability and productivity of the sector and supporting red meat production across the country.
Senator ROBERTS: We won’t have farmers scratching around, sitting in a town, relying on carbon dioxide credits while the others make money?
CHAIR: I will have to remind you of the time, Senator Roberts.
Free Trade Agreements are a race to the bottom. A race to the lowest wages, the lowest taxation, the least corporate regulation and the most efficient enterprise. Efficiency is a code word for large corporations becoming larger and sending small businesses broke. They do not benefit Australia.
Transcript
President once again we have a so-called free trade agreement in front of the Senate.
Each time a free trade agreement is advanced we hear speeches extolling the virtues of free trade, telling us just how much this will help everyday Australians.
Free trade lowers tariff barriers, making it easier for our farmers to sell their produce, we are told.
We’re told that so-called free trade gives market access for our manufactured goods, software and suchlike.
Australia has free trade agreements with:
New Zealand
Singapore
United States
Thailand
Chile
Malaysia
Korea
Japan
China
Hong Kong
Peru
Indonesia
Mexico and Vietnam through the CPTPP
Brunei Darussalam and Cambodia through the RCEP
And now India and the UK
After all these free trade agreements bringing all this increased prosperity Australia should be rolling in it.
According to the ABS measure of Household Income and Wealth, since 2010 everyday Australian households have seen a reduction in their annual income of 1.2%.[1]
Not an increase, a reduction.
Everyday Australian households have also seen a reduction in their wealth of 1.6%.
Australia is not rolling in new found wealth.
Australia has gone backwards. And Australians are going backwards.
It should be remembered that in this period our minerals exports have boomed. From that alone, every Australian should be thousands of dollars better off.
So what’s going wrong?
It’s simple, nations do not sign free trade agreements unless they consider they will gain more than they lose.
That of course is not possible. A pie can only be sliced so many ways.
There’s no evidence free trade agreements will grow the pie so each slice is larger.
While growing the pie is the promise, the outcome is smaller slices of the same size pie.
This so-called free trade agreement, like the previous agreements, will not make our lives better.
It will make it easier for large corporations to move capital around chasing the lowest wage, the most flexible labour arrangements, including labour hire contracts that One Nation is still waiting for Labor to do something about.
International capital will move money around chasing the lowest tax rates and the highest profits.
This is where some of the negative outcomes lie.
Free Trade Agreements are a race to the bottom. A race to the lowest wages, the lowest taxation, the least corporate regulation and the most efficient enterprise.
When proponents of free trade agreement talk about business efficiency they never mean small and medium businesses, family businesses.
Efficiency is a code word for large corporations becoming larger and sending small businesses broke.
One Nation supports fair trade not so-called free trade.
Fair trade can occur between nations with similar wages and environmental regulations. These are the two big costs that decide how fairly one country can compete with another.
The UK free trade agreement is more likely to provide a fair outcome for Australia than any other of these agreements with countries like China, that treat environmental legislation as a joke and who pay their workers unfairly low wages.
The fact that a party called the Labor party promotes these agreements belies their new iteration as the party of global capital and environmental rent seekers. One Nation is now the party of workers.
While crooked Klaus Schwab wants the Great Reset, I’m promising to take up the Great Resist. We will resist the infiltration of our Parliament by globalist pawns. We will resist the destruction of the family. We will resist billionaires making everyone else poorer.
Transcript
In a previous speech, I called for Australia to reject the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset and instead mount a ‘Great Resist’. These were not idle words. Video is circulating online of World Economic Forum crook and mastermind Klaus Schwab bragging about penetrating the cabinets of western democracies with his young global leaders. Some Klaus Schwab disciples are in this Senate, and one is in the cabinet. How this has not triggered a national security investigation is beyond One Nation. We certainly would be taking a much closer look, given the coordination we are seeing in the policies being enacted by WEF disciples like Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau.
One Nation will resist the transfer of wealth from everyday Australians to predatory billionaires. This was the inevitable and deliberate outcome of profligate government COVID spending that the Liberals, Nationals, Labor and Greens waved through this parliament. One Nation will resist exposing our children to adult sexual content in their libraries and school textbooks and, now, in kids programs on the ABC. One Nation will resist the dehumanisation of women through genderless language that erases the very concept of a woman and a mother. We will not allow the family to be undermined. One Nation will resist the reduction of sex to a soul-destroying, meaningless transaction—the very thing Aldous Huxley warned us about in Brave New World.
One Nation will resist the war on farming that seeks to destroy family farms, rewild the bush and shift food production to corporate owned, near-urban, intensive factories producing chemically driven food-like substances for everyday Australians to eat while the elite gorge themselves on red meat and seafood—something they did again last week at COP27 in Egypt, indulging in luxury while spreading poverty. Disgusting!
We are one community, we are One Nation, and parliaments belong to no-one but the Australian people.
Getting rid of Nuclear Weapons is a laudable goal, but I don’t expect the United Nations to have any success given they’ve failed at just about everything else worth doing.
Transcript
Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is a laudable goal, and for this reason One Nation will be supporting this matter of urgency. To be consistent, though, I point out that the United Nations has failed at every peace initiative it has attempted in the last 77 years. I doubt this initiative will be any different. How will the United Nations achieve compliance from rogue states like North Korea and Iran? Will China be given a free pass on their nuclear weapons, in the same manner that the UN gives China a free pass on complying with 2050 carbon dioxide targets? I would love Australia to be treated the same as China on net zero. Imagine the lights that would be kept on in Australia, and the jobs and prosperity that could be saved. The UN has given China a free pass on labour camps yet had the hide to turn up in Queanbeyan, just down the road, last week to inspect our prisons for human rights abuses.
Humanity has not seen a world war since 1945. The United Nations did not do that; nuclear weapons as a deterrent to war did that. Yet nuclear weapons have served their purpose. Future wars will be served with robots and drones, not nuclear weapons. Uranium is better used as a wonderful source of electrical power, not military power. While passing this treaty is one thing, implementing it is quite another. If this treaty passes, the United Nations must implement the treaty fairly and have in mind the need to not change the balance of power amongst nuclear nations. Removing nuclear weapons unevenly from some nations and not others would increase the potential for plunging the world into a nuclear war—the opposite of this treaty’s intention.
I wish the UN the wisdom and courage necessary to achieve this objective. Having demonstrated over the last 77 years the complete absence of these qualities, I’m not hopeful. Yet we must try, because it’s the right thing to do. The world will be better completely without nuclear weapons. We are one flag, we are one community, we are one nation, and the time for nuclear weapons is over.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/L6RIQ5046qQ/hqdefault.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-10-26 09:05:352022-10-26 09:05:41Uranium – Better for Nuclear power than Nuclear weapons
