Posts

Virtue Signalling vs. Australian Jobs

,

These bills are a complete betrayal of Queensland, Australia and our democratic process. The establishment parties are so terrified of One Nation, the only real opposition, that they’ve resorted to “shuffling” the speakers list to bury our voices.

This is nothing more than another dirty, backroom deal between Labor and the Greens, who are prioritising TikTok-ready virtue signalling over the needs of everyday Australians.

Shockingly, this environment bill doesn’t even define what “the environment” is.

This government wants to build homes while simultaneously destroying the timber and coal industries. How do they expect to build without wood or steel?

Following the National Farmers’ Federation’s lead, I want to know why this bill introduces “closer controls” on land clearing that will actually increase bushfire risk, hike up food prices, and destroy rural communities.

One Nation says no. We will repeal this nonsense and replace it with honest stewardship based on data and outcomes, not feelings.

– Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, these bills are a betrayal of Queensland, a betrayal of Australia and a betrayal of democracy. As an aside, before I start my question, on the first list of speakers to this bill in the second reading debate, I was speaker No. 9. The other One Nation senators were further down the list. On the revised speakers list, I was third last, Senator Bell was second last and Senator Whitten was last. No chance at all of getting to speak! One Nation is the party the other parties fear. We are the real opposition. 

Minister, another day another dodgy deal between the Labor Party and the Greens, which, as usual, sells out everyday Australians to advance the government’s overarching agenda of virtue signalling and TikTok video production. From the moment the deal was done, this government has chosen to make a mockery of parliamentary process. What matters to the Labor Party is not the outcome. No, it’s the so-called win. Yet all Australians lose. The Greens are the spiritual bedfellows of the ALP in this regard. No sooner is the ink dry on this dirty, backroom deal than they immediately move the goalposts. The Greens now want one set of rules for Australia’s natural environment and a whole new set for Australian Aboriginal environment. I thought all our land was unceded and belonged to Aboriginals. Surely, the Greens motion doesn’t in fact acknowledge that Australia belongs to Australians, regardless of skin colour. Who knows! One could go mad thinking too much about Greens motions. Certainly, they don’t do much thinking about them. 

It will be left to a One Nation government to clean up the mess this bill will create, and we shall clean it up. One Nation will repeal this bill and replace it with protections to our natural environment based on sensible, honest stewardship—on outcomes and on data, not on feelings. Our second reading amendment set out some of our objections to the bill. Given time constraints, I’m not going to repeat these now, Minister. 

Liberal senator Duniam has an amendment coming up which has a fair crack at fixing one of the major errors of this bill. This is an environment bill that does not define what the environment is! Senator Duniam’s amendment sets out what areas, which most Australians would agree, are the actual environment—World Heritage areas, listed wetlands, the Great Barrier Reef and so on. One Nation will support that amendment. 

One area of our environment which the government and the Greens misunderstand completely is forestry logging. The whole point about logging is that it provides timber for use in Australian home construction—the same homes the Labor-Greens government are promising to build, apparently without timber! Oh, and, yes, apparently they’ll do that without steel frames either, because they want to stop coal. 

The National Farmers’ Federation has provided a question to the minister, which is as follows because they’ve said it very well: 

As stewards of more than half of Australia’s environment, farmers understand the importance of doing the right thing by the land— 

it is in their own interests— 

They’ve also historically borne the brunt of complex federal environmental laws, often at odds with state obligations. That’s why the NFF has supported genuine reform, but not this deal. Our key concern is the announcement of ‘closer controls’ of ‘high risk land clearing’. The specifics of this remain unclear— 

what a surprise!— 

and we are urgently calling for clarity.  The introduction of reduced regrowth thresholds to the long-established ‘continuing use’ provision will promote poor environmental outcomes and increase bushfire risk— 

which, as an aside, will increase fire damage, hurting the natural environment and the human environment. The NFF quote goes on: 

It will interfere with routine vegetation management of regrowth to prevent bushfires, keep land productive, and manage weeds. The misunderstanding of agricultural practices is bitterly disappointing. 

That’s the end of the quote. Minister, why does this bill include measures which will ‘increase bushfire risk’ and place lives in danger; reduce the health of our forests; reduce food production—and, from that, increase food prices for all Australians—destroy the timber industry; destroy the communities that rely on timber; and damage the home construction industry, which will be left to bid in the international market for timber which is already in short supply and is from countries with lax environmental protections?

/0 Comments/by

Bushfires a Threat Created by Greenies, Not Climate Change

Watch out for climate change scam artists claiming every bushfire is because of climate change.

As this summer shapes up to be dangerous (just like every other bushfire season for decades has been dangerous) the real threat are the pretend greenies that have stopped us doing reduction burns.

Any home lost to a bushfire is the fault of people that stopped reduction burns and has nothing to do with “climate change”.

/12 Comments/by

The Labor Government’s War on Space

I spoke in support of a motion to protect Australia’s space program. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the national space mission for Earth observation (NISMO) is shortsighted and false economy.

Investment in a homegrown space program designing, building and launching satellites was a recommendation by the Australian Academy of Science in a 2022 report. Apart from the career opportunities and jobs the program would have offered, it also provided national security. It would provide Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities and reduce sovereign risk. It would give us the ability to respond to emergencies and track bushfires, floods and extreme weather events.

Does PM Albanese not understand remote sensing? The cancellation of NISMO follows last month’s axing of the Australian Spaceports Program, which would have seen government funding assist the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil.

This is not about saving money — we still need this capability somehow. It would be far better to have the capability under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign suppliers.

Transcript

As a servant to the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, I thank Senator Fawcett for his matter of public importance, which One Nation supports. The Albanese government’s decision to terminate the National Space Mission for Earth Observation, NSMEO, will cost jobs in North Queensland. Abbot Point is a perfect location for a space facility. It’s close to the equator and offers consistent beautiful Queensland weather, providing for a reliable launch. A North Queensland space industry and launch facility would be able to capitalise on the Abbot Point steel park, already gazetted and just waiting for the Iron Boomerang steel mills. An Australian Academy of Science report from 2022 called for:

… investment in a home-grown Earth observation satellite program, which would design, build, launch and operate the satellites and the sensors on-board used to collect a wide range of data types.

The program providing Australia with its own remote sensing capabilities, with all the jobs and expertise this would involve, was designed to reduce sovereign risk. Remote sensing is the mapping of Australia from space, providing, firstly, an emergency capability to track bushfires, floods and the usual extreme weather events; and, secondly, routine commercial mapping that would have grown Australia’s productive capacity. Did the Albanese government not know what remote sensing was or the importance of having this capacity under public control rather than relying on a patchwork of private and foreign government suppliers? It’s not as if we can save the money. We still need this capability somehow.

The cancellation of the NSMEO follows the axing last month of the Australian spaceports program, which would have seen government funding assist in the establishment of launch facilities on Australian soil. The effect of these decisions, taken together, is to decimate the Australian space industry at a time when the industry was moving into a commercial phase. This decision is damaging regional Australia, damaging our national productive capacity, damaging our national security and reducing opportunities for career choices for our children.

/1 Comment/by

Greens expert runs from giving evidence

,

This afternoon I had the opportunity to ask questions in the Senate Committee on “Lessons to be learned in relation to the Australian bushfire.”

I chose to ask my questions to Greg Mullins who is a Climate Councillor with the (Tim Flannery’s) Climate Council. Mr Mullins wasn’t too keen on answering my questions and took the name calling route rather than providing the evidence I asked for.

“I’m a retired person, I don’t have time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.” Mr Mullins is the person who the Greens rely on as their climate expert during the recent bushfires.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you chair, and thank you Mr. Mullins for attending today, and also thank you very much for your service over many years, in fact nearly half a century.

I’m very pleased that the opening sentence, in fact the opening line of your presentation, you used the word empirical, and when I first used that in the senate in 2016 and in the media a lot of journalists were running off getting their dictionaries and senators were giggling and carrying on. I am pleased to see that you have used that word empirical.

There is another part to that though that needs to be proven when it comes to cause and effect. It’s not just the word empirical, not just the empirical data, but also presenting that in a causal framework that establishes cause and effect, and you’re with me on that?

[Greg Mullins]

Uh, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

I’ve had to use data because I’ve had to manage people’s lives and make sure people stayed alive, so I always relied on empirical data and understood cause and effect especially investigating safety incidents to establish cause.

Now in your opening paragraph and in your recommendation one you state irrefutable empirical scientific data concerning warming climate proven to be caused by burning of coal, oil, and gas is resulting in worsening and more frequent extreme weather events that spawned the 2019 bush fires. Could you please tell me the specific source of your empirical scientific evidence within a logical structure proving cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate?

I’d like to know the specific title of the publication, I’d like to know the specific page numbers in which the data is presented, and in which the causal relationship is established.

Now I know you’ve used a lot of references from SBS, The Guardian, the Greens Party, The Bureau of Meteorology, CSIRO, the ABC, but I would like to know the specific location of the specific empirical data that scientifically proves cause and effect that carbon dioxide from human activity affects climate. Could you do that for me please either on notice or now?

[Greg Mullins]

Uh, senator or chair, do I have to answer this question? Senator, I’ve read your website, I’ve read, or tried to read, a lot of your stuff that you’ve published, and so I’ve read very widely for and against. I don’t think there would be any purpose served me trying to convince you of what thousands of scientists agreed on and the settled science, and it is settled science, and I’m at a loss to know how to deal with your assertion, I won’t call it a question.

[Chair]

Thanks Mr. Mullins, Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts]

Can you provide me with one title of empirical scientific evidence in a causal framework establishing cause and affect?. Not one?

[Greg Mullins]

Look I could provide many for you, but I’m a retired person.

[Senator Roberts]

One would do, just one.

[Greg Mullins]

I frankly don’t have the time to deal with denialists who can’t accept settled science.

[Chair]

I think what I propose, thanks Senator Roberts.

[Greg Mullins]

That was not an admission, it was exasperation senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Now we have talked also about-

[Chair]

You’ve got one last question Senator Roberts if that’s okay, we are out of time.

[Senator Roberts]

Yeah one more question, that’d be fine. Are you aware, Mr. Mullins, that in my cross-examination of the CSIRO that the CSIRO’s acting head of climate change admitted to me that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented and that the CSIRO admitted to me in an earlier presentation in Sydney that they have never said that carbon dioxide from human activity poses a danger and they never will say it.

Are you aware that today’s temperatures are not unprecedented?

[Greg Mullins]

Senator, now that’s a very broad question. Are you talking about hundreds of millions of years when the dinosaurs were roaming the earth or when humans, and look I say again, I have read your material and the assertions made therein under the guise of being in scientific language, and I find it very concerning and quite muddled, and I’d be very surprised if the CSIRO said what you’ve just stated just as you said that I didn’t have any reference, it wasn’t true.

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much chair.

[Chair]

Thanks senator Roberts,

/by