I’ve been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I’ve witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia’s future under this government.
Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent.
To hear a Senator claim that science is “not contested anymore” once a consensus is reached isn’t just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement.
Labor wants to be the “thought police” of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last week, Australians witnessed a terrifying demonstration of where our future lies under this Labor-Greens government, which implemented policy that the Morrison government initiated. It’s a future that does not include the right to free speech or even the right to hold an opinion which conflicts with the government’s. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah used her position as the Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy to impose her views on witnesses, the reverse of the committee process, which allows all opinions to be heard. From that testimony the truth shall emerge. The senator dismissed expert testimony from the Institute of Public Affairs with this comment:
The thing about science is it is contested until it is not. When consensus is arrived at, it is not contested anymore.
The senator has a PhD in artificial intelligence, has published 40 papers and should know better.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines the scientific method as ‘a process for developing and testing explanations of the world that relies on evidence, with the understanding that new evidence may revise or replace existing explanations’. There is no consensus provided for in that definition of the scientific method. Senators and witnesses who disputed the belief, based on the evidence, that humans are responsible for our changing climate were subjected to hostility, rudeness, smugness and arrogance unbefitting the Senate. The inquiry is a travesty of the Senate process. It’s a waste of taxpayer money and is designed to justify legislation to censor opinions it does not like. The government does not get to shut down dissent, censor inconvenient truths and cancel the right to free speech. One Nation will fight, every inch of the way, your attempts to set the government up as the thought police of Australia. You will not turn our beloved country into communist China.
For decades, the Liberal-Labor uniparty has sold out Australians to a globalist agenda.
Sky-high electricity prices, crushed farmers and unaffordable housing aren’t accidents; they are the result of the UN’s Agenda 21 and the psychopathic UN criminal Maurice Strong and his plan to deindustrialise the West.
From the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the current “Net Zero” madness, elected Liberal-National-Labor leaders have been blindly following a foreign script. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights, imposed renewable energy targets and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide TAX, an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.
The current approach to climate and energy policy is built on scientific uncertainty and economic risk. Minister Chris Bowen’s department lacks scientific proof of climate change and defers instead to the UN IPCC, an organisation that relies on “guesses” rather than empirical data.
We are being driven off a $1.9 trillion cliff for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for large solar and wind projects that lack cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, farmers’ rights have been stolen, affordable energy destroyed and $30 billion a year is being wasted on UN climate compliance.
One Nation is the only party with a plan to: ✅ Exit the UN Paris Agreement ✅ Abolish the Department of Climate Change, saving $30 billion/year in UN waste ✅ Restore affordable coal and gas ✅ Build dams and infrastructure ✅ Put AUSTRALIANS first, not globalist billionaires.
👉 Vote One Nation to secure a future for your children, your grandchildren – and every generation to follow.
Trancript
Senator Roberts: As people awaken to the Liberal-Labor uniparty facade, polls show the political status quo is changing and ending. The one thing I want everyone to remember is that Australia’s economic and environmental destruction is based on the psychopathic United Nations criminal Maurice Strong. It matters, because all Australians are suffering unaffordable energy prices, cruel cost of living and family-crushing house prices and rents. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s 1997 Kyoto protocol. It imposed its renewable energy target and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide tax—an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.
Energy prices affect every aspect of our lives and lifestyles. It’s the foundation of modern civilisation and international competitiveness. In a recent Senate inquiry, Minister Chris Bowen’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water could not provide me with scientific proof climate is changing. They deferred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN body that Maurice Strong spawned. The UN IPCC provides no hard data as proof. It guesses likelihoods and confidence levels to fraudulently imply statistical rigour where there is none.
The department then revealed it has no specific, measured policy basis for transition to unaffordable solar, wind and batteries under Maurice Strong’s UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Goals. It has no specific impact of human carbon dioxide as basis for policy—confirming no cost-benefit analysis, no evaluation of policy options, no business case, no plan and no tracking implementation. We are not transitioning in this country. Minister Chris Bowen is blindly driving us off a cliff at a cost of $1.9 trillion for nothing. Australians now suffer the world’s most stupid and highest electricity prices. Meanwhile, President Trump in America uses real science to restore affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas.
My team has 24,000 datasets from science agencies worldwide, including our own Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. They show no change in climate—temperature; rainfall; storm frequency, severity or duration; drought, ocean temperature; or extreme weather—but just show ongoing inherent natural variation in cycles: warm/cool, warm/cool.
Maurice Strong was a Canadian oil magnate who, in 1972, started the UN environmental program UNEP. Six months later he manipulated and schemed his way to be its head. In 1976 UNEP fabricated science to ban the insecticide DDT that had eradicated malaria in the West. After 40- to 50 million needless deaths from malaria—Indians, Asians and Africans—the UN restored the use of DDT in 2006. The world’s list of mass killers is Chairman Mao, 60 million deaths; Maurice Strong, 40- to 50 million; Joseph Stalin, 40 million; and Adolph Hitler, 20 million.
In 1980 Maurice Strong started systematically entrenching bogus claims of future climate catastrophe due to carbon dioxide from human activity—power stations, industry, transport, travel and animal farming. In 1988 he formed the UN’s political climate body, the IPCC, and fraudulently proclaimed it ‘scientific’. His purpose was to corrupt climate science to mislead and scare people worldwide with unfounded fear. For example, in its second science report in 1995, scientists concluded they could find no evidence of human carbon dioxide affecting climate, yet the IPCC’s Ben Santer—he’s still in the IPCC—single-handedly reversed that to say they did. All six UN science reports rely on distortion and fraud. Why?
Maurice Strong was a founding director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, trading carbon dioxide credits—a corrupt global carbon dioxide tax—to make its directors billionaires, to provide the UN with ongoing revenue independent of member-nation grants and to guarantee revenue for his ambitions of global governance. Maurice Strong then built paths and systems for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for solar and wind. When American law enforcement wanted Maurice Strong for illegal water trading and the UN’s oil-for-food scandal, he exiled himself to China, a major beneficiary of the West’s climate and energy insanity.
In his report for the UN, the Club of Rome’s Maurice Strong stated:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us—
being humans globally—
we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
He was a lying scaremonger.
In 1992 UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong—there he is again—said:
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable …
The reports said human activity caused these ‘dangers’ and needed a global response.
Maurice Strong stated his life’s aims as ‘deindustrialising Western civilisation’ and ‘putting in place an unelected socialist global governance’. In 1992 Paul Keating’s Labor government signed UN Agenda 21 that pushed 17 so-called sustainable development goals to control every aspect of every person’s life globally. John Howard’s Liberal-National government accelerated an entrenched implementation of UN Agenda 21, including its 2007 Water Act. Its energy transition is now destroying what had been the world’s best electricity supply grid, stealing farmers’ property rights and laying the foundation for pushing Maurice Strong’s policies across Australia. In 1996 one federal MP, Pauline Hanson, courageously exposed it all. In 2013 the South Australian MP Ann Bressington gave details of UN Agenda 21 fabricating bogus crises blamed on humans.
Maurice Strong said, ‘The enemy is humanity itself.’ They hate you and they want to control every aspect of our lives, lifestyles and society, transferring wealth from we the people to globalist climate prostitutes. An extraordinarily clever and scheming Maurice Strong manipulated national leaders to adopt his programs to save the planet and humanity from humans. In my first Senate speech, in 2016, I called out UN Agenda 21 and called for Australia to exit the UN. I’m pleased to say that’s now One Nation policy.
We want the people of Australia to regain control over their lives and over our nation. We want Australians to keep the billions of dollars currently being transferred to climate and energy whores, who are stealing your money through subsidies, grants and taxes, enabled by people in this Senate. As your financial position goes backwards, Labor, Greens and moderates in the Liberals drive social policies to attack and divide you as colonisers, degendered and disrespected.
Maurice Strong drove those attacks with policies to smash both foundations of human civilisation: the family and the nation-state. Maurice Strong died in 2015, one month before his UN Paris Agreement was signed and his legacy UN net zero program targets were set—targets to which Labor, Liberal, the teals and the Greens all remain committed. They silently and dishonestly impose UN restrictions, fraud and burdens on Australians to govern with invalid edicts from New York and Geneva.
One Nation will remove Maurice Strong’s psychopathic grip over Australia. Instead, One Nation will return you to affordable energy; affordable living; affordable housing; lifestyle choices, making families strong again; industry, with breadwinner jobs; and a future with abundance, built on realising Australia’s true potential. One Nation is changing Australia’s political status quo. One Nation will abolish the department of climate change, leave the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol, and stop UN net zero and all associated regulations, schemes and spending to save more than $30 billion a year in duplication and waste. That $30 billion a year we will use to build infrastructure that benefits everyday Australians, starting with Queensland’s Urannah Dam irrigation project and a new greenfield hospital in Albury. A vote for One Nation will end Maurice Strong’s psychopathic, criminal control over our country and put Australia first.
Just wrapped up another two days of public hearings in Canberra on the Greens-Labor inquiry into “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy”.
This is my session with Dr Karl. What do you think of his behaviour?
He asked me whether I thought the past 10 years have been the hottest on record globally I replied directly “No, I don’t”. He responded with mockery and ridicule, then shifted the topic to what he claimed is a “99.999% consensus.”
By the way, consensus is a political tool. Instead, science is decided using data. I replied with actual data.
Later Dr Karl admitted science is “never settled” – when it suited his Newton/Einstein analogies. Yet he refused to acknowledge the actual historical climate records from our own 1880s.
It seems that he’s more interested in “elitist” condescension than hard facts. Notice how he has many tricks for avoiding answering questions or changing the topic.
Real integrity requires debate, not evasiveness and dismissiveness.
– Public Hearing | 16 February 2026
Transcript
CHAIR: I might go to Senator Roberts.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Senator Roberts, good afternoon.
Senator ROBERTS: Good afternoon, Dr Karl. Can I call you Dr Karl?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Or Karl; it doesn’t have ‘Dr’ on the birth certificate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll call you Dr Karl. You may remember that I issued a challenge to debate, and you were the only person who took it up. Then we met on South Bank because you wanted to explain to me why you were going to pull out of that debate. We spent about three-quarters of an hour together, back on Sunday 26 March in 2017. Can you recall that in South Bank?
Dr Kruszelnicki: I remember the event; I didn’t keep a record of the date. My memory is not that I was trying to explain where I was coming from or why I didn’t want to do a debate. My memory is quite different. I wanted to understand where you were coming from, and you explained it to me and we had that talk, off the record, so I’m not at liberty to reveal what you told me.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s talk about science—
Dr Kruszelnicki: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: and some definitions. I just want to get your confirmation or otherwise. When done properly in accordance with the scientific method, science uses rational thought and logic to investigate and explain our physical world—is that correct?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Ish. When you’re talking quantum mechanics, which is real, it doesn’t work. But that’s a good mark 1 definition, sure, as a first approximation. Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is the systematic, objective, rational study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the empirical data.
Dr Kruszelnicki: What’s that word ’empirical’? I’ve noticed that you love that word ’empirical’ to pieces.
Senator ROBERTS: I sure do.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define it for me, please.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you define the word ’empirical’ for me, please.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, sure. It’s measured or observed data.
Dr Kruszelnicki: But, if you’re saying ’empirical data’, it’s just like saying ‘data data’. Okay. Go on.
Senator ROBERTS: Empirical data is measured or observed. There are many other things in social sciences which are not.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Well, come on. We’re talking physics here.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct. So you agree.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no, but go on. Mostly. That sounds like a good start, except for the word ’empirical’, but go on.
Senator ROBERTS: Scientific proof involves using solid data as evidence in logical scientific points to prove cause and effect. So it’s not only having physical data; it’s putting it within a logical scientific point that proves cause and effect.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Are you building a little assembly where you’ll suddenly say, ‘And therefore climate change isn’t real,’ and I’ll fall over unconscious?
Senator ROBERTS: Why do you think that?
Dr Kruszelnicki: You’re laying out a boilerplate set of logical debating steps. Hit me with the next one.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you agree or not?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Overwhelmingly yes, depending on the data, because it doesn’t apply to quantum mechanics.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m assuming the data is accurate—data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Let’s see if we can agree on something. Do you agree that the climate records show that the last 10 years have been the hottest on record worldwide?
Senator ROBERTS: The last 10 years in Australia have been cooler than the 1880s and 1890s in Australia.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on—worldwide. Do you agree that the last 10 years have been the hottest years on record worldwide?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I don’t.
Dr Kruszelnicki: I feel like I’m talking to a schoolchild who says seven times two is not 14 but instead seven times two is a bicycle divided by the square root of a banana.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s one way of making out that I’m a fool.
Dr Kruszelnicki: No, but all the scientists disagree with you; 99.999 per cent of the scientists disagree with you.
Senator ROBERTS: So now you’re into consensus, which is a political tool. Let’s continue.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Hang on. Consensus is a political tool?
CHAIR: Scientific consensus is not a political tool.
Senator ROBERTS: Is this correct: scientific proof is—
Dr Kruszelnicki: So, if all the scientists agree that seven times two is 14, that’s a political tool?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s obviously a stupid comment, in my opinion. Einstein said it takes one person to prove him wrong, even if 100 agree with him.
Dr Kruszelnicki: He’s dead right.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Scientific proof is the basis for understanding nature and the physical world. Is that correct or not?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Pretty correct, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Science is never settled; it’s always enhanced in the future as new knowledge is unearthed and science is debated. A key point of science is debate.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Yes and no. With regard to gravity, the big step forward was Newton. Newton finally understood what was going on, but his theory of gravity could not explain why the closest point of approach of the planet Mercury to the Sun would tick around slowly over the decades. They measured this, and they couldn’t work out why. They had to hypothesise a planet. It was Einstein’s theory of gravity that then explained what was going on. So Newton was not disproved, but he was a small subset of a bigger, more comprehensive theory. In the same way, with Einstein, his theory may well also become a small subset of a bigger theory. You don’t go back. There’s no way we’re going to disprove Newton’s rule that the force between two bodies equals G times m1 times m2 all over r squared. There’s no way that’s going to get disproved.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true, though, that, some hundreds of years ago, people thought the Sun revolved around the Earth? That was the science.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Some did; some did not.
Senator ROBERTS: Then it was proven that the Earth revolves around the Sun, so science is always advancing.
Dr Kruszelnicki: And do you know why?
CHAIR: That was before there were 40,000 climate scientists studying climate sciences.
Dr Kruszelnicki: It’s because they were able to get optical instruments to look at the phases of the Sun upon Venus, and Venus had phases, if you know what that is—so sometimes there’s more of it on one side than the other—and the only way to explain that was by a central sun.
Senator ROBERTS: We could have a long, long talk about the intricacies, but those are the only questions I had.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Excellent. Can I ask you a question?
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Can you just refresh for me: thinking of the atmosphere as a one-kilometre line with nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres and oxygen making up roughly 200 metres, can you take me through where carbon dioxide sits in that line, by your estimation?
Senator ROBERTS: Carbon dioxide is 0.04 per cent of Earth’s atmosphere.
Dr Kruszelnicki: So how much of that line—one kilometre long—does carbon dioxide roughly make?
Senator ROBERTS: My maths doesn’t come to—is it a kilometre or a mile?
Dr Kruszelnicki: We’re going for a kilometre.
Senator ROBERTS: A kilometre—0.04 per cent.
Dr Kruszelnicki: There’s a million millimetres. I seem to remember you once saying, firstly, with the carbon dioxide bit of that one-kilometre line—with oxygen making up roughly 200 metres and nitrogen making up roughly 800 metres—that the carbon dioxide was so small that you could barely see it with the naked eye. The supposed addition, you said rather poetically, was kind of like how, if you rubbed your fingernail against some concrete, the little bit that rubbed off would be the addition of carbon dioxide that has been measured. Is my memory incorrect?
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, what was that last bit?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Is my memory incorrect?
Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that I said?
Dr Kruszelnicki: My memory is that you said the carbon dioxide level was so small you could barely see it with the naked eye—
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t see carbon dioxide, it’s colourless. Carbon dioxide is colourless, odourless, tasteless.
Dr Kruszelnicki: Correct, but on that one-kilometre line, what length? My bad—you said the length was so small, it was barely visible to the naked eye, whereas, for example, the length of nitrogen was roughly 800 metres—easily visible. Is that correct, or is my memory wrong?
Senator ROBERTS: What was that about a fingernail?
Dr Kruszelnicki: Then you said that the additional carbon dioxide that has been added was roughly equivalent to getting a fingernail and rubbing it on concrete, and the little bit of fingernail that came off was that one-kilometre line, or the extra bit of carbon dioxide.
Senator ROBERTS: No, that wasn’t me. I don’t know who said that.
Dr Kruszelnicki: No worries. Thank you for clearing that up.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/zh3OWtqzIAY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-02-19 14:54:142026-04-07 09:24:59Data vs. Dogma: My Session with Dr Karl
Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”
The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.
It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.
To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.
We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.
I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.
— Public Hearing | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.
Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.
Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?
Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.
Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?
Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.
Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.
Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?
Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.
CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—
Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.
CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.
Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?
CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—
Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.
CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.
Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?
Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?
Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.
Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.
CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.
CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?
Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.
Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.
Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—
CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.
The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.
Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.
I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”
While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.
My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?
Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.
In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.
Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.
Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?
Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?
Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.
Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.
Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?
Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?
Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—
Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?
Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?
Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.
Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?
Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.
Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.
Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.
Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?
Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?
Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?
Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?
Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?
Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?
Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.
Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.
Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?
Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?
Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.
Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?
Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?
Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?
Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?
Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?
Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.
Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?
Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.
Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?
Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?
Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.
Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.
Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.
Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.
Mr Lowe: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?
Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.
Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?
Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.
Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?
Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?
Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.
Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?
Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?
Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.
Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.
Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?
Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?
Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.
Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?
Mr Lowe: Not actively.
Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?
Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.
CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?
During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.
I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.
I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?
Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.
If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?
I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.
We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?
Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.
Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?
Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.
Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.
Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—
Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.
Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.
Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.
Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.
Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?
Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768964264087-59b6df8c-796b-4250-b49e-19136ad9c379.png6391138Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 13:04:272026-01-21 13:04:31The Data is Missing — and They Know It
The Nationals are starting to see the truth about the net zero scam — well, sort of.
They are finally admitting net zero is hurting regional Australia—yet they still cling to the scam. One Nation has said for years: scrap net zero completely. It’s costing taxpayers $30 billion a year and will blow out to $1.9 trillion by 2050, while electricity prices keep rising and everyday Australians suffer.
Meanwhile, foreign-controlled corporations and banks dominate our markets, driving prices up while executives pocket millions. Add mass migration pushing rents up, and you see why Australians are sliding into poverty.
One Nation warned this would happen—and we have the solutions. It’s time to put Australians first. Our solutions are practical, proven, and ready to go. As JFK said: Our problems are man-made. Therefore, they can be solved by man.
Transcript
Welcome to the latest episode of your favourite TV show: One Nation Were Right All Along. First up, we have the Nationals finally seeing the light of the net zero scam—well, kind of. Their support has gone from unqualified support to ‘how much net zero can we do before we start losing seats?’ In their announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said: ‘The Nationals accept the science of climate change and remain committed to emissions reduction. The current aggressive pursuit of net zero is unfairly damaging to regional Australia and economically unsustainable for the country’—he’s waking up—’We need a slower pace aligned with the OECD average’.
That’s a clever sleight of hand. The OECD reduction has stalled for five years. Their accumulative reduction is currently 14 per cent, and Australia’s is 24 per cent. The latest data will show ours at 28 per cent, double the OECD’s. Tying Australia to the OECD will buy the Nationals an election or two before having to restart reductions. Remember, though, that they still believe in net zero and in the need to cut carbon dioxide production. I welcome the Nationals realisation of the damage net zero is doing and wish they had more courage to walk away from the scam entirely.
In contrast, One Nation strongly oppose net zero, and we would abolish all federal government net zero mandates, programs and boondoggles. We would shut down all the schemes and departments promoting this scam, saving taxpayers $30 billion every year. This is not the only cost of course. Parasitic billionaires and corporations sucking on taxpayer subsidies and electricity consumer subsidies, and others in private industry, are taking advantage of this scam to build industrial solar and wind, transmission lines, big batteries and other paraphernalia of net zero. This cost will be as high as $1.9 trillion through to 2050. Remember that industrial solar and wind lasts only 15 years, which means everything that has been built so far will not be in use in 2050 and will have to be built again and again. The government’s Bollywood version of the cost of net zero does not take into account this massive expense—nor do they consider the environmental cost of the destruction of native forests for wind turbines, access roads and transmission lines; the cost of dumping these monstrosities into landfill every 15 years; or the run-off from toxic metals from damaged solar panels. This would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad.
Electricity is an input cost right across the economy. The price of everything you buy, from physical goods in stores to services and financial products, goes up as the electricity bills of the companies providing those services go up. Everyday Australians are poorer because of net zero, and so is Australia’s beautiful natural environment. The government used to say, ‘Renewables are cheaper, so prices will come down eventually.’ However, after 20 years of the transition—the last three at breakneck pace—electricity bills are not coming down; they’re rising rapidly.
Some of those who are wealthy enough and have an actual house in which to install solar panels and an expensive wall battery are reporting slightly reduced electricity bills. The very few Australians with the money to spend $25,000 on a solar array and wall battery for a home they own are thumbing their noses at the millions that do not have a house and $25,000 to add solar and a battery. Net zero is becoming a case of the haves and have-nots. Those who can’t afford their own electricity generation are left to buy electricity at prices that have increased at twice the rate of inflation since the net zero benchmark year of 2005. It’s a trend that continues, with a nine per cent increase in electricity prices in 2025.
One Nation are right in our opposition to mass migration. Today we learnt that the majority of Australians agree with us—right again. A poll in the Australian yesterday showed that almost two-thirds of Australians want a reduction in the migration rate; 94 per cent of One Nation supporters support reduced migration, which has now been a feature of One Nation policy for 30 years, ever since the Liberal-National coalition under John Howard doubled migration and started mass migration. Significantly, 78 per cent of coalition voters want a reduction in immigration, and so do 71 per cent of supporters of smaller parties and independents, which does include the teals—so that’s very interesting.
What caught my eye with the poll is that two parties who have been pushing infinite immigration are doing so against the wishes of their supporters. Only 10 per cent of Labor’s supporters want more migrants, while 49 per cent want fewer. While 27 per cent of Greens voters want more immigration, 32 per cent want less. Immigration is now one of the biggest election issues in New South Wales, which is not surprising, given the rental crisis in the greater Sydney area, thanks to the Albanese immigration invasion. It is interesting to see there is no gender divide on immigration. Opposition to high immigration is spread evenly between men and women.
It’s a betrayal of the very concept of democracy for this government to continue its globalist agenda to flood Australia with these very high levels of mass immigration against the wishes of the Australian people. Liberal and Labor governments are importing too many new arrivals from cultures that do not readily assimilate and bring with them a religion, Islam, that seeks to carve out a slice of this country to introduce their own system of law—divisive.
At the same time, the government is inhumanely ignoring the tragedy of the slaughter of Christians in Nigeria, in Sudan and in South Africa. I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs yesterday in question time how many Christian refugees we brought in from these trouble spots. The answer was telling: zero! I asked who’s benefiting from Australia’s humanitarian intake. His answer was that the top five countries for refugee visas, 15,000 in all, are all Islamic countries. This is nothing more than selective discrimination against Christians. In the past, Australians would have considered this sedition. One Nation still does.
Third, One Nation is correct about the standard of living. For years, I’ve been warning the Australian people that the net zero agenda, combined with mass immigration, is destroying business investment in our productive capacity, reducing living standards. Sky News is reporting today just how bad things have become. One in seven Australians now live below the poverty line, and one in six children are below the poverty line. That’s 3.7 million people struggling to pay for food, power and rent in a nation bursting with resources, all a result of Liberal-Labor uniparty policies—mass migration, net zero, housing, overregulation.
In what was once the richest country, per capita, in the world, we now have the worst poverty in my lifetime, yet we still have the natural resources; the abundant hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas; amazing farmland; and a strong tourism industry. For years, successive Liberal and Labor governments have shut down industries that provided breadwinner jobs in steelworks and heavy manufacturing, and value-adding jobs like textiles. They weighed our farmers down with so much green tape and blue United Nations tape that they are struggling to stay afloat. Australian wealth is being sabotaged in a process called ‘managed decline’. It’s deliberate. Yet our GDP is still growing. What’s going on? Australia’s wealth is being transferred from Australians to foreign beneficiaries. The world’s predatory billionaires have used their investment funds, like BlackRock, First State, Vanguard and State Street, to buy not only shares in Australian companies but entire industries. Except for two of our insurance companies, all our insurance companies are foreign owned.
Major retailers Coles, Woolies and Bunnings are foreign controlled. The Australian big four banks are foreign controlled, and so are our telcos and oil and gas companies. Satan’s bankers then put up prices, knowing they control the markets, so consumers become price takers. There’s no market anymore; it’s controlled. Australians working at the top of these companies take extremely high salaries—in many cases, multimillion dollar salaries—in return for compliance, and everyday Australians go backwards into poverty.
The government is making things worse, allowing so many new arrivals that housing prices and rents are forced upwards, while quality of life and standards of living go backwards. In Sydney, median unit rents have surged 40 per cent since 2021, and Melbourne and Brisbane aren’t far behind, climbing more than 30 per cent. For low-income renters, over half now spend more than 30 per cent of their income on housing—30 per cent on housing! Our prime minister went to the last election promising to leave no-one behind, knowing his policies were doing exactly the opposite. The government is now increasing spending on housing, on paid parental leave, on child care and on hiring more and more and more public servants on high wages to paper over what is a crashing economy. The government can’t use debt and money printing forever to save its backside. Debt and printing money cause their own severe economic problems and then more poverty.
One Nation has opposed the net zero war on business investment. We have opposed the migration invasion, and we warned that these policies, combined with the red bureaucratic tape, green tape and blue United Nations tape would destroy the standard of living in our beautiful country. And it has. We bloody told you so! We have put forward solutions and practical, effective policies to solve all these challenges—proven solutions. All these issues are due to decades of dishonest Liberal-Labor uniparty policies and laws. As President John F Kennedy said:
Our problems are man made. Therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/LT-DsfmPeM8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-18 16:38:062025-12-18 16:38:10Wake Up, Australia: The Uniparty Is Selling You Out
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/climate-change-misinformation-cover-photo.png?fit=2240%2C1260&ssl=112602240Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 12:47:232025-11-19 16:55:44Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
Albanese wants you to pay $1 billion to host a party for climate billionaires to fly in on private jets and lecture us on “reducing our carbon footprint”.
The “Conference of Parties” has previously told the world to stop eating red meat, stop driving affordable petrol and diesel cars, and generally commit economic suicide on the altar of net-zero.
One Nation says ditch this nonsense and restore in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the BBQ and an affordable four wheel drive in the garage.
Transcript
One billion dollars—that’s how much the Albanese Labor government expects hosting a United Nations climate talk fest in Australia will cost taxpayers. The United Nations’ Conference of the Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets. Now the government wants Australians to pick up the tab for this party. What would all these people be talking about if they came to Australia? At last year’s Conference of the Parties, known as COP, the first order of business for attendees was fuel up the gulf stream, with 644 luxurious fuel-guzzling private jets descending on Dubai for last year’s Conference of the Parties. For drivers though, COP organisers this year will cut a brand new highway through tens of thousands of acres of untouched Amazon forest in Brazil. The second order of business is to tell everyone else in the world to reduce their carbon footprint.
The next order of business for attendees is to tell Australians to stop eating their abundant supply of organically raised chemical-free meat. Only we lowly peasants would be banned from eating healthy protein and forced to eat bugs or lab grown horrors, of course. The climate activist billionaires will still be able to afford a good steak. The final order of business for the climate lecturers is to tell those Australian freaks who take their four-wheel drives and camping gear out into the bush to appreciate nature that those cars are banned. Australians are being faced with a choice—pay a billion dollars to be lectured by out-of-touch climate billionaire parasites or reject all this nonsense and save trillions of dollars. One Nation stands for Australia with Australians. We believe in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the barbecue and an affordable four-wheel drive in the garage. We believe in putting Australia first. We will continue to put Australia first.
One of the most fundamental duties of a senator is to scrutinise the government — not just its words, but its actions. That means asking tough questions about how public money is spent, and demanding transparency when answers are withheld.
Let’s be clear: there is no such thing as “government money.”
Every dollar the government spends comes from taxpayers — from you, from your family, from every working Australian. Yet time and again, ministers dodge this truth. When asked directly, Minister Walsh couldn’t even say the word “taxpayer.” Instead, she danced around the issue, talking about “revenues” and “costed policies.” But the reality remains: it’s your money. And what’s happening with it? Billions of dollars are being funnelled into subsidies and climate schemes with no parliamentary scrutiny.
The government even refused to answer questions about an alleged fund linked to former Prime Minister Julia Gillard. I made no accusations – I just asked questions – yet the government doesn’t want those questions asked. This secrecy is becoming a pattern. Whether it’s Housing Australia or climate targets, Labor refuses to disclose where taxpayer money is going.
Meanwhile, the push for net zero continues — a policy introduced by the Liberals and Nationals – costing Australians billions. There’s no detailed plan, no milestones, no way to measure progress. Even the CSIRO can’t quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on the climate.
So, what are we paying for? Australians deserve better. We deserve transparency. We deserve respect. And above all, we deserve to know how our hard-earned money is being spent.
https://youtu.be/nWGyg9fpVfk
Transcript
I rise to take note of Minister Ayres’s comment. One of the most fundamental parts of a senator ‘s job is to review and scrutinise the government. That’s why I support almost every single order for the production of documents, regardless of who moves it. Most importantly, scrutinising the government means scrutinising how the government is spending money—and, by the way, scrutinising the impacts of government policy on the national economy and on individual Australians is part of scrutiny of government.
To build back on the first point, scrutinising how the government is spending our money: the government forgets that what it spends isn’t the government’s money; it’s taxpayer money. Minister Walsh recently couldn’t utter the word ‘taxpayers’. I asked her what government money was. She said it is about revenues and that the policy was fully costed. She twisted and turned and gave me several other answers, but she could not utter the words ‘taxpayers’ money’. There is no such thing as government money. It is all taxpayer money. As taxpayers, we all pay taxpayer money. It is Australians’ money.
Last week I spoke in the Senate about Minister Bowen taking subsidies, completely away from parliamentary scrutiny. It was a cosy little deal worth billions of dollars. I mentioned a potential deal with a fund taken over by Julia Gillard, the former Labor prime minister. I made no imputations. I’m just saying we need to have a look at that data. The government is hiding, hiding, hiding and stopping scrutiny, stopping us from doing our jobs, which is a theme for this government. Too often the government is willing to waste hard-earned tax dollars. The minister has just been hauled in front of the Senate to explain because the government refused to answer where they’re spending taxpayer money. This is the second—we’ve just had discussions about Housing Australia—and the government has refused again. This secretive Labor government refuses to tell Australians where it’s spending its taxpayer money. Why the secrecy? Why the hiding? It’s not your money. It’s the Australians’ money. It’s because you don’t want Australians to know that you don’t treat taxpayer money with respect.
Now we come to the second motion that Labor is trying to keep secret, on climate targets. There’s a backstory here that shows how incoherent the Liberals and the Nationals are. The motion is from the Liberal-National coalition asking the government to hand over documents in relation to the Climate Change Authority and their targets. Australians hear all the time that the Liberals and the Nationals want to ditch net zero, yet here’s a motion that the Liberal-National coalition pursues that’s criticising the government for not putting out information on net zero targets. This is insane. It’s almost as insane as the net zero pipedream.
While the Liberals and the Nationals spin their wheels and try to figure out which way the wind is blowing, One Nation is clear. On this motion, One Nation says to the government, we’re not bothered about you handing over your net zero targets. We say, don’t bother pursuing net zero at all. All of these billions of dollars amounting to trillions of dollars and efforts to keep things secret are a waste of time and money. Every minute you spend making climate targets, bogging businesses down in green and blue tape and hamstringing our productive capacity harms the country. Give it up, government, and start putting Australians first.
Remember that the Liberals and the Nationals introduced every major climate and energy policy, including net zero. You did it. That Liberal prime minister Scott Morrison introduced net zero after breaking his election promise to not pursue net zero. What about the government spending trillions on net zero without a detailed project plan—no milestones, no measures of progress, just leading Australia towards an economic cliff blindfolded. Worse, net zero is taking Australia to energy ruin without any policy basis. The CSIRO have never specified—and I’ve asked them repeatedly in personal sessions and in Senate estimates—the specific, quantified effect of human carbon dioxide on the climate. Without that, you can’t have a policy. Thus there’s no basis for policy cutting human carbon dioxide. That’s why there’s no way of measuring the progress of implementing climate and energy policies. That’s why you’ve got to keep it secret. That’s why you’ve got to hide it. I’ll continue my remarks on this topic in the future.
