Posts

Australians are being priced out of their own country — and I’m calling it out.

In this full interview, I expose the real forces behind our housing crisis. Foreign buyers are snapping up homes while everyday Aussies are left struggling to afford a roof over their heads.

44% of the cost of a new home is TAX. That’s right — nearly half the price is government greed.

I lay out my bold plan: every foreign property owner will have two years to sell — no exceptions. It’s time we put Australians first.

I also dive into:

  • The massive impact of immigration on housing demand
  • How climate policies are wrecking our economy
  • And the banking system that’s bleeding families dry

Unemployable Media – not just a channel; they are a community that celebrates and uplifts individuals charting unconventional paths.

Unemployable Media is your go-to destination for content, online courses, live events, and a vibrant community that embraces those who defy standard career norms.

🌐 [Website] https://www.unemployable.com.au 📷 [Instagram]   / unemployablemedia   🔊 [Spotify] https://open.spotify.com/show/4GSSCIv… 🎧 [Apple] https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast…

Transcript

Adam Hudson: What’s up, guys?  Welcome to this very special episode of UNEMPLOYABLE.  This is our discussion with Senator Malcolm Roberts.  He is a federal member for One Nation.  It was a really insightful chat.  We covered a lot of stuff. 

If you don’t know anything about Senator Roberts, he is a very controversial figure in Australian politics. He does not believe in climate change. He is very vocal about immigration. He’s very vocal about our energy and how we are giving it away for literally nothing. He is very vocal about our overspending and waste as a nation.  He’s very vocal about what makes great children and great parenting. 

And I think you’re going to find this really interesting.  We talk about free speech.  We specifically spoke about why he and Pauline Hanson abstained from the recent hate crimes bill and so much more. I think you’re going to really enjoy it. 

It goes a lot of directions over the course of nearly two hours. 

Make sure you like and subscribe.  Put a comment below as well, guys, because, you know, engaging with this kind of media helps people of power and influence like Malcolm know that the attention is now in places like this podcast, independent media. 

We are not paid. We don’t have sponsors.  We fund this ourselves.  And so, you know, your engagement shines a light on where they should go and be heard. 

So, with that said, please enjoy this discussion with Senator Malcolm Roberts. 

What is up everybody?  Welcome to this very special episode of Unemployable.  This is our second ever political interview.  The first one went absolutely nuts on YouTube.  Don’t mean to brag, but we outperformed both of the major parties by bringing none other than Senator Pauline Hanson, who at the time of this recording has gone to nearly 200,000 views on YouTube – absolutely blitzing any other political interview in the podcast space this cycle, which is really, really encouraging.  And today we have with us Senator Malcolm Roberts, who is also with One Nation. 

And just for the record guys, we have invited Albo on, we’ve invited Peter on, we’ve invited on a couple of independents.  We do have Gerard Rennick coming in as well.  So, it’s not that we are just playing One Nation. We happen to be very receptive to Nation’s message and I think all Australians leading into this election should be absolutely opening their minds and listening.  And that is the point of these long form podcasts. 

Mark Di Paola: Yeah, the listeners have been great and the comments on Instagram and what not have been great in suggesting guests as well.  So, if anyone, you know, we put the message out to Dutton and Albo, but if anyone has a contact to them. 

Adam Hudson: Yep. 

Mark Di Paola: Let them know. 

Adam Hudson:  We want to – I’d really like to talk to them as well.  I got a few hard questions.  I don’t think I’d like to come on here because they’re not going to be softballs, let me tell you that, but Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for coming in.  We really do appreciate it.  Thank you so much for your time.  Welcome. 

Malcolm ROBERTS:  Well, thank you for the welcome.  And first of all I want to say how much I appreciate the new independent people’s media, the truth media, the freedom media, because the other two forms of media – the anti-social media – social media is really anti-social and it’s censored.   And the other one is the globalist mouthpiece, Big Brother media, whatever you want, it’s owned. So, this is the only way we can get our voice out. So thank you so much for what you’re doing. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah.  One thing I noticed as soon as you walked in the studio just now and this is what gets lost in media of all kinds, we sit in a very privileged position here on the panel, being able to meet politicians face to face. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: What’s privileged about that? 

Adam Hudson: Well, what I mean is I get to look you in the eye.  A lot of people just see through a lens and when you meet Malcolm, for the listeners and those who are on Spotify, he looks you dead in the eye and he keeps your gaze.  And that’s something to be said for that and a firm handshake, and I love that in people generally.  I got the same from Pauline.  And it’s refreshing. 

So, I’m sure this pod’s going to be good because I’ve watched a lot of your clips. I’ve watched you go into Senate hearings, and I’ve watched you battle it out on the on the floor of Parliament in Australia.   
And I’ll say to you the same thing I said to Pauline, which was thank you, because we need people like you who are prepared to sit there, and I’ve watched the smug look on these politicians faces as you grill them thinking this guy’s just a conspiracy theorist extremist, and they’re kind of dismissing you. 

And I watch how you just let it go off your back and you just keep pushing them on the facts, on the point and you won’t let it go.  And I think the tide is turning.  And I think Australians more than ever are secretly laughing at the politicians who are looking down their noses at you, even though you’re a politician, but looking down their noses at you dismissively, like when is this clown going to stop talking – and the Australians watching are going, Malcolm, keep going, keep pushing these guys because so much trust has been lost in the last few years that I think there’s more swing vote now than there has been for a long time.  What’s your feeling out there in the electorate as you go out and talk to people? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I get constantly bombarded wherever I go – thank you for what you’re doing and, which is really disturbing in a way, because they mean it and they’re saying keep going, but for someone to thank me for doing my job?  That shows how few people are doing their job.  So, it’s very encouraging, of course, but people definitely are starting to see that the two tired old parties, the Uni-Party is really just that – they’re not alternatives.  They’re both pushing the same basic policies, immigration, energy, climate, the same #$&!*%@*’s coming out of both of them. 

Mark Di Paola: It’s really interesting because Mark Bouris, who has more subscribers, you know – the Yellow Brick Road – has more subscribers than the Unemployable pod does, had Albo and Dutton on.  I think the Dutton podcast got 60,000 views and the Albo podcast got 20,000 views on YouTube – just YouTube, and ours I think is sitting at about 200,000 views with Pauline. 

Adam Hudson: With 1/10th of the subscriber base. 

Mark Di Paola: With 1/10th of the subscriber base.  So yeah, talk us through that a little bit more. Does it come down to people’s frustration with the two major parties, or what do you – how do you see it? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: The vote overall for the two tired old parties – if that’s a graph, it has gone from 95% to Labor and Liberal in a matter of a few decades ago to now 65% and falling.  People are swinging.  They’re starting to wake up.  It used to be the days of – oh, I’ll just go in and which one, Labor’s not doing good job, I’ll vote for Liberal, Liberal’s not doing good job, I’ll vote for Labor, but now they’re starting to wake up and are really starting to look at independents and minor parties. 

Mark Di Paola: Wow! I didn’t realise it swung that much. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, we’ve got a government Mark, in Albanese’s government, the Labor government, that has got less than 1/3rd of the vote, less than 1/3rd of the vote.  And what people don’t realise is that that they’re in cahoots – that’s in the lower house – in the Senate, they’re in cahoots with the Greens, which are the most destructive force in this country.  And they have to buy off a couple of independents every now and then to get things through the Senate.  We’ve had 205 bills dragged into the Senate and guillotined.  No debate or debate shut. Albanese is not a democratic Prime Minister. 

Mark Di Paola: I’m pretty interested in politics, I must say and I had no idea that he only had 1/3rd of the vote. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Just slightly under 1/3rd

Adam Hudson: Interesting.  There’s so much I want to dive into and I know from the comments that we’ve gotten when we’ve said we’ve got you coming on and since Pauline’s come on, the number one thing that we’re getting at the moment and we won’t address it now, we’ll address it at the right moment, but for the listeners because I know they’re sitting there going “ask why did they refrain from the free speech vote? You know that bill that went in and didn’t vote against that. We’ll get to that in a minute. So if you’re listening … 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I’d love to get to that. 

Adam Hudon: Yeah.  So don’t worry guys, we are going to cover that.  But I want to set this interview up before we get into the meat and potatoes because I think it’s really important to get some context about you.  You were born in Africa, right? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: India. 

Adam Hudson: Oh, sorry! India.  My mistake.  So born in Bengal, wasn’t it?  West Bengal? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: West Bengal. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah, India.  And you grew up a son of a coal miner.  You were a coal miner for a period of time.  So maybe just give us that.  And you’re an engineer by profession.  So maybe just give us that little bit of early background because of what I want to understand, I’ve watched you on many, many clips and you’ve got a dog in you that’s really strong.  And I love that. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I’m being called a dog now. 

Adam Hudson: But you know what I mean? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No, no, I, I get it.  Thank you for that.  That’s a compliment. 

Adam Hudson: That’s what I mean.  Absolutely is a compliment.  Like you are very, very strong on your opinions.  And I’d like to understand what is, where does that drive come from?  And I suspect it’s from a lifetime that’s now here in your political career.  But where, where are these beliefs forming and what led you to align yourself fully with Pauline?  Where’s that fire coming from? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: OK, I’ll have to remember all of those parts of the question.  I don’t know where the drive comes from.  I was born with it.  When I was under one I think, I was being taken, in Wales with my father’s parents, my grandparents and apparently Mum and Dad used to take me down a road and they’d take the right fork – this is less than one, and my grandparents took me for a walk one day and they took me down the left fork and I went (hand movement) the other way you know, so I’m not afraid to speak up. I get a bit nervous, like I’m nervous now. So, I still get nervous when I speak in the Senate.   But it’s like Pauline – the thing is that Pauline does not like fighting. She doesn’t like a fight. You can tell it in her voice.  I mean, she has first 30 seconds she’s nervous, speaks up with a high pitch, but then she relaxes into it.  One thing worse than a fight and that’s running away from a fight and so that’s why we’re both tentative in the sense that we’re not relaxed doing that, but we tell the truth, and we’ve got to do it because I just can’t live with myself if I don’t do it. So that came from my parents, I think. What else? 

Adam Hudson: How did you grow up?  Like where you did you grow up in a where did you grow up?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: The formative years – Maria Montessori, who’s the most powerful, the most eloquent – she’s dead now, she died about 85 in the 50’s I think – she had the most comprehensive understanding of human development and human behaviour.  And she said the critical years for the formation of both character and intellect, character and intellect, are birth to six.  So, my formative years were spent in India and I got, I mixed with Muslims, Hindis, Buddhists, probably atheists, Christians, so it didn’t matter where I was, I would talk to people and listen to them. The other thing that my mother taught me is that it’s very important to listen first, so we listen. And the other thing my father taught me is to be calm and factual. There’s no point in going off at people. It doesn’t do any good.  The strength comes from how you address the issue, not on what label you use and not on what abuse you give them and Pauline is much the same.  So, my approach is calm and factual. Let the lunatics do all the raving, carrying on.  When they’re finished, I’ll still be here.  Now what have you got to say?  So, I’ve used that with industrial relations.  One of the things that that surprised me – I graduated as a mining engineer and then I decided I better go and learn something. So, I worked as a coalface miner. I mean that sincerely.  I learned more as a coalface miner because mining is about people and it’s about different conditions underground. And conditions can change from like working in a car park in a parking station, really safe to treacherous within a metre. And sometimes we don’t even know it. So, you’ve got to rely upon people, and you’ve got to develop in people the skills and the accountability to take responsibility for themselves. And that means letting go. So, I don’t believe in micromanaging.  I believe in setting standards, laying down my expectations and then making sure that people can do their job, get out of their way. Because that’s the problem with a lot of managers in Australia. We’re rambling a bit here, but a lot of managers in Australia want to tell people how to do things and they miss the talent. And I guess that’s the other thing that I’m very, very pro human. We’ve had our dickheads, we’ve had our authoritarian rulers – Hitler, Stalin, Maurice Strong, who you might want to ask about, Chairman Mao, Morrison, Palaszczuk, these lunatics and I mean that, they’re lunatics, but the majority of people are absolutely wonderful. Humans are wonderful.  And the overriding traits in people are care. You’re only here because you care about what’s happening to our country, correct? 

Adam Hudson: Mmm hmm. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And you want to do something about it and you want to give voice to the majority.  So, humans are absolutely wonderful.  And I’ve learned from my mother I suppose. that that’s the case.  So, we can’t trust everyone.  We can’t rely on everyone, but we’ve got to extend to them an opportunity to use their talent.  And that’s something that I found very, very important and I love – when I was managing Westworld’s End mine, when I arrived, it was in turmoil industrially. Every night the evening shift would have a stop work meeting and decide whether or not they’d go home or stay at work. And I thought, wow, this is strange.  Then I realised the previous manager was telling lies. So, they didn’t trust us. So, it took a lot of time for me to go underground, be with people because you can’t run a mine from the surface.  So, one day after about 18 months there, I was walking out to the car park, just on dark, and I remember just thinking, why am I happy? And I turned around behind me and looked at the coal stockpiles, record coal stockpiles, record production, safety statistics that were really, really very, very powerful. And I thought it’s not the record coal, it’s the fact that people come to work, get changed, put their mining gear on and go down the mine and come back out. And not always lack of argument because we still had our arguments, but they trusted and people when they’re allowed to do their job, they love doing their job. People are just wonderful.  

Adam Hudson: And they rely on leadership not to lie to them.   

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes, and it’s not – leadership is not about just saying do whatever you want. Leadership is about saying here are the expectations I have for you and quite often developing those expectations together.  But ultimately, I’m representing the shareholder, I’m in charge of the mine. And I draw a line because we did have, when I first arrived there, we did have union delegates who were, they didn’t trust anyone. I had meetings with 10 delegates in the room, because there were five unions, they didn’t trust each other and each union had to bring two people because they didn’t trust their mate. So that was the level of trust.  Yeah, it’s shocking. So, there were a couple of times when I’d have to say – that’s it, we’ll take it to court.  And sometimes we just, you know, some people – I’d sack someone and for example, we sacked 8 people and after six months, all for good, documented reasons, and after six months, the mechanical engineer came to me and said, I didn’t know you could sack people in the mining industry.  If you have a reason and you give them notice and they don’t respond, of course you’ve got to.  So, it’s a matter of building trust and the union delegate in charge of the lodge, that’s the branch at the mine, he actually was up in arms within the first six months trying to intimidate me. So, I didn’t yield back. I didn’t scream, just calm and when he saw me just being calm, he would deflate like a big, big bag and then he was like putty. But he was a good guy, but he had a terrible reputation. And then two years later we went through massive retrenchments in the Hunter. He came to me and said, what do you need?  And we made some major changes that he got into trouble from with his with his national delegates. So, it’s just stunning because that’s what happens when trust comes. But you’ve got to have the standards in there and you must be prepared to enforce those standards. But you do it responsibly. 

Adam Hudson: A politician that has worked outside of Canberra.  That’s amazing. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, Pauline’s worked outside of Canberra. 

Adam Hudson: I know, I know. 

Mark Di Paola:  I was just about to say, trust and leadership is such an important topic and sometimes when we’ve previously spoken about politics on this show before having a politician on, people would say, why are you talking about politics – we’re tuning in because this is a business show and I think what people sometimes forget is that running a country is the biggest business in your economy.  You know, the American government is the biggest business in their economy.  The Australian government is the biggest business in our economy and sometimes it’s being run by people who don’t have business experience or don’t have the trust of the nation and that’s what we’re seeing at the moment.  You know, you’re seeing the Elon Musk thing.  I mean, that guy is the world’s richest person ever by a long shot.  Not because he’s stupid.  He must know something and he’s getting demonised, demonised. And it’s like, you know, we had a couple of people in the comments on the Pauline clips say, oh, ask her how her mate Gina is going.  And it’s like, why do we have that mentality?  We’re trying to tear down those partnerships.  I mean, don’t we want the best and the brightest and the most successful to help in whatever way possible, even if it is people who’ve had previous business experience coming into politics?  Don’t we want that? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Boy, there’s so much in that, Mark.  I strongly disagree with you that government is a business.  Governments should be there to create the environment so you can go and invest and do your job.  That’s what it is.  What we’ve got now is governments in control and we’ve got, and governments have long been whether they’re democratic or monarchs, monarchy or republican – Republic, and we are basically a Republic, but I diverge, and I’ll come back to that.  Governments have long been a source or a vehicle for people to control others, whether they’re in government themselves or whether they’re puppets for people outside.  Our country is being destroyed.  It’s not being governed, it’s being destroyed. And so, you’re right that most people in politics don’t understand business. They don’t understand that you have to create an environment.  You know that if you create a shitty environment, your people won’t respond.  I turn up to work, you turn up to work, everyone turns up to work with a heart, a mind and a pair of hands. And that’s basically the physical, the mental and the spiritual or emotional. And you’ve got to get people engaged.  

And how the hell can investors get engaged in this country and create new employment when they’re having their electricity sector destroyed in front of their eyes?  And based on a lie? How the hell when government comes in to mandate so many things that are destroying our productivity and destroying our productive capacity, how the hell can you get investors? What happens is you get foreign investors in because they’re not paying tax, many of them. They’re not paying company tax.  
So, you as a family person – I assume you’re a family person – you’re paying tax to keep these bastards here and you know the government – so I’m rambling a bit, but government is not a business. Government is an enabler and should get the hell out of the way and create the environment, create the tax … The most destructive system in our country is the tax system.  

Mark Di Paola: So, if you don’t like the analogy that the government is like a business, what is the answer to allowing government to more properly govern?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Government has three basic responsibilities, three basic roles – protect life (security), protect property (again security … ) and protect freedom. Because one of the things that is really disturbing me is that, well, I’ll tell you a story – I’ve been chasing this climate fraud since 2007 and  I went around the country quite often, met up with Bob Carter, who’s dead now, but he was a professor, climatologist, paleoclimatologist, wonderful man, retired, doing this work voluntarily just like I was. And one day he said to me in a break, “you know mate, this is the biggest scam ever”. I said, Bob it’s not even close and he said, “what do you mean?”  I said it is a big scam, but a far bigger scam is the money scam, the ability to print more money. If you did it, you’d go to jail, but the banks can do it. So, he said, “oh, yeah, you’ve got a point. There’s no doubt about that – that’s a much bigger scam”. And I said, but there’s a bigger one – that’s the anti-human scam. 

The Club of Rome in the 1960’s started pushing the anti-human scam. They did it subtly and by saying your first duty is to protect the planet and everyone is like “oh yeah”.  It’s not.  Your first duty is to enhance your species, contribute to your species and the species, first of all, we must realise the truth about our species. Our species is not lazy, incompetent, dishonest, irresponsible, uncaring. We are the complete opposite on all of those things – I’m starting to get a bit fired up because I’m passionate. 

Hosts: It’s okay. 

Malcolm ROBERTS:  We are destroying these people.  From this age (hands spread) we’re telling them they are incompetent, dishonest, lazy, irresponsible, that their species doesn’t care – you’ve got to protect the planet. Then yeah, so that’s destroying the future leaders of our country. And then they’re saying your number one job is to protect the planet because civilization and the environment are mutually exclusive. That is complete bullshit.  If we want a future as a civilization, we have got to protect the environment. If we want to protect the environment, we’ve got to have civilization. You go to any country in the world, Mark, and you will find that the countries that are developed have a cleaner environment and are more aware of protecting the environment. And so, it’s not a matter of saving the environment or civilization, because some of these people are pushing climate fraud want us back in the dark ages. It’s a matter of saying we want both because they’re mutually dependent. And so, your job is to protect, is to enhance the human species as a member of our species. But to do that, you have to protect the environment. So, what I’m saying is it should be a very positive, very wonderful message and yet our kids are being bombarded, our adults are being bombarded with decades of bullshit about how we’re a bad species.  

Mark Di Paola: There’s so much in that but it’s, you can just see when you’ve got the kids destroying artwork and tying themselves to different things. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And cutting bits of pieces off themselves. 

Mark Di Paola: And just doing crazy things. And it’s like they didn’t just wake up one day and decide to do that. It’s social conditioning that’s led them to believe that that’s the way to make a difference in the world. And anyone with a few years of maturity realises that’s not how you inflict any change. Even if you do believe in climate change, that’s not how you make change.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: It encourages virtue signalling because what they’re doing, Mark, when you look at it, they’re always creating a victim, the left, and then there becomes a perpetrator.  So, you’re a white male – you’re a perpetrator.  And that’s what they’ve done deliberately so that they can set us up against any minority group they want to. 

Adam Hudson: Constantly apologising for turning up anywhere.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah.  

Adam Hudson: You know, call to country, something that happens at all these major sporting events. What’s your position on that?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: I don’t need to be welcomed to my own country. And I know a lot of Aboriginals say exactly the same thing. They say it’s rubbish.  

Adam Hudson: So that’s my point as well – and I say to people, you know, like Mark’s child, his little daughter was born here in the same way the first Aboriginal child was born here. So why is one more entitled than the other through spiritual providence that they turned up on this land, right? Why should one have to do that.  I don’t get it – that’s her home. 

And that’s not saying that we shouldn’t care for the native Australian Aboriginal people and that we shouldn’t provide them services and programmes.  I just think that the two things are not – they get conflated together and they’re completely different things.  One is, like you said, is the virtue signalling that creates this negativity or this pessimism. 

Adam Hudson: Which is ruining the country. 

Mark Di Paola: Which is ruining the country.  It’s creating a divide. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Look at our NRL, look at our AFL. The elites in both those …  are Aboriginals. The proportion of Aboriginals in the country is about 3% and it’s now climbing to about 5% because a lot of whites are registering as Aboriginal. 

Host: Right, because of the incentives. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah because of the incentives.  Yes, that’s true, but in the AFL and the NRL it’s way above 3%, way above 5%.  If you look at the Parliament, it’s 11% Aboriginal or part Aboriginal. So there – when we say the Aboriginals need help – don’t set them apart from anyone else because what you’re actually doing is saying you can’t get on without that. We’ve got Warren Mundine, we’ve got Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, we’ve got Karen Little – wonderful, wonderful humans, wonderful contributors, wonderful Australians. They don’t need help, and they will tell you they don’t need help, but what they want is a fair go. And what’s happened is, again the same thing, wealth transfer.  Government is there to transfer wealth illegally.  So, what they do is they set up the inferior people and automatically Aboriginals then start being bashed with the fact that they’re with the nonsense, the myth that they’re inferior, which is a terrible way to try and help people. But when you go into the communities, you find the white and black aboriginal industry has got its claws around everything. And so, the billions and it is literally billions of dollars, somewhere up around $40   billion, but at least $25 – $30 billion spent, and most of the money goes to the black and white aboriginal industry. I said white and black.  Consultants, lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians – they don’t get the money – activists, academics, they’re feeding off this. And you walk into the communities and the people in the communities, the Aboriginal communities, the remote community say “why don’t we get any help?”  And so, the other thing is I was told by a Councillor up in Bardoo Island in Torres Strait, he said, “mate, the people on the Closing the Gap gravy train do not want to close the gap because they get money while the gap is there”. We have gone backwards in the gap in the last few years.  

Mark Di Paola: It’s kind of like the NDIS service provider, isn’t it?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, it is but think of the people that are missing out by the white and black aboriginal industry stealing that money, misappropriating that money. We’ve got white and black people getting very, very wealthy, but the people on the ground not getting it.  

Adam Hudson: Yeah, well … 

Malcolm ROBERTS: But they’ve created victims, and you don’t say to an Aboriginal you’re a victim because people, white or black will fall into the victimhood status. That’s crippling. 

Adam Hudson: It’s interesting you mentioned the role of government is to protect life, property and freedom.  

Mark Di Paola: Yeah.  

Adam Hudson: And I think in the last five years with what we went through with COVID and so on, if I give a scorecard to our government on protecting life and protecting our freedoms and what they did to the accessibility of property to a lot of people, it’s a disaster. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: It’s negative. Oh my God, they killed people. It was homicide.  

Adam Hudson: Yeah. Like, it’s like a you couldn’t get a worse score. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No 

Adam Hudson: I mean, I don’t know where to start to talk about stuff because like there’s the COVID stuff that we can talk about. There’s the …  I want to get into all of that. I want to get into your views on the mismanagement of COVID and the gross egregious breaches of freedom that have pissed off so many Australians. And I think either of the two political majors need to start with an apology to the Australian people for what they put this country through and the damage they did. It’ll never come. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We’re working on it.  

Adam Hudson: Oh my God. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We’re not going to give up on that one.  

Adam Hudson: And a royal Commission into what happened. I don’t know.  What’s your suggestion with …, because I think a lot of Australians have lost trust as a result of what went on.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, the irony is, Adam, I’ve noticed this in private sector. I’ve noticed it in many places. The irony is that people say the boss is a dickhead, the boss is irresponsible, the boss is dishonest, you can’t trust politicians. Then where do they turn when something goes wrong? They become dependent on the boss. They automatically genuflect to the boss or the politicians. That’s one of the fundamental problem. Our country is a constitutional monarchy. It’s not a monarchy. Monarchy is where the king or queen has absolute power and says this is what you’re going to do Mark, gives you orders, makes all the rules, makes all the regulations. A constitutional monarchy is one where you have a constitution that is the supreme governing instrument. And that is the case in our country.  And the monarch in our country and I think it’s one, I used to criticise the monarchy because I don’t believe people should get a title because of their parents. But then what I realised is you look at the alternative, a president, and quite often that’s based on corruption. Who can spend the most money. I’m not saying that about Trump. Trump is wonderful. But so, and a constitutional monarchy, we’ve got the King or Queen of Britain acting as our monarch under the constitution. Their role is prescribed in the constitution.  They’re subordinate to the constitution. They have to serve. And Queen Elizabeth’s did a marvellous job of that.  Their powers are in reserve powers. If something happens then they can do this. So, we actually run the show. When I say we, I don’t mean the politicians, I mean the people of Australia, who … our country is the only country in the world in which the constitution was voted on by the people before it came in. Did you know that?  

Hosts: No. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I didn’t know that till six years ago. Who are the only people who can change the constitution? The people through a referendum. So, who’s in charge? Who elects the government?  The people. Democracy in this country, like most of the Western countries, has become a passive sport, a passive activity. We need – a democracy can only survive and thrive when it’s active. So not only, I’m not just talking about voting, I’m talking about being pissed off with the parties, with your representative, making sure that they are representing you properly, holding them accountable. That might mean letters, it might mean turning up to their office.  

Mark Di Paola: It’s the freedom to be able to have the conversation. And, you know, one of the things that really has just killed my faith in our leaders is these misinformation and disinformation bills and all these bills that they’re just trying to ram through to stop people like us simply speaking about … 

Adam Hudson: Our thoughts.  

Mark Di Paola: Our thoughts, yeah. Yeah. On what we think, the problems that Australia is facing. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: You can’t even question. You can’t even question, let alone think.  

Mark Di Paola: And that’s a really like, that’s a really scary place for me.  

Adam Hudson: I think that freedom of speech, we can jump into that quickly because in order to have a functioning democracy, you need to be able to speak and share ideas.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yep.  

Adam Hudson: And if they are successful and you’ve done a wonderful job of highlighting the fact that they will sneak through what appears to be a harmless thing that nobody could vote against, like for example … 

Malcolm ROBERTS: The misinformation and disinformation?  Who could go against that? 

Adam Hudson:  Yeah, or children accessing social media. We all of course worry about kids’ addiction to social media. And it’s hard to vote against NDIS, right? What politician in Australia can get elected by saying we should stop funding people with disabilities because it’s so unpopular to defund that. I’m not saying we should defund it. I’m just saying it’s a very difficult bill to overturn because of the nature of it. But if we can’t speak and just to finish that point, they sneak these bills through and then they, we lose this freedom and then they use it as a Trojan Horse kind of thing. Free speech. I’d love to hear your thoughts on, in your language, the importance of free speech and how that’s under threat right now. And then I want to actually ask the question about why you guys abstained from the vote, even though I know and many people know that you are pro free speech by a mile.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: We are the leaders in that fight. We are the absolute leaders in that fight. 

Adam Hudson: So that’s why it is so important.  For the average punter out there, why is it, like I said to Pauline, why should a Pakistani immigrant be funding your defence against that Pakistani minister? Like why? Why should they care about free speech even if they really disagree with what you said?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Let’s go right back to basics. Our universe is based on freedom. It evolves freely. 

Nature is free to do whatever she or he, whatever you want to call it, wants to do, and it evolves freely.  The universe is free.  The stars are free.  The planets are free.  Animals, plants are free.  The universe is based on freedom. It’s a model. We are not part of the universe; we are of the universe. 

We’re one with the universe, so we are inherently – when you were born, you were granted every freedom there is just by being born. And people have long, long from the human condition, the ego,  

wants to come along and have control over you.  So, the constant battle is not left versus right. 

That’s a distraction, that’s a lie, That’s a diversion.  The battle is better looked at between freedom and control and always beneath control by the way, there is fear.  So, people who seek to control are afraid.  What are they afraid of?  Well, there are many things they’re afraid of, but let’s go to have a look at freedom.  Let’s go beyond freedom of speech, Adam.  Freedom is in freedom of thought, freedom of faith.  You can believe whatever you want to in terms of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of association, who you mix with, freedom of exchange, who you exchange agreements with, who you trade with, freedom of movement, freedom of political assembly.  There are so many freedoms. There’s about 10 of them – I can’t remember the rest of them.  But that is what freedoms about.  It’s about liberty.  And as the American Constitution or the American Bill of Rights says, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, it’s fundamental to people. And that came from the universe. 

It came from – I happen to think there’s a God, if you don’t, but it came from the universe – it came from God.  You were born with it.  And the human condition is a fight to try and take some of that away from you.  That’s what it is. It’s a battle between control and freedom.  So, the primary freedom of the one I missed – how could I miss it – is the freedom of life, the right to live.  Okay and that’s being destroyed in our country, in many Western countries.  So, the primary freedom is the freedom of life, the freedom to exist and the primary vehicle for that is freedom of speech.  So, you can – all the other freedoms come from that freedom of speech.  So that’s why freedom of speech is so important.  It ignites everything. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah, and people say, even my wife and I when … and she goes, I think that hate speech thing is good.  People shouldn’t be able to say horrible things.  And I’m like, I, you know, no, because … 

Mark Di Paola: Freedom of speech is not – it’s not determining who can say what – it’s being sure that nobody can control who can’t.   

Adam Hudson: Well, that’s what I said to her.  Like it all comes down to who’s the arbiter of what defines hate speech, right?  And that’s why I personally – I’ve said it before, I’d rather know what somebody really thinks, even if I don’t, in fact especially if I don’t agree, because then I know. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes. And that’s something that’s so important.  You can call me short.  Now you can call me a runt.  You can call me any kind of name you want. You cannot give offence. 

I can take offence. That is my choice. There’s nothing wrong with being short, right, Mark? 

Mark Di Paola: It’s the best thing in the world. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I mean, we’re actually not short, we’re normal – these bastards are tall. 

Adam Hudson: He’s … 

Host: I’m in between. 

Mark Di Paola: Don’t know what’s in the water for these other guys. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: So, when we “protect” people because of – from being labelled, being called names, we are undermining their very being.  Call me anything you like.  When you call me something that’s not based on – not a statement based on data and fact, it shows that you haven’t got an argument.  So, you can call me a anti-vaxxer, a conspiracy theorist, tinfoil hat bearer, and all  

I have to say to you is, well, thank you very much for just admitting that I’ve won the argument. 

Because if you had an argument, had the data, you would have given it to me in a logical structure. 

But you haven’t. You’ve given me a label – you’ve just lost the argument. 

Mark Di Paola: Sticks and stones. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah, that’s a very important point, though. Label in place of facts. And this is what’s happened in the world like – that people just want a simple label that they can just, oh, that’s right, labelled sorted. They don’t actually want to think. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Left, right.  What they do then is, oh, I’m emotionally attached to the left, I’m emotionally attached to the right.  I don’t think – I just go into battle, but that’s rubbish because you’re missing out on so much.  So, it’s control versus freedom. 

Mark Di Paola: I agree with that.  I think the problem largely comes from the fact that problem solving and critical thinking isn’t taught in schools and so it’s just easier for people to side with the left or the right or whatever because people are being taught to memorise, and they’re not being taught to think critically.  You’re obviously a person that has thought critically about things.  It seems like you’ve got some spiritual leanings as well.  So, there’s an open-minded thread to everything that you look into. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, that’s the way the universe is, right?  So, if I try to control – controlling things shows that I’m afraid.  Controlling things shows that I lack the courage to just stand up and say what I think.  So, that’s I’m opposed to control.  Now see, I’m still nervous at the moment and that shows me that I’ve got something going on in my mind.  So, about 2021 I did my first day of Vipassana meditation course, it’s actually 11 days – the most intense thing I’ve ever done.  But every morning I sit down for an hour and 10 minutes in the morning, and I try to – I’d love to do it for an hour and 10 minutes in the evening, which is what the practise is – it’s non-sectarian, it’s non-religious.  But I try to do 15 minutes in the evening before I go to bed, but my wife wants to talk to me for some reason. So, I try and respect that. But when I first did Vipassana, I was very fit, physically able, very strong, no fat on me, but it was the most intense thing I’d ever done, sitting still for an hour and eventually when I first arrived at Vipassana meditation, it’s a 2500-year-old practise.  The Buddha started it, but it’s not Buddhist.  He, you know, he said this is a wonderful practise for just developing consciousness. And it’s a very simple meditation.  There’s no rituals or anything like that. It’s just being with your – it’s basically, this sounds weird but scanning your body and going through – and you pick up little sensations here and there that you didn’t know about.  And what happens is if you – if I call you a name or make a threat to you, you will feel it somewhere in your body – might be diaphragm, might be a sphincter, might be your buttocks, whatever.  And that’ll drive you. So, you’re not choosing your response to me.  But if I can say “shit I’m feeling really tight in the diaphragm or sphincter” or whatever it is, and I can go why? That’s my stuff going on underneath from when I was a child.  Because the other thing – another thing that Maria Montessori said is that we don’t start developing, and this is proven now, we don’t start developing our intellectual reasoning skills and our knowledge of the world until about nine and then we start developing that. So, what it means is that the primary user for the formation of both character and intellect is birth to six.  So, at six, you’re pretty much locked in, but you haven’t started thinking yet. You haven’t started reasoning yet. So, Adam wasn’t created by God. Your being was created by God. Adam was fabricated by you during a very ignorant time of your life.  Birth to six and then that’ll determine in a large proportion. Mark, your responses to threats, your responses to the world, how you see the world. Do I see myself as incompetent? Do I see myself as vulnerable? Do I see myself as whatever I see? And then I’ve got to look beneath that. So, when I first started meditating, it was excruciating. I didn’t know how I would finish the 10 days, the 11 days but I got through it, and I got a little voice going on inside my head saying you can do it, you can do it. And it wasn’t my inner talk, it was something else.  

Adam Hudson: It’s a silent retreat, right? So, you don’t talk. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: You don’t talk for 11 days or 10 days, the first 10 days. Because when we talk, when someone says something to you or even gestures to you, you interpret that – that dickhead, why did he do that, you know? And so, that judgement just clouds almost everything we do.  And so, you might do something to me or with me, my judgement based upon my zero to six, then interprets that and then puts it onto me saying, he’s telling me I’m incompetent, he’s telling me my whatever.  That points to my insecurities, not your nastiness.  

Adam Hudson: Let’s move back.  I just want to move back while – we got really close to that freedom of speech thing and I just want to close that loop, because for a guy that is so pro freedom and so freedom of speech, a lot of people are up in arms about the abstaining from the freedom of speech, you know, hate speech bill.  So can you just give us the context on what that bill was for that vast majority of Australians that don’t follow politics closely. What was the bill? What happened with the voting and why did you abstain from it? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: OK, first of all, you’re spreading misinformation. 

Adam Hudson: Okay. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: It’s a hate crime bill.  That’s the title of the bill.  

Adam Hudson: Yeah. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: A lot of people think it’s a hate speech bill. The second thing is that we had very good reasons. Pauline and I tossed it around – it was introduced very quickly and rushed through. So, we would normally oppose a bill for on that basis alone. Senator Rennick told a lie.  He came on to – as soon as the bill was done, he came out and said words to this effect – “One Nation has joined with the Liberals and Labor Party in supporting the bill.”  That is a complete lie – complete lie. We abstained, as you said. Then other people piled on. Clive Palmer piled on with lies. He made two statements. He said we supported the bill. That is false. We did not support the bill. We totally opposed it.  Then he also said it’s a hate speech bill. It’s not. And that’s what people have been pushing. If you look at what we’ve actually done in the freedom space, Pauline was the first to move a motion in the Senate as part of the first step of getting a committee to develop the terms of reference for a referendum on enshrining freedom of speech in the Constitution, Because it’s not in the Constitution. It’s implicitly there because of High Court rulings, but it’s not in the Constitution. And what happened during COVID fraud was, was completely wrong. So then, so we oppose the guillotining of the bill cutting – that means cutting of debate.  We opposed the bill itself because it was so poorly worded and some of the provisions like mandatory sentences, but even then – in the morning, Pauline was asked a question at a media conference: do you support mandatory sentencing? Well, in some ways we do support mandatory sentencing as a concept.  Forget about the bill for a minute. As a concept, for example, for terrorist crimes.  We’re tired of weak judges, but generally we’re opposed to the mandatory sentencing.  But she said in her response she will consider the mandatory sentencing. So that was labelled as her agreement – she doesn’t agree with it. So, there are many misrepresentations. So, that bill was about saying that you cannot threaten someone based upon their associations with a group, whether it be disability, because there are people threatening people with AIDS, for example. There are many different groups. Religion is another one. Many people are being threatened because of their religion. We can’t live in Australia in a free society with that kind of thing going on.  We can’t have threats of physical violence, threats of physical force. That is completely un-Australian. So, Pauline and I sat there and thought, what the hell do we do? Because normally with a bill that’s guillotined and a bill that we don’t like, it’s straight out oppose and then we said, hang on a minute, what about the signal we’re sending to the people who actually need this protection?  We want to send a signal saying we will consider aspects of the bill, so we will abstain. And so many people have piled on saying we supported the removal of freedom of speech. We did not. It’s a hate crimes bill to protect Australians against physical violence, physical threats, force being used. And we wanted to say we like that. So, we didn’t want to just trash the bill altogether. But we absolutely detest and do not support the detailed provisions in that bill. But it’s not a hate speech bill. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah, so it a case of – its nuanced and you couldn’t vote for or against the entirety of the bill. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, we could have. 

Adam Hudson: No, I mean, you could have, but there are aspects that you’re probably for and aspects that you’re probably not. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: One aspect that we’re for and that is the concept that Australians need to live in safety and security free from physical threats, violence and use of force.  So that was the nuance. Now there are some good people – Alex Antic, Ralph Babett, who came to me and said what’s your stance? And Alex – Alex and I get on really well.  So does Ralph – I think Ralph’s really good. 

Adam Hudson: Ralph’s trying to get it enshrined in the Constitution as well. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, he’s following in Pauline’s footsteps.  He’s trying a different approach because he’s trying to introduce it as a bill. We went through – the only way we can get it in the Constitution is go through a referendum. So, we went through the legally proper way.  But because it was a motion, it was voted against by the Greens, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Nationals, from memory.  When you introduce a bill, which is what Ralph’s done, then very rarely do people oppose it.  So, Ralph won’t get anywhere with it, but he’s sending a signal, just like we did with abstaining.  There’s another point I was going to mention in there … anyway. 

Adam Hudson: Do you think we’re a danger of seeing our mildly racist grandpa getting arrested in their house just like we saw in the UK for making a comment on Facebook?  That free speech has just gone out the window in Australia, like in the UK and people are getting – like teachers are getting arrested for saying, you know there are only two genders, that kind of stuff? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We are in danger of that.  When you’ve got a premier like Dan Andrews bringing in – yeah, it’s almost like vomiting rather than laughing, Mark, not having a go at you. 

Mark Di Paola: I lived in Melbourne during that time, so. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Dan Andrews government brought in the affirmation laws, which mean that – this is one of the things that I’m really passionate about – the parenting responsibilities and duties have been completely undermined.  And many parents don’t see that.  They’ve been done subtly but pervasively, just like so many other things.  So, if I had a son who is, you know, four, five, fourteen years of age and he came to me and said, Dad, I want to be a girl. Let’s say, “mate, you know, first of all, that quite often happens, it’s not uncommon for that to happen in adolescence. People just going through lots of changes hormonally. So, let’s sit down and talk about it”.  That’s what he wants. He’s upset about something else. So, you don’t change the topic. You just say: let’s discuss it, connect with him, listen to him, support him, say he’s okay for doing that and then get to the bottom and the only way you can get to the bottom of that is by listening to him.  He needs to feel heard. And quite often he will just say, no that’s not really, you know.  If it persists and it’s really strong because he’s being indoctrinated at school, which is the case in many, many occasions, then what you might do is bring in some counsellors. But it’s your job to protect him rather than just say, yeah, mate, cut your dick off or to a girl, cut your breasts off.  That’s wrong. Now, if you stand up and actually have that conversation with your child and question your child’s desire to change sex, then you are guilty of not affirming their desire and you can go to jail in Victoria. You can go to jail. And yet imagine what – and so what happens is a lot of parents, and I mean quite a few parents, are afraid, not only because of that, but because of the gender transformation, has become a cult. As gender dysphoria is a completely natural thing.  People are not happy with their gender. So let them work their way through it.  By the time they get to eighteen, certainly by the time they get to twenty-five , they say: oh, geez, I’m glad I didn’t cut my dick off, you know? But the other thing is there are only two genders, two sexes, male and female.  With a male, you’ve got an XY chromosomes, with a female, double X chromosomes. You cannot change that. So, when you affirm someone and they cut off their bits and pieces, you’re trapping them in something they’re not very comfortable with at heart.  And the majority of the suicides come from people who were told it’s okay Adam, you can reverse your transition. It’s a complete lie. You cannot reverse your transition. You are buggered for life because in well, the critical years for the formation of life, character and intellect are birth to six. In adolescence we go through myelinisation of the brain, enormous changes going on, the physical changes as well, but also mental changes. You start playing with that, with puberty blockers and you know, oestrogen and testosterone, you’re going to screw up the people and then when they’re wanting to have kids later, they might come back to being the gender they were in the first place, but even if they haven’t cut the bits and pieces off, they can’t have kids. 

Mark Di Paola: I think it’s, I think what you’re saying as well, and what I’ve heard a lot from people in the know is that when we’re going, like you just said, scientifically, when we’re going through that age, we are unsure about ourselves. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah. 

Mark Di Paola: Not just our genders. We are just unsure about ourselves when we’re going through puberty. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yep, and you’re flooded with hormones. 

Mark Di Paola: All these hormones like when a woman is pregnant, she’s flooded with hormones and her mood may change because of the hormones, whatever, whatever those moods are, positive or negative. The same thing happens when kids are going through puberty, there’s a whole bunch of changes that are going on internally leading us to be unsure about what’s happening and who we are. The fact that that’s been linked to gender seems like more fashion than it is science. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: You nailed it.  That’s exactly what it is.  But there’s also … 

Mark Di Paola:  Like, how can people say that I want to be considered a cat or I’m a furry or like, that’s … preference. 

Adam Hudson: I think we’re moving out of this madness, to be honest. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, we are.  And Trump is a big, big part of that. 

Mark Di Paola: But the point is, is that it is normal.  Like you were saying. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah.  And if you look, Adam, at what happened in the Senate, the Greens first started talking about this madness.  And what they do normally is they, they not only talk about the madness, but they then say, if you don’t agree, you’re anti, you’re … 

Mark Di Paola: They demonise you. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: What is it?  Transphobic? 

Mark Di Paola: Transphobic. 

Adam Hudson: They label you. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: So, you want to shut up?  Well, I realised very early, and I was the first one to speak out consistently against this, and what happened was the Greens would have four or five speakers speaking for it and I’d oppose it. 

*** AD BREAK *** 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And then bit by bit more jumped in – Canavan, Renick, Antic, Hanson, a very big one on this.  We had parents coming to see us, Babet was another one.  And the last time this was raised in the Senate, it was to do with a bill that we cosponsored to stop the federal government spending money on any trans – attempts to change gender.  And I spoke first – and I said, I looked across at the Greens and said “you’re the people that are causing kids to suicide because they changed their bits and pieces and they realise it’s not reversible and they commit suicide.”  And that was the first time they had been accused of suicide, causing suicide. And Nick McKim came up and he jumped up and he spoke a whole lot of bullshit.  He just went off.  His speech was so embarrassing that I posted it on my website.  They have no facts to go by. And he was the last of the Green speakers, one speaker and then up came the others, on our side. So, we had five speakers against their one. So, we had reversed the tables. Now I’m not trying to claim sole credit for that, but initially people were afraid of speaking up against it because they’d be labelled transphobic.  You had the Australian New Zealand Psychologist or Psychiatrist Association come out last year and saying affirmation is the completely wrong treatment for gender dysphoria. Well hello, where were you for the last years? But they waited until we gave them space to be able to say that.  So, a lot of doctors were bullied and intimidated into it because they’d be called transphobic if they didn’t just go along with it. 

Mark Di Paola: Just to be clear as well, I’m not saying and I don’t think you’re saying that gender dysphoria … 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Dysphoria? 

Mark Di Paola: Doesn’t exist.  We’re agreeing that it exists. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We’re saying it does exist. 

Mark Di Paola: We’re saying that it exists.  We’re saying that affirmation is not the correct way treatment. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And it became very significant when some of the gender clinics in overseas were shut down, the largest in the world, I think was Tavistock in Britain, that have been doing things automatically.  And they have now got the large class action suit against them.  Sweden, I think Finland, they’re shutting these clinics down and what we’re doing is opening them up in this country. 

So, it’s also important to understand, Mark, that there is a tiny, tiny, tiny proportion of people who are hermaphrodites.  They’re genuinely – they’ve got bits and pieces of both sexes in them.  So, the way to look after them is not to pillory and confuse kids. The way to look after them is just understand them and love them and respect them as humans.  That’s all people want. 

Eric Machado: Yeah.  You mentioned earlier trust and leadership. Now where do you feel, at the moment, in Australian politics that trust is being broken and leadership is lacking?  I know you probably have a long list, but what are some of the top things that you’re seeing? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: COVID, the anti-human lie, the belief that government can solve everything, every major problem in this country, Eric, comes out of Parliament House, Canberra – every major problem.  There are a few that come out of the state parliaments, but the federal government worsens them.  There’s another one, climate.  That’s a lie.  We have – I’ve done research on climate now for since 2007.  I’ve got an incredible colleague just South of Canberra. His IQ is off the scale, but more importantly, he’s very, very practical. He’s the sort of guy who says “I think I’ll build myself a magnetic levitation train” and you’re going what? And then – he doesn’t mean he’ll buy a few parts off eBay and assemble them.  He means going to his lathe and making them. This guy is off the scale when it comes to intelligence, but he’s very, very practical.  He loves research. He’s just inquisitive. He’s been that way ever since he was a boy, but he researches nature, he researches food, he researches climate. So, when he saw me flogging away on this thing he came and said I’ll help you. He developed computer programmes. He’s a computer programmer, but he’s also a wonderful human. He’s a Renaissance man. He can dabble in everything, and he wrote programmes to go into major sites around the world and scrape their climate data out – all legal – scrape that climate data. He’s amassed 24000 data sets on climate and energy. Not only does he do that, he then goes into statistical books, statistic books and works out ways of assembling them, combining them, mixing and matching them, and Mark and Eric, there is not a single climate factor – temperature, rainfall, drought severity, duration frequency, storm severity, duration frequency anywhere in the world that shows there is a change in climate.  

Eric Machado: Why are they pushing it? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Control and wealth transfer, is what they want.  And if you look at Maurice Strong, I wouldn’t mind talking about him in a minute.  Maurice Strong is the father of global warming in the 1970’s and then he became the father of the transformation to global climate change. They’re pushing it for control and wealth transfer. They want to control how we develop and what we can and can’t you. They’re wanting it also for funding the United Nations budget. At the moment, the United Nations relies upon donations, grants from member countries, particularly the United States. But what they want to do is develop their own budget so they’re independent and that’s what carbon tax, carbon dioxide taxes are eventually meant for.  They also want to look after parasitic bureaucrats, sorry parasitic billionaires and corporations that are going to feed off this. The major banks – Bank of America, Merrill Lynch, Rothschilds Bank in Australia – their advisory boards included what was her name, the previous CSIRO chief executive – conflict of interest!  But the banks were looking at huge money exchanging, carbon dioxide credits, money and wealth transfer and what you’ve got, and these are not just my words, these are the words and admissions of the senior UN bureaucrats, including Christiana Figueres, who was head of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC -she said this is about transforming the global economy, the economic world order and what they want to do is bring in socialism. Maurice Strong, as I said, he fabricated this.  Incredible intellect, incredible manipulator of people. He said he had two aims in life. One is to put in place an unelected socialist global government. These people are not our friends.  The second one was to deindustrialize Western civilisation. Get rid of these things (holds up mobile phone), get rid of our technology, get rid of this, get rid of what we’re seeing around us. These people are anti human and their practises, and their words are showing that. 

Adam Hudson: So, if they wanted to find, if I wanted to Google, is that true that those were his two aims in life, where would I find that information to confirm that?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: I’ve forgotten where I found it, but I checked it myself back in around 2007-2008. 

Adam Hudson: The guy’s name is what? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Maurice. M A U R I C E.  Strong. S T R O N G.  

Adam Hudson: So, verify guys.  Go out and look this up yourself, you know, and try to dig to this. Don’t just listen to Malcolm – do the work.  

Mark Di Paola: A lot of people give us flack about not fact checking it. But really like you were saying earlier, the responsibilities is on the listeners.  

Adam Hudson: So, this is a pretty evil dude, right? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: He is a very evil dude, but very, very slick. He was, he did, Maurice Strong, the most – oh where do you start?  The most significant thing – look up until about 1850, the middle of the start of the industrial revolution. Prior to that, our species were scratching around in the dirt, subject to famine, subject to all kinds of variations in weather, right? Very vulnerable. Then we developed hydrocarbon fuel – coal, oil and natural gas. They’re not fossil fuel, they’re hydrocarbon fuels. They’re combinations of hydrogen atoms and carbon atoms and they liberated humanity and the real price of energy until we started this climate crap was on a relentless decrease. The lower you get your price of energy, the more productive you are. Automatically.  The more productive you are, the more wealth and prosperity you have. And it’s not just the few billionaires who used to control the money, even though Rockefeller made a lot of money, everyone in society was lifted dramatically from 1850 to 1996.  Everyone!  We have never seen the human race move so much, and now we’ve seen China in just a space of 40 years emerge with material wealth.  Now we’re seeing India in on it and those countries want hydrocarbon fuel because they know that’s what the secret is.   

Mark Di Paola: And cheap energy? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Cheap energy, but it’s also reliable. See what we’ve done up until the use of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, we were dependent on nature. We were dependent on beasts of burden; we were dependent on slaves. We were dependent on wind, solar, not solar as we know it today, but solar through crops. And if you had a prolonged drought, you’re buggered, that’s it, people died from famines.  Now we can store water, we can build dams, we can build clean water supply systems. So even the – for example – the dramatic improvement in health is due to that –  

Adam Hudson: All energy related? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: All energy related, it pervades, pervades everything. Now in 1996, John Howard came to power, and he said we will not comply. We will not sign the UN Kyoto agreement. I mean, you can check this out. And everyone went clap, clap, clap. But he said we will comply with it. What’s that mean? So, what he did was he started to reverse the cost of energy. Instead of relentlessly falling, he reversed it, which is reversing human progress. But what he also did was he recognised in 1996 the UNS Kyoto climate protocol came in 1997, all based on ********.  And what happens is when you’re at these gab fests, when you’re at Parliament House, you know, how a lot of people are sheep. There’s no difference amongst doctors, there’s no difference amongst politicians, there’s no difference amongst the political leaders from around the world who congregate and they just, they’re afraid to say sorry, but there’s no evidence for this. So, what he did was he put in place a renewable energy target, which we’re now seeing is destroying our electricity grid. We’ve gone from being the cheapest electricity in the world to the most expensive. Among the most expensive. He put in place the national electricity market, which is not a market, it’s a racket. It’s ********. It’s not a free exchange of, of electricity. It’s ruled by the bureaucrats who favour solar and wind. No doubt about it.  

Adam Hudson: This is what’s pushing price of everything up as well, right?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Then they say, oh, solar and wind are the cheapest. Well, why have we got record amounts of solar and wind and our and our prices are the highest they’ve ever been? Every country around the world, if that’s a graph of electricity price and percentage of solar, as you get more solar in, you get a higher price. Every country that’s done significant changes, John Howard brought that in, but here’s what he did. The liberals are supposed to – one of the things that they will die on the Hill for is secure property rights, because it’s fundamental to responsibility, fundamental to innovation, fundamental to human progress, fundamental to development. Property rights are absolutely essential. Well, John Howard said – his government said – people are not ready to buy off this carbon dioxide trading yet. This carbon – it’s a tax – and for the UN. So, what he said was let’s – what his government said was – let’s put in place credits for that. So instead of shutting down our factories, our cars, our trucks, our farming, our power stations, what we’ll do is we’ll go to the UN and say, mate, if we stop the clearing of land, that will save trees so they can absorb carbon dioxide. So would you give us a credit rather than shut down carbon dioxide production? We will stop the clearing of land. To do that, he had to confront Section 51, Clause 31 of the federal Constitution, which is that if you interfere with someone’s rights to use their property, you must pay just terms, compensation. Now, at the same time, the states do not have that protection.  

So, what John Howard did, it’s all documented. He went to the States and said, can you stop the clearing of land? You won’t have to pay compensation because Howard was looking at $100 to $200 billion dollars of compensation for the farmers. And they did that. Peter Beatty’s written about it, he was the premier at the time and, and Queensland and Bob Carr was the environment minister or the premier at the time in NSW. So, here’s a key plank of Liberal philosophy protecting property rights being completely trashed, completely trashed. So, you think of it, a farmer buys a farm, he’s got the right to clear the land because he wants to go from beef farming to a more value added, like wheat or something like that, whatever. Just, he can’t do it without getting permission. And that is the destruction of property rights. 

But it wasn’t just in the farms, it was in the towns. We’ve got a guy up in, Brisbane. 

I know his niece and he’s getting on in age and he said he wants to sell his blocks of land; He’s got a major site for development. So, this the City Council came in and said, yeah, you can sell them, but you’ll have to give us this area for park. Now, I don’t mind that the park’s been created, but you compensate him for it! You know, you don’t steal land off people.  

A fellow Mosman in Sydney, he told me that there are regulations in the Mosman City Council that say you’ve got to have a certain percentage of grass or Bush in your property. You can’t concrete it at all.  

Mark Di Paola: If you want to concrete it, go ahead and concrete it.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: You know, if you affect the drainage and it effects a neighbour, then you have to wear the cost of that, but you know what I mean? Property rights are fundamental.  

Mark Di Paola: Windfall tax is another one in Victoria. The windfall tax, like in taxing property, that’s another way of stealing property rights, isn’t it?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah. 

Adam Hudson: They just tax people on the Gold Coast, if you’re on level 5 or above, now their rates are up 40%. 

Mark Di Paola: One of the things that got the most attention on- 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Did I answer your question, by the way, about the hate crimes Bill? 

Adam Hudson: You did. Yeah, yeah, yeah. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: That’s right, I started just before we go on, with what you’re talking about, Mark. So, I mixed with Ralph Babet and Alex Antic in particular. And then Ralph said to me, what are you doing on the bill? And I said abstaining. He said, oh, mate, you got to oppose it. And I said, yeah, there’s grounds for that. And he had – I like Ralph – I was seriously considering opposing it. And I remember the conversation we had with Pauline; I was umming and ahing. So it’s not an easy thing to do because we also opposed all of the guillotines and we supported the motion that failed to extend the debate because that was what we’re really after. We’re after better debate, a better examination of the bill. The Labor Party combining with the Greens usually and often with the Liberals. In this case, it was the Liberals, guillotined 205 bills, as of now. 

Adam Hudson: No debate? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No debate, no or minimal debate, just truncated debate. So what I’m saying is, quite often we would say just oppose it, but we had to send a signal. Pauline and I, we’re not afraid to be the only two, we’re not. Because we had to send a signal, and I’ve had people walk up to me and say, we understand what you did, thank you. Because it means you’re protecting our security.  

Mark Di Paola: I think This is why podcasts in this new medium of media, like you mentioned at the start is so important because, you know, I even responded to Pauline about the bill on X and she responded and I still didn’t quite understand it. But hearing you speak about it today, it’s helped me to understand that there’s parts of what is in that bill that you support and that’s, that everybody should feel safe from threat.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: The other thing, Mark, is that on the morning of the day of that bill being voted on, we released a suite of policies. And I’m happy to talk about them later, but they’re very comprehensive. And they’re all about putting more money in people’s pockets because we are going through a hell of a tough time with families and singles and small businesses in this country. And that needs to be addressed. We’ve got rampant government that is stealing this money and wasting it, ******* it up against the wall. That’s what we want to bring back. Our policies were released on the evening before to the major public, major newspapers in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne and they took off, you know, on the comments sections beneath the newspaper articles, online wonderfully positive. And some other minor parties went **** what do we do?  

Adam Hudson: Copy them.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: No, no, no, steal the airtime, steal the airtime and, and smash them and try and destroy us through lies. As I said, Gerard Rennick told a lie. We did not support the bill along with the Liberal and Labor Party. We abstained and I’ve explained that. 

Adam Hudson: I want to talk about you. You touched on something, because we are a business show and I’d love your input because I haven’t had the –  what?  

Mark Di Paola: I was just going to ask about the 44% on property. Well, we’re talking about property rights and taxes.  

Adam Hudson: Yeah, OK. 

Mark Di Paola: That’s one of the things that got a lot of comment, and a lot of feedback was Pauline mentioned that 44% of building a new house is in one form tax. And a lot of people said, oh, she’s a liar. You guys are lying. You guys, you should have fact checked it. Like it’s ******** it’s crap. I’m a developer. That’s not true. Can you clarify where that 44% comes from?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, that comes from-  in the first place, I knew about this ten years ago. 

Someone showed me a newspaper article in Sydney Sun Herald, I think, or the Herald Sun or whatever it’s called in Sydney or the Telegraph, might have been Telegraph, I can’t remember. 

Whichever one Murdoch owns and it was quoting the Housing Institute of Australia or the Housing Institute of NSW or NSW Realtors, whatever they said it’s 45% to 50%. And, if you look at, there are so many factors there, if you look at, I organised and led an economic summit in in our Senate office in one of the buildings at QLD Parliament House, Queensland State Parliament House in 2017. We had a number of economists there and Alan Moran, Doctor Alan Moran, he said that the cost of building a house in Houston, Texas and Sydney, Australia at that time were about the same. 

The cost of the land was astronomically high in this country. So there’s so many things. It’s not just land prices, which are just being raised dramatically by regulations. Red tape, blue tape, green tape- 

Mark Di Paola: Open space contributions, wind taxes – 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And green tap, we as you, as you know, because of my stance on the on the environment needing to be healthy for civilizations future. I’m a, really pro-environmental person, but I’m after sensible policies because I’m also pro human. And, the environmental movement has been hijacked by ideology. It’s a ******** movement. Now the,  greens, because they’re using the environment as a way of saying you’re evil. Let us control it. And, so that’s what they’re doing. So does that answer your question?  

Adam Hudson: Yeah. So, you mentioned in passing that the whole climate debate is a massive fraud, but the other one that you mentioned in passing was the debasement and the printing of money and the Fiat currency. Can you speak to that quickly though, because I’ve, I’ve been getting barbecued over the last few weeks about trying to highlight how, you know, I think it’s a, you know, money in the bank that you’ve gone out and worked for is, you know, just an abstracted form of your time and energy.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: You’re correct.  

Adam Hudson: And it’s sitting there in a bank account getting devalued. And we just accept. OK, well, it’s just inflation, but it shouldn’t be the case. Can you in like, Can you speak to that?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Sure. It’s a stealth tax. We – I’ll come back to that – Let’s have a look at a real example here in this country during the COVID fraud, the COVID mismanagement, the COVID response. It wasn’t COVID that caused the problems. It was government that caused the problems. And, I’m going to put my hand up and say that when it first arrived here, we were given these pictures of people dead in the streets of Italy and France and Greece and China and all the rest of it. We now know that they were propaganda. They were complete ********   – the death toll from COVID was less than the flu.  

Adam Hudson: Do you mean – we – are you talking about the political class?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, yeah, I’m not part of the political class, but- 

Adam Hudson: But you know what I mean. So, in Parliament, you’re not talking about general population, in Parliament. You guys were getting this stuff given to you.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah. And we could see it on the news. 

Adam Hudson: OK, so they sit you down and say all right, and who is they? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No, no, no. The propaganda was everywhere through the media, and I’ll see if I can cover all the points. So we went, **** what if this is real? That means if it’s real, you have got to do something to prevent it. So we said OK to the government, Morrison’s government, go for it. Job. What was it called? Job seeker and job keeper.  

Adam Hudson: Job keeper or something?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, the second one was job keeper. Hundreds of billions of dollars – 

Adam Hudson: Printed. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Printed. And if people want a source of the printing, there are many, many very good books, credible books that discuss it. Henry Ford, who was no slouch, he was a well-known businessman. He said if the people knew what the what was going on with their money, there would be a revolution by morning. One of the best places to hide something is on people’s noses. 

They let them have a look at it every day. They get so used to it, people – This has been happening since 1913 with the Federal Reserve Bank, which is privately owned. That’s another fact. But I asked a question of the Reserve Bank of Australia governor at Senate Estimates and the deputy governor answered my question. I said, is it true that money is basically printed? I can’t remember my exact question. And he said an electronic ledgers and he paused and he sort of thought about it and he said, yes, Senator Roberts, electronic journal entries. So yes, it is. So what happens is they don’t have any assets at stake. They just make an entry in a Ledger and then they give you the loan and when you default, you lose your asset. But they haven’t got anything at stake, just reserves and they’re fabricated. So yes, it’s very true. Now, if you have a look at what Morrison did and the Reserve Bank of Australia during COVID, they flooded the joint with cash. 

We told them that will lead to severe inflation. No, no, no, no it won’t. Well, it did. And then we had Chalmers come in as the treasurer and Albanese as the Prime Minister and continuing to hand out cash and that’s what perpetuated inflation.  

Adam Hudson: So what’s One Nation’s view of Bitcoin?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: We don’t have an official view of Bitcoin. I’m still doing my research on that at the moment, I would say, and I’ve read one book on it. I’m about to read another and I’ve listened to people. There seems to be. I’ll see if I can put my thoughts together on this. There seems to be genuine merit in it. They’re worth exploring. There seems to be. What’s attractive to me is I can’t understand this yet or put my finger on it, but it seems to be it’s a way of bypassing central banks, which I love. Sorry, I don’t love central banks. I love the bypassing of central banks. It makes money honest again, because with printing of money, money is not honest. With gold standard, the money is honest. But people are telling me that Bitcoin is a bit like the gold standard. So I’m really keen to learn more. Trump sent the right signals about that. So maybe that’s correct. What was the other thing? I was going to say it, it takes it out of the hands of the central bank and puts it in the hands of the people, which I love. But there are, that’s right. The other thing is I’ve got a very good one of my, well, I’ve got fantastic staff, but one, one of them is an economist by training, but he’s practical, he’s run businesses. He’s not just a theoretical economist. He said Bitcoin at the moment is still highly volatile. And so he said do not buy Bitcoin in one hit because you could buy it up here and lose your money. He said buy it on weekly instalments and they said they’re not, you’ll average out overall. 

But he said- 

Adam Hudson: *inaudible* cost average, yeah. The one book to read is the Bitcoin Standard. That’s  the Bible if you want to learn that space.  

Mark Di Paola: And we always talk about money printing and debasement. And there’s a really, really good book by Lynn Olden called Broken Money and it just talks about the history of money and, how like it’s a very abstract thought money printing.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Is that Lynn? 

Mark Di Paola: Lynn Olden.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, I watched her half hour video. There was nothing there new, well a couple of things that were new. But when I when I first started on this climate scam, because as an engineer, I’ve been taught that science is the basis of engineering. So I understand what science really is. And as a mining engineer, I had to keep people alive underground. That meant ventilating mines, that meant understanding atmospheric gases. And when I realised that they were telling us that carbon dioxide from human activity was destroying the planet, I went ******** because the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 0.04%. And somebody said, Oh yeah, but one of the, you know, you can have that much arsenic in your in your food and you’ll die. And I said, yeah, but this is not a chemical effect. This is a physical effect. 0.04% of the Earth’s atmosphere is not going to cause any problems. We now know that’s true because if you look at what they’re telling us about climate is that we’re causing an increase in levels of carbon dioxide which is causing heating. Now what we need to do then is stop the production of human carbon dioxide, which is cut back on livestock, see the control of food cut back, especially on the use of coal, oil and natural gas, cars, etcetera. Now we’ve had two natural experiments on that. What they said was if we cut back on the use of these fuels, we will do that to our production of- to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been going up, but that’s controlled entirely by nature. So let me explain why in 2009, we had a severe recession around the world, almost a depression because of the global financial crisis. So when you go into a recession, you produce- you use less hydrocarbon fuels and you produce less carbon dioxide. 

So what happened to the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, you’d expect it to go like that. 

It didn’t. That’s what they told us. It went like that, continued increasing. And then in 2020, we had the COVID near depression around the world because everyone’s shut down. And again, you’d expect it to cut level of carbon dioxide to do that. 

That’s what they told us it did, that there’s not even an Inflexion, not even an Inflexion because people don’t realise that according to Henry’s law, the oceans control the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere because the oceans have in dissolved form 50 to 70 times more carbon dioxide than in the entire atmosphere. And that’s, that’s from the United Nations figures themselves. So what it means is that if you have slight increases in temperature, carbon dioxide gets released from the oceans. If you have slight decreases in temperature, carbon dioxide gets absorbed into the oceans. So that’s what controls it. And you can see every year there’s a seasonal level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. And- 

Adam Hudson: It’s fascinating.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: It’s just- 

Adam Hudson: We’re running out of time. So we’ve got Eric here. I’d love to just run through before we finish. And I’ll get Eric to just some of these policies that you and Pauline announced from, it looked like you’re in Parliament House when you were- 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah. 

Adam Hudson: -Press conference. I’d love to run through those quickly. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Sure. 

Adam Hudson: If people are thinking of voting for One Nation, you can run through the reasons why before we wind it up. Did you have a question, Eric? 

Eric Machado: Yeah. Earlier you mentioned people saying thank you, keep going, job well done. And Pauline Hanson said the same thing off camera. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: She’s a walking logo, they see the red hair and just flock. 

Eric Machado: Yeah. But she says that it’s not reflecting in the voting as much as she wants. Why is that? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Two reasons. One is that people are ingrained to vote like mum and dad. If their mum voted Liberal and dad voted Liberal, they vote Liberal. If they vote Labour, they vote Labour. That’s entrenched. Another part of that, Eric, is that the media you watch, it’s already started. They will focus on Labour, Liberal, Labour, Liberal, Labour, Liberal Albanese, Dutton, Albanese, Dutton, Albanese, Dutton. They’re indoctrinating people to think that they’re the only two choices. So if you don’t like Labour, vote Liberal. So that that that’s what’s going on. We also saw in the Queensland election for example, Labour has been so bad in Queensland that they just barely got in 2020 because of COVID. Because when they had the COVID mismanagement people thought that Anna kept us safe. A complete lie. But that’s what they did so they kept her back. 

If she, if COVID hadn’t happened she would have been out on her ***. In February of 2020 she was gone. So people are misled. But the second thing is that they got so bad in the following four years that in October of 2024, when we had the state election, people were saying we got to get rid of Labour. That was the overriding thing, got to get rid of Labour. So people walked into the, into the ballot box thinking can’t have Labour back, can’t have Labour back. So I’ll vote for the other guys. The other guys, the Liberal Party. I saw time and time again people would walk out of the polling booth and say voted for you Malcolm, love your work. I put One nation #2. Put Liberals #1 because they were scared. So what we’re saying to people is we understand you don’t want Labour back. 

And I think the same is with Albanese. For goodness sake, vote conviction because we’ve got so many people who are saying One Nation’s policies are the right ones for us. Vote conviction. So put One nation #1 and I will guarantee you that whoever you put #2 we will do a better job then. 

But then the second thing is, OK, now you’re worried about Labour getting back. All you have to do is put Liberal before Labour and your vote. If we don’t get in, and the other minor parties don’t get in. Your vote will stop at Liberal. So vote two things, vote conviction and vote protection. Vote conviction, put One Nation number one. If we don’t get in, you’re at the right protection, which means your vote will go to Liberal. And if you don’t like Liberal and you want to make sure that Liberals don’t get in and just put Labour before Liberal. But above all, put One Nation number one. 

Mark Di Paola: That’s a great explanation on how that works. 

Adam Hudson: And if you are interested, we actually built this for Pauline’s visit, but we’re going to reuse it here. If you go to unemployable.com dot AU/OneNation   -ONE, not the numeral one, but the spelling ONE. So unemployable.com dot AU/OneNation, we’ve set up a page here where we had gotten all your policies from the website and we’ve put them into AI and it’s turned it into a podcast where for 20 minutes you can hear AI explain to you. And they haven’t leftied it. They’ve, they’ve left it really quite balanced where they’ve unpacked all of your policies and explained it to you and planning yourself. If you’re not a reader and you’re not going to sit there and download the PDFs or whatever. Download, go there, we’ll give you the print out and we’ll give you the audio and you can just hear it read to you by an, well, as impartial as AI can be, it’s not by us, it’s by AI and it’ll, give you a rundown of all their policies for free. Just go to our web page. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: The, the key thing is that, as I said earlier, our policies have been costed. They’re based on budget costs, based on Parliamentary Budget Office estimates. The, key part of it is putting more money in your pocket. And where do we get the money from? We get more than enough. We get 40 million, $40 billion to put money into people’s pockets. And that the things we’re doing there are productivity enhancements like cutting the cost of fuel, which is in everything, cutting through that. 

Adam Hudson: That was cool. So 50% fuel, excise cut, wasn’t it? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, 26c a litre.  

Adam Hudson: 26 cents a litre. You’re delivering that by cutting the fuel excise for the first 12 months of your election, straight away. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, I’m, working on getting Pauline to make that three years. 

Adam Hudson: OK.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: That’ll send a stronger signal to the Reserve Bank. These policies the Reserve Bank will love. 

Adam Hudson: So that’s one getting aged care, sorry, older people back to work, who want to be in work? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, there’s a really powerful one called income splitting. So if a male and female or husband and wife, spouse, whatever partner, whatever you want to call it, if one of them’s working and the other one’s not looking after the kids, then you can combine your income and divide it by two as it so, so that dramatically drops your tax rate. So that will for a typical family on an average income with one stay at home parent, that will save about $9500 to $10,000 a year. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah. So that brings the threshold, I think before you pay taxes up to 35 grand. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, that’s for the self managed super annuit.  

Adam Hudson: Oh, sorry. Oh, yes, yeah, yeah, yeah. So income splitting is one.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes, and the other thing is cutting the electricity prices because of the- at the moment coal is being smashed. It’s causing destruction of the, coal boilers, the generators for electricity because coal is meant to be stable base load power that’s being switched on and switched off and that’s destroying it. So there’s nothing cheaper than coal anywhere in the world. That’s why the Chinese are wanting it. We produce 560 million tonnes of coal roughly a year. Chinese produce 4.5 billion and they’re heading for more and they’re importing, they’re heading for five and they’re importing out. So coal is not dead. The forecasts for coal are dramatically increasing. We are shooting ourselves in the head economically in this this country. So, So what we want to do is change the national electricity- what we will do is change the national electricity market rules which govern the allocation of electricity rather than being artificially favouring solar and wind which destroys coal, makes it uncompetitive. We want to just let the cheapest go. 

Adam Hudson: And I know one of the things we hear over and over and over is we are just not getting anything for our resources. What’s your plan? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes, we want to put an excise, a tax, sorry, not an excess, a tax on production and exporting of, of natural gas. At the moment, Norway does that, Qatar does that and they get so much money from doing that. Norway gives it to a wealth fund for their citizens. Qatar, I don’t know what happens to it, but in our country, Bob Hawke and John Howard, Labour and Liberal basically gave our gas away. And what we want to do is tax that based upon volume of production, not on profit and loss. Because as you know, with profit and loss, you can make it anything you want. 

Hosts: Exactly. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: So you can cut your tax dramatically to almost zero just by just by allocating costs to fire- 

Adam Hudson: So you’re basically proposing to tariff it, right? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah. 

Adam Hudson: Yeah. So you would tariff it so we get paid for it. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We’re in a crazy situation, Adam. I’m told that the Japanese import our gas- 

Adam Hudson: And resell it. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, not only that, but they import our gas and they charge their importers $3 billion as import duty. And we get sweet FA and, and, and, but think about that. 

Hosts: *inaudible*  

Malcolm ROBERTS: We have got the world’s largest tax evader in Chevron, basically an American company taking our resources and paying zip and John Howard introduced, introduced the exporting of that gas. He authorised the exporting, his government. Prior to that, Bob Hawke changed the petroleum rent resources tax. It sounds wonderful. It guaranteed that they won’t pay any tax. So  both parties are doing it and then they don’t want to tax it. We also want to get a pipeline across the country because we know that our net Northwest shelf gas can be converted to liquid fuels, diesel and petrol. We can be self sufficient. 

Adam Hudson: OK, guys, you know, JFK said every country gets the government they deserve. That we live in a democracy. You can vote actually, guys, and you know how to vote if you want to, if you like what Malcolm’s saying anything else? What else are you guys going to get stuck into to put more money back in our pockets as a nation and as a people? I’ve got here some notes. NDIS, Medicare fraud. Fraud is huge in NDIS. Fraud is huge in Medicare. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Well, there are four components, as I said. The first one is putting more money in people’s pockets. So the second one is where do you get the money from? Third one is that the money that we can get from shutting down waste and duplication in the federal government is around about at least $90 billion. So that means $40 billion to put more money in people’s pockets. That leaves another 50, so another $20 billion a year in investing in infrastructure for the future productivity and the future wealth and the rest can go after paying the debt because at the moment we have got a debt of about $800 billion, eight hundred and something $860 billion in 2026/27 that will be- the interest payments will be the largest single budget item there is. That’s if NDIS doesn’t go rampant. So where are we getting the money from? From shutting down government waste and duplication. Shut down. Abolish the, the climate fraud department. Sorry, the climate change department, because that is that’ll, that’ll save us at least $30 billion a year. Then all the regulations, the subsidies, all the rest of the go to that and it’ll free up the price of electricity, reduce the price of electricity dramatically and it will also get the government the hell out of interfering in people’s lives. The government through the climate change, climate fraud policies, net zero from the United Nations Paris Agreement for the United Nations, which both the major parties are pushing. What we will do is take the government out of every aspect of your lives. It if you look at energy, it’s in everything.  

The second thing is the health and health, education, housing under the under the Constitution are state government responsibilities. And when you have states, this is really important. When you have states being responsible for something, then they compete on being better than other people. That gives us accountability. So what happens is if, if NSW does a better job on education than Queensland, people will actually leave Queensland and go to NSW because you’ve got choice. So when you’ve got no choice, you’ve got no accountability. So at the moment, the federal government has come in, John Howard again introduced the national curriculum, which has come, which has come in from the United Nations. That’s why our education standards are dropping, plummeting, because there’s no accountability now, because when the federal government has a curriculum, there’s no competing curriculum. So federal waste in duplicating the state and then on education and health and aged care and housing, that’ll go. That saves billions there. 

We also want to abolish the federal government looking after, well, no, they don’t look after. They destroy the federal government department of, of Aboriginal Affairs, well, all the racket and the white and black Aboriginal industry. And instead we would, we would fund grants to the local communities, bypass all the all the white and black Aboriginal aboriginal industry. There are other departments, NDIS bring that back into shape. That’s a real disaster. And it’s because, well, not only is, is there so much fraud going on, Adam, but people who deserve care are not getting it. And people who, who are, who are not entitled or are getting huge amounts spent on them. 

Adam Hudson: Providers are just milking it at a lot of providers. I’ve, I’ve just had story after story. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: You know, I didn’t learn about this until yesterday. I haven’t checked it out, but we had two really well-spoken a man and a woman from one of the they’re privately owned, but they’re one of the biggest providers of NDIS care, right? And they’re Australian and, they employ employees. Some of the foreign equity firms, you know, that signals they’re after money also have provide providers. They don’t employ them. They put them on an Uber type contract. So they don’t pay compensation, workers compensation, they don’t pay superannuation, they don’t pay payroll tax. And so what’s happening is the federal government reimburses them, and they skim off what, what would that be? 12, 14 15%. And that’s going straight overseas. It’s rampant. But there there’s a lack of accountability. So these guys were telling us, I forgot what I was going to say about that, but it’s just rife. I learned so many new things just when listening to these people. And we thought we’d have done our research on NDIS. It’s just been rorted.  But the important thing is it’s got to be brought into control because if you don’t, the people who need care won’t get it. 

Adam Hudson: That’s the sad irony of the whole thing is that that that’s what always happens with these things is the scammers get paid and the people who actually need it end up. 

To jump through more hoops and they’re already under enough stress and duress. 

It’s the mismanagement of the programme. It’s always problematic. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: It was brought in by Julia Gillard to try and win an election. She brought in the Gonski report which was for education. She brought in the NDIS just to get headlines for an election and they had no bone, no meat around the bones. And the late Liberal Party came in. What do we do with this? And then they became paranoid about fraud because- 

Adam Hudson: It’s approaching our military budget, isn’t it? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes. 

Hosts: Yeah. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I think it’s above. 

Adam Hudson: It’s above the military. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I think so. 

Mark Di Paola: Isn’t all of the two biggest line items NDIS and interest rate payment? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: I think you’re right. Medicare, welfare, social services would be up there somewhere. 

Adam Hudson: I think as much in the vicinity of what it costs to defend the country on disability support. I mean, that to me is like that just does not sound correct. 

Mark Di Paola: Well, the numbers don’t- 

Adam Hudson: It just doesn’t work. In closing, probably one of the hottest topics right now with housing affordability and just the state of the nation is immigration. What’s One Nation’s net zero immigration policy? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Zero net, I call it because net zero, no, no, Net zero is the carbon dioxide scam. Zero net is immigration. What we want to do, I’ll make these very, very clear. There is no bigger threat to the housing prices to no bigger cause driver of housing prices which are now at record levels and unaffordable for many people and also rents than immigration. So what we want to do is both reduce the demand for houses and, increase the supply of houses and also reduce the cost of new houses and that’ll all drive down rents. Rents are just sky rocketing. So we want to stop immigration, not forever. So really it’s a pause. We want to deport , people who are here illegally. The federal government’s just, I don’t care. Both Liberal and Labour and the big immigration policy was brought in by John Howard and perpetuated by each of the prime ministers. Since then, Liberal, Labour, Nationals, all of them have perpetuated the big immigration. One of the one of the really sad things, inhuman things is that Albanese, Albanese said when he first came into power.  

We will continue big immigration until we catch up with pre COVID levels. Pre COVID there are 1.9 million people here on resident visas or temporary visas, temporary visas, I should say temporary visas. There are now 2.5 million people here on temporary visas and they each need a roof, they each need a bed that taking up houses. We’ve got so many of them here illegally. We want to deport them. So that will- stopping immigration until their infrastructure catches up because they haven’t been doing spending on major infrastructure for decades. Dams, railroads, roads, hospitals, schools that haven’t done that. That’ll allow the infrastructure to catch up, allow the housing to catch up. The quality of people is also something that’s really important. Albanese is telling us that we’re bringing in construction workers. That is complete ********. The percentage of people in amongst our immigrants that are construction workers is 0.6%. They’re supposed to build the houses for the other 99.4%. It is crap. What the reason Albanese is doing this massive immigration is that we have a per capita recession. So on the basis of per person, we’re in recession. So if the only way you can stop that becoming a recession and then him, then Charmer’s being labelled as the treasurer and Albanese the Prime Minister when the recession occurred is by bringing in more people to pump up the gross domestic product. That’s what it’s all about. 

So we would so, so that would stop, that would reduce demand by stopping immigration, pausing immigration, deporting people who are here illegally. Then the other thing about freeing up supply, stop all foreign ownership of housing and farms, stop it.  

Adam Hudson: Permanently or temporarily? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Permanently. And, the Liberal Party and Labor Party have both realised that people are waking up. We have been pushing this Adam for about 3 years now. Really severely. 

Adam Hudson: So like Indonesia, you can’t buy in Indonesia, you can lease the land-  

Malcolm ROBERTS: China you can’t. 

Adam Hudson: China so you can’t own you, could they do leasehold or something or what’s the plan? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No ownership. 

Adam Hudson: no ownership. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: No ownership. New Zealand’s just done it. When I say just fairly recently. 

Adam Hudson: Even Australians, I think in New Zealand have to apply now for owning in New Zealand. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: The Canadians have done it though. But we wouldn’t say sell overnight. We’d say give them two or three years to sell, but well, I would say 2 years. 

Adam Hudson: You mean if they own, they have to sell?  

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yes. 

Adam Hudson: Even OK retrospectively. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: If they own it now they have to sell it. 

Adam Hudson: Wow. Wow. 

Mark Di Paola: Do you think that it’d stop like foreign-  like one of the big things that Trump seems to be running on and executing on is getting foreign investment into the USA, getting Japan and all these other countries to invest into the US economy. Do you think that would hurt our, our Australian economy stopping foreign investment? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We don’t, we don’t mind in, in housing- 

Mark Di Paola: bringing housing prices down is one thing, but destroying the economy through a lack of investment, Not that far. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We’re not opposed to foreign investment. We’re opposed to foreign control and ownership. 

Adam Hudson: Do you know, do you know any other numbers around that? Like how much of our property is owned by foreigners? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Housing property? 

Adam Hudson: yeah,  

Malcolm ROBERTS: OK. 

Adam Hudson: Residential. Yeah. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: According to the Australian Taxation Office and the Foreign Investment Review Board, it’s less than 1%. But that’s complete rubbish because the National Australia Bank have done surveys and it’s around about 14.9% in New South Wales. 

Adam Hudson: So OK. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: And then you’ve also got real estate agents telling us the same thing. 

Adam Hudson: So your policy would see 15% of residential properties in Australia all of a sudden come onto the market in two years? 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Over 2 years, Yeah, not overnight, but over 2 years. 

Adam Hudson: That’ll bring property prices down. I would say yeah, but I’m not saying, I’m not saying it’s a good or a bad thing. I’m just processing it. It’s an interesting idea. 

Mark Di Paola: It is a bad thing because it’ll crash the economy. 

Eric Machado: I just know that there’s a lot of Australians wealth is in property, right, Compared to US. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Yeah, and the banks are holding back lending to small businesses, medium sized businesses and just going for the property market. 

Adam Hudson: I think it’s interesting because you sort of got a divided nation right now. And so the, the young people are probably who don’t own assets are probably cheering and the rest of the country who are, who own assets are probably not. But it’s, well, I think Australia does have to make some hard decisions. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: We also want to take, stop the GST on building on house construction materials. 

Adam Hudson: That’s a great idea. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: which would reduce the cost of housing, making land more freely available because that’s being held back at the moment by some developers, but also by the regulations which are, which are way above what’s needed. There’s something else I was going to mention in there. 

Adam Hudson: I’ve got some notes here from the press conference, but I think you’ve covered most of them, energy prices was a good one, NDIS, Medicare. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: So just on energy prices and the excise for cutting 26 cents off the cost of a litre of fuel. They’re, very, very positive because they’ll improve productivity and they’ll reduce the cost. 

Energy transport and electricity are input costs right across the economy. So they will drop prices. These are not inflationary, but, but we’re putting more money back in people’s pockets. We’ll improve the productivity of the economy, which is generate wealth, not inflation. 

Adam Hudson: Senator Malcolm Roberts, it’s been an absolute pleasure listening to you and hearing your ideas for the country. And yeah, I really just want to say thank you on behalf of us and all the listeners for taking the time to actually have a long form discussion and all the work that politicians in this country do. I think it’s a tough job and you cop a lot of **** and the pay is not that good. So you, you must do it for, and it’s really clearly evident here, you do it because you believe in the country and you want to make a better place for us here. I was genuinely surprised by some of the aspects of the conversation pleasantly and I really enjoyed the chat. So thank you for coming in. Drop a comment guys below the video. By engaging in this content, guys, through a like or a comment, it sends a message to other politicians and people of power that, hey, we’re paying attention here. We’re paying attention to these alternative channels of communication and we’ll get more guests of this quality and calliper into the studio.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: And I want to thank you not only for the invitation but thank you all for what you’re doing. Because as I said, there is nothing more important than freedom of life, but very, very, close on the heels. And what makes freedom of life possible is freedom of speech and the only way to avoid the direct and also the implied censorship of the mouthpiece media, that globalist Big Brother media is free independent podcasters, because that’s the only way to get real opinions and facts out. 

Adam Hudson: Our pleasure. It’s days like this that I feel good about what we’re doing. Like we’re not-  

Eric Machado: It’s, education, right? Like in the Australian people. I think the Western world need to be a lot more educated and a lot more interested in politics because it’s not something that’s really learnt in school.  

Malcolm ROBERTS: It’s deliberately taken out.  

Eric Machado: Yeah. And it’s not something that, you know, my parents never really gave me the, you know, the birds and the bees. Talk about Pol-  you know, politics. It was basically, hey, my parents voted liberal. So what do you do? You vote liberal. It’s exactly what you said, right? You’re basically entrenched in that. So I think these pieces are very important because a lot of people don’t realise how much business and politics are intertwined. 

Malcolm ROBERTS: Harry Truman said, The former U.S. President, once U.S. President, said the only thing new in the world is the history you have not read. It’s all happened before. What they do, the globalist curriculum, is to take out civics, which you aren’t. You know how our political systems work, how democracy works, how the Constitution works, history. Because then people are completely ignorant and they don’t understand the significance of even voting.  

Adam Hudson: Yep, I agree. That’s it for today guys. Thank you for watching. We’ll see you on the next episode of Unemployable. 

During a recent “question time” in the senate, I asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change about the total cost of the net zero transition. In her absence, Minister Watt responded, estimating the cost to be between $120 billion and $130 billion. However, this figure is significantly lower than other estimates, such as Bloomberg’s $1.9 trillion.

Minister Watt claims that the government’s plan is the cheapest way to meet our future power needs. Yet, he couldn’t provide a clear figure for the taxpayer money being spent on this transition.

This lack of transparency is concerning, especially when wasteful government spending is feeding inflation and the budget remains in deficit.

One Nation is committed to holding the government accountable and ensuring that Australians know the true cost of these policies. We need a government that values transparency and makes decisions based on the best interests of the people. One Nation will ditch net-zero so that we can put more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change, Senator McAllister. Minister, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator McAllister is away up north, so your question is to Minister Watt. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Watt, what is the total cost of the net zero transition? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. Yes, I’m representing Senator McAllister who represents Minister Bowen, while she’s in Townsville for the floods. Given I am the representing minister, I’m just waiting to have those figures handed to me. But I know that we have had that transition costed, and it’s in the order of $120 billion to $130 billion. That’s my understanding. Importantly, the CSIRO—an organisation I know you haven’t got an enormous amount of time for but the most reputable science organisation in the country—and the Australian Energy Market Operator, who probably knows more about the energy market than any other group within Australia, have both made clear that ensuring that we meet our future power needs with renewables backed up by gas and firmed by batteries is the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs going forward. 

I wasn’t too far off the mark. AEMO’s integrated system plan found that the net present value under a step-change scenario towards a renewable based system is $122 billion. Of course, that’s significantly lower than the figure it will cost for Mr Dutton’s nuclear program. As I said, people as reputable in this country as the CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator have both found that it’s not just environmental benefits that we get from meeting our power needs through renewables going forwards but it’s actually the cheapest way we can do so as well. That’s the direct answer to your question—it’s $122 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Let me make the question easier. Minister, how much taxpayers’ money is the government spending on the net zero transition across forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Thanks, Senator Roberts. I don’t have a figure just for the forward estimates, being the next four years. But, as I said, the cost of delivering our power network into the future under the government’s plan is $122 billion in net present value terms. 

Now, I know there is another plan out there. But is it really a plan, or, as Senator Canavan revealed, is it just a political fix? Whatever it is, that nuclear plan from Mr Dutton costs $600 billion. We know that means that power prices will go up by about $1,200 per household per year. And we know that, to fund that $600 billion that is required for the nuclear program, Mr Dutton will have to put in place very big cuts to things like Medicare, energy support, cost-of-living relief, housing, pensions and all manner of other things to fund the most expensive form of power you can provide. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Bloomberg has put the cost of Australia’s net zero transition at $1.9 trillion. One Nation uses a consensus figure of $1.5 trillion. Across forward estimates, the budget is in deficit. Wasteful, undisciplined government spending is feeding inflation. And you can’t even tell me how much will be spent on net zero across the forward estimates. Minister, will you at least give an undertaking to table, on the first day of the March sitting, the figure for the total cost of the net zero transition, including the forward estimates? 

Senator WATT: Well, I’ve already provided the figure of $122 billion. I’m not across the Bloomberg estimate that you cite, Senator Roberts, and I’m certainly not across the One Nation consensus figure. I assume that’s a consensus between you and Senator Hanson—you’ve had to sort of thrash that one out between the two of you and arrived at a consensus of $1.5 trillion! 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m happy to answer Senator Watt’s question. 

The PRESIDENT: Perhaps some other time, thank you, Senator Roberts. 

Senator WATT: Maybe James Ashby was in there as well, with the calculator going, working out a consensus figure. And I certainly don’t know what assumptions underpinned the One Nation/James Ashby/Senator Hanson/Senator Roberts consensus figure. But the fact is that the cheapest way that we can meet our power needs into the future—as cited by AEMO and the CSIRO, our most eminent scientific body—is at a cost of $122 billion. That is the cheapest way we can meet our power needs, which I think is a very good reason for any government, no matter what their political party, to pursue it. 

The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) has announced another electricity price hike – between 2.5% and 8.9%. For 20 years, we’ve been told wind and solar are the cheapest forms of energy, yet prices keep going up!

I questioned the AER about when Australians might see relief from these crushing power bills. Their response? No clear path to returning to the affordable prices we had just 5 years ago. Even more concerning – they recently added “emissions reduction” to the national electricity objectives alongside price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. When I asked for examples of projects that were approved because of this new emissions target that wouldn’t have been approved before – they couldn’t name a single one!

The truth is clear: We’ve gone from having the cheapest electricity in the world to being among the most expensive. These price increases aren’t accidents – they’re the direct result of failed green energy policies.

Australians deserve affordable, reliable power. Not expensive virtue signalling that drives up costs for families and businesses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for being here today. The default market offer for electricity prices is going up yet again. You published a draft notice, I understand, contemplating rises between 2.5 per cent and 8.9 per cent. For 20 years, Australians have been told that wind and solar are the cheapest form of energy, yet electricity prices are going up again. Mr Oliver, are you seeing any kind of indications in the bill stack that show you will be able to actually cut the default market offer for electricity prices in the near future?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few different components, as you mentioned, in that stack that go to comprise the default market offer. It is ultimately, of course, only the benchmark offer that’s applicable to standing offer contracts. That’s less than 10 per cent of customers in most regions. Most pay less, of course, because they’re on market offer contracts, which typically sit under those default levels.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is representative, isn’t it?  

Mr Oliver: Not representative, no. I’d say it’s more of a safety net. So it’s more at the upper end of what most consumers would pay. For example, a customer might not have gone into the market, not shopped around for a market offer, and might be on a standing offer contract. As I say, that’s generally less than 10 per cent. But the vast majority of consumers pay less than the default market offer price. Indeed, the ACCC put out a report in December last year as part of their electricity price monitoring saying that roughly 80 per cent of consumers could pay even less than they are today if they continue to shop around.  

Senator ROBERTS: So do you see any signs of the default market price coming down?  

Mr Oliver: There are a few key components. The biggest variable is wholesale cost. Network costs are reasonably steady year on year. Retail costs have gone up, at least in our draft decision this year, but we’re still studying those. In terms of the wholesale cost component, we have seen over the last year some high-price events in the spot market, some volatility in the spot market. That is continuing to put upward pressure on the forward contract market, the prices that ultimately are responsible for setting a lot of the wholesale energy cost. They’re difficult to predict year on year. We don’t necessarily see them continuing to increase. If market conditions alleviate, that wholesale cost can potentially come down. We will, of course, look at those again more closely before we put out our final decision.  

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was going to be this, but I think you’ve answered it: in the data you’re seeing, is there any realistic hope that electricity prices can go back down to what they were five years ago under the current policy settings?  

Mr Oliver: Well, it’s a question of time. We don’t anticipate that kind of decline between now and the final decision. But there are obviously plans in place to continue the rollout of renewable generation and other forms of generation as well across the energy market, across the NEM, and, as we see more of that generation capacity coming into the system, that will alleviate pressure on wholesale costs. There’s work underway at the moment to look to orchestrate and utilise all of the consumer energy resources that we have in the system at the moment—20 gigawatts of rooftop solar, for example, which could be utilised more effectively to also bring down those wholesale costs as well. There are various ways. It’s a number of pieces that need to be looked at to do that. But yes, all of those trends will, over time, see the wholesale cost of energy come down.  

Senator ROBERTS: So those trends will help reduce the full bill stack?  

Mr Oliver: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Emissions reduction was recently added to the national electricity objectives of price, quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. Can you provide an example of a project that went ahead after the emissions objective was added that would have been rejected under the previous objectives, or a project that was prioritised higher?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one specific project that would meet that criterion. We would probably need to take that on notice to see if we could identify one. It is, as you described the objective quite correctly, one that has a number of different facets. So, whenever one is making a decision that requires the application of that objective, it’s about weight and deciding how various things are taken into account. What the amendment does is say quite explicitly that one of the things to be considered is emissions targets and objectives that are enshrined in policy and legislation, but that doesn’t necessarily point to a project which then gets up that might have otherwise failed. I can’t think of one now, but we might take that on notice as well, just to confirm that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you had four factors: quality, safety, reliability and security of supply. You’ve had added now emissions reduction. So you can’t see any project that has been brought forward because of emissions reduction at the moment?  

Mr Oliver: I can’t think of one now. I’m glancing at my colleagues and they’re not nodding either, but we’d perhaps take that on notice just to see. It may well be that the answer would be that there’s no project that would meet that specific criterion. It affects other things of course, in terms of proposals for expenditure in a network proposal, for example. There might be a stronger case for investment in a particular area that might otherwise not have been as strong a case. But those are very complicated and multifaceted decisions where you’re looking at a lot of different things.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the relative weights of those now five criteria? 

Mr Oliver: We don’t do it in any specific quantitative sense. If, for example, it is an expenditure proposal, we would be looking at the driver behind the proposal, why the network, if it is a network project, says that they wish to undertake that expenditure, who they’ve consulted with, which of the objectives they’re trying to meet, and whether they’re doing it at the most efficient cost.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

One Nation to protect forestry jobs in Queensland, as part of our policy to make Australia self-sufficient in timber and help address Labor’s national housing crisis.

No one trusts politicians because of their lies. PM Albanese promised power bills would drop by $275 by 2025, but they’ve only increased. Despite claims that wind and solar are the cheapest, power bills have never been higher after 20 years of introducing these “renewable” sources.

The Liberal Party’s motion complains about high power bills but ignores the real issue – NET ZERO.

The ONLY elected party that opposes this scam and is committed to lowering power bills is One Nation. Labor, Liberals, and Nationals all support expensive energy. The truth is coal is the cheapest way to run our electricity grid. India and China use our coal, yet Australians can’t. Make it make sense!

One Nation has a plan to permanently reduce power prices by ensuring baseload power stability. This would cut bills immediately by 20% and ultimately by 50%.

Vote One Nation to put more money back in your pocket and end the net zero lies.

Transcript

No-one trusts politicians, because of lies. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese promised Australia that power bills would come down $275 by 2025; 2025 is here and power bills have never been more expensive, and they’re still increasing. Australians are constantly told wind and solar are cheapest. That might be the greatest lie in Australian political history, and that is saying something. Well, after 20 years of connecting all the wind, solar, batteries and pumped hydro to the grid, power bills have never been higher. 

This is a motion from the Liberal Party, complaining, yet it says nothing about the reason power bills are still so expensive. There is a reason why Queenslanders are worried about running their air conditioning and why local small businesses are closing: that’s net zero. There’s only one elected party in the Senate that opposes the net zero scam, and that’s One Nation. We are the only ones that truly believe in making power bills cheaper. Labor is committed to wind and solar—super expensive. The Liberals the Nationals are committed to wind, solar and nuclear—very expensive. None of them will promise that your power bills will come down under their plan, because they can’t. The truth is that under net zero Australia faces decades of increasing power prices. 

There’s a big secret that every politician in this room knows yet won’t say out loud: the absolute cheapest way to run an electricity grid today is coal. Even if you believe in net zero, let’s have a serious look. Australia’s annual carbon dioxide production is 465 million tonnes. India and China together are 16 billion tonnes, 35 times as much. India and China are allowed to buy Australia’s coal and use it, yet Australians can’t use their own coal here in our country. One Nation would get rid of this nonsense. We have a plan to bring down power prices permanently. Right now, baseload power is told to immediately shut down whenever wind and solar unpredictably turn on. Coal is what’s known as baseload power; it’s designed to run effectively and efficiently, 24/7, up to 98 per cent of the time. Turning baseload power off completely in unplanned ways is a huge problem. This leads to much higher prices, increased maintenance costs and, in some cases, power stations breaking down owing to the abuse they weren’t designed for. 

The solution is very simple: just guarantee baseload power the minimum time needed to keep spinning. Wind and solar can fill in the rest if they happen to turn on. The most conservative scenario is that this will bring down power prices 20 per cent immediately. Taken to full effect, this could bring power bills down 50 per cent. The Liberals, Labor and the Nationals will never bring down your power bills like this, because they are completely committed to net zero nonsense—net zero lies. One Nation, and only One Nation, will put more money back in your pocket. 

During the recent Senate Estimates Session with the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), I tabled a graph from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report to challenge some of the exaggerated claims we’ve been hearing about extreme weather events such as cyclones, floods, and fires.

For years the BOM has always referred me to the IPCC’s work as the authoritative source on climate science. I specifically pointed to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, where they provide an analysis of a wide range of weather events. What struck me—and I think it should strike everyone—is that for nearly every major type of extreme weather event, the IPCC finds that there has been no detectable change in frequency or severity over time. This includes river floods, fire weather, tropical cyclones, and coastal floods. The data doesn’t support the claims that these events are becoming more frequent or intense because of “climate change”.

This is important because politicians and the media have often linked these events to human-induced climate change. They claim that floods, fires, and cyclones are somehow the direct result of our carbon dioxide production.

Yet if the IPCC itself, the body these same politicians refer to, says there’s no significant change in these events, why aren’t we calling out this misinformation? Why isn’t BOM calling out this misinformation?

For example, tropical cyclones – the IPCC indicates no change in their frequency or severity, not just for today, but looking ahead through to 2100—even under the worst-case climate scenario. And yet, we continue to hear false claims that “human-induced climate change” is worsening cyclone events. This isn’t true. These events have been part of the natural weather cycle for millennia.

The BOM Director, Dr Johnson’s response acknowledged that the science on cyclones is evolving and confirmed that while there may be fewer cyclones in the future, the ones that do occur may be more intense. Yet again, these claims are based on unsubstantiated projections—not hard data. They’re misinformation!

What’s more, looking at the IPCC’s tables, which break down the evidence of (naturally) varying weather patterns, for nearly every phenomenon—whether it’s precipitation, floods, fire weather, or tropical cyclones—the data simply doesn’t support the idea of dramatic increases due to “human-induced” climate change.

So, why are we still seeing politicians and the media push these claims?

This is not saying to ignore the importance of understanding climate variability, it’s about dealing with the facts – the measured data. The science must guide us, not the political agenda. And if the observed, measured scientific data says these extreme weather events aren’t changing as some claim, we need to stand firm against the misinformation.

Let’s be clear: the data doesn’t support the alarmist rhetoric. We should be calling out the misinformation and ensuring that decisions, policies, regulations and public opinion are based on what the science actually tells us—not on what some want us to believe.

I will continue to hold taxpayer funded agencies and politicians accountable. The truth matters, because, as always, it’s we the people who pay.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to table this graph from a United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report as the basis for some brief questions. I don’t have too many questions today. I’ll start with a little preamble just to set the scene for this. When you get the graph, you’ll see it. I refer to misinformation being put out that cyclones and floods are getting more frequent and severe. Over many years in this committee the BOM has referred me to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This might surprise you, but I’m not actually going to argue with you on the merits of the IPCC today, even though they’re a bunch of net zero pushers and are politically driven. I’m going to quote them, because you claim they’re the authority. I’ll take you to Assessment Report 6, chapter 12, table 12.12, by working group 1, on the science of climate, at page 1856. In that table is just about every type of measurable weather event. Some call it extreme weather events.

The blank or white boxes indicate there is no detectable change in frequency or severity of the weather event. I’ll go down the list of what the IPCC itself says—not me. River flood—no change is detected in current period. No change is expected to be detected under the worst case climate scenario by 2050 or even by 2100. Fire weather—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Tropical cyclone—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Coastal flood—no change is detected in current period or expected in the next 75 years. Pluvial—there’s a minor risk in the most extreme, worst-case scenario. If your net zero gods at the IPCC say the data shows weather events are not getting worse because of climate change, why isn’t the Bureau of Meteorology calling out the misinformation peddled by politicians when they state that this flood is because of climate change, this fire is because of climate change or this cyclone is because of climate change? Everyone knows that’s not true. These events have been happening for millennia. Even the scientists in the United Nations that you reference say it’s not so.  

Dr Johnson: I might make a couple of preliminary remarks and then ask Dr Braganza, who is online, to join in. I haven’t had a chance to study the page that you’ve just supplied me. I think many times I’ve referred you to the State of the climate report that the bureau produces with the CSIRO every two years, which contains the latest up-to-date information on climate.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve read each of them.  

Dr Johnson: I know you read it, and I’d encourage you to refer to it again. Across a range of phenomena we know there are very strong signals already from climate change, in particular around temperature and in particular around drying in the southern, south-east and south-west parts of Australia. Those signals are very strong. The level of confidence in them is very high. Some of the signals for other phenomena, including tropical cyclones, are still evolving and maturing. We have seen an increase in the incidence of high-intensity rainfall. We know as a matter of fact that, as the atmosphere warms, it holds more moisture—probably up to 10 or 11 per cent more—than it would otherwise have, and that we’ve seen an increase in high-intensity events. We’ve certainly been on record saying that we expect in Australia it’s likely that there will be a lower number and frequency of cyclones, but they’re likely to be more severe. We’ve been on the record for that for ages. We’ve also been on the record on many occasions—  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you explain the basis for that? The UN says it’s not—  

Dr Johnson: I’ll come to that. Dr Braganza might want to say something about this in a minute. We’ve also been on the record that, particularly when it comes to individual cyclones and individual rainfall events, it’s very difficult to attribute single events to climate change. We’re talking about longer term global trends here. That’s been our position for some time, and it remains so unless new evidence is entered into existence that would cause us to change our mind. I can only be accountable for the science we do. I can’t be accountable for how those in the public domain choose to talk about it. We certainly provide advice, as we’ve done to this committee many times and in many other fora, about what we’re observing and what our science is telling us is likely to come down the pipeline, and also where we have higher or lower confidence about what is or isn’t coming. They would be my general comments.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did I hear you correctly—just before we go to Dr Braganza—that cyclones are not becoming more intense?  

Dr Johnson: No, I didn’t say that. I said that in our outlooks we think there’s a reasonable likelihood—Dr Braganza will be able to quantify this in more specific detail—that the Australian region is likely to see fewer cyclones, but there’s a likelihood that they’ll be more intense rather than less intense. Dr Braganza is our lead in this space and I’d rather he answer these detailed questions that you might have.  

Dr Braganza: For tropical cyclones, the bureau, as Dr Johnson has pointed out, has consistently communicated that we have potentially seen a reduction in the number of tropical cyclones in our region, in particular in the east. We haven’t communicated that we’ve seen any significant change in intensity. Categorising changes in tropical cyclones is difficult. We’re limited to the satellite era. Prior to the satellite era, categorising tropical cyclones for severity and even whether or not they’re a tropical cyclone in the mid latitudes becomes difficult. There are data limitations in trends in tropical cyclones. The bureau has been entirely consistent in how it’s described those and entirely transparent in the data limitations. We have not communicated that we have seen large changes in tropical cyclones that are due to climate change. We don’t communicate around these individual weather events that they were caused by climate change. For tropical cyclones there are multiple aspects to the weather event. When we talk about intensity, we’re often talking about wind speed. Wind speed is just one aspect of a tropical cyclone. There’s also rainfall intensity and there’s storm surge intensity. Due to sea level rise and increased warmth in the atmosphere, we expect increased heavy rainfall and increased storm surge activity from all such events, not just tropical cyclones. There are also events such as east coast lows and others. Observational data is what it is.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t expect you to comment on this, because you don’t have the table in front of you, but I’ll just go through chapter 12 and table 12.12, emergence of climate impact drivers in different time periods. That’s with regard to the future. The white colour indicates that there’s no confidence in what they’re saying or what they’re projecting. In terms of already emerged and ‘worst case scenario’ in the future by 2050 and by 2100: mean precipitation, no confidence in the data. No trend has emerged. River flood is the same. Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood is the same. Landslide is the same. Aridity is the same. Hydrological drought is the same. Agricultural and ecological drought is the same. Fire weather is the same. Tropical cyclones is the same. Coastal flood is the same. These are often taken advantage of by politicians and the news media; there’s no evidence for their comments attributing them to climate change caused by humans.  

Dr Braganza: I’ll have to take that on notice since I don’t have the material in front of me. Some of the phenomena you’ve called out again in terms of establishing observed trends is limited by sample size. You’re talking not about weather events necessarily; you’re talking about impact events such as the size of a flood following heavy rainfall. There are possibly data limitations involved, but I would have to see exactly the material that you’re referencing. 

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of legislation that One Nation would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam. This Bill continues wasteful spending, now with a hint of desperation. 

The Bill introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 per kilogram, aiming to meet net zero targets. However, if hydrogen were commercially viable, companies and banks would be investing, but they aren’t. One Nation believes in the profit motive, not subsidies. 

Recent withdrawals from hydrogen projects by companies like ATCO and Shell highlight the unviability of green hydrogen. In contrast, One Nation supports practical projects like the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, which will bring thousands of jobs and $8 billion in private investment. 

The Bill also offers tax incentives for refining critical materials used in renewable energy, costing $7 billion over 11 years. This benefits processors, not taxpayers. One Nation proposes infrastructure projects to support critical minerals development instead. 

Lastly, the Bill changes borrowing rules for Aboriginal communities without actually specifying the new rules, creating uncertainty and potential debt for unviable projects. One Nation cannot support this lack of transparency. 

The net zero transition is destroying Australia with absolutely no benefit to the natural environment.  

It’s time we returned to reliable coal and gas fired power stations.  This measure will put more money back in Australians pockets and end further suffering. 

Transcript

The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.  

The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen was commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.  

Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years, using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity. 

Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using it’s shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.  

There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.  

Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries, used to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it, but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government. 

The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs. 

Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either. 

In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch. 

Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.  

The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering. 

I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living. 

Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order: 

The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution … 

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero. 

I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia. 

Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money. 

The claim that solar and wind energy are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supoprted by the evidence. In reality, adding more solar and wind to the grid increases electricity costs. The reason is straightforward: while the wind and sun are free, the infrastructure—wind turbines, solar panels, backup batteries, 15,000 kilometers of extra transmission lines, and access roads—is very expensive to produce, transport, install, and maintain. 

Unlike modern coal or nuclear power plants that last 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and backup batteries only last 15 years. The $1.9 trillion investment will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind infrastructure will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. This madness must end!

One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change along with all related agencies and programs, including net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, contributing to One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion plus in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will put billions of dollars back into the pockets of Australians and businesses, making everything more affordable. That’s how we solve the cost-of-living crisis. 

It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will make it happen.

Transcript

For the last 30 years Australia has been hostage to the supposedly green movement’s great climate fraud, designed to create an all-purpose excuse to do whatever the government wants—an excuse that’s reusable, recyclable and fungible, not only for the government’s benefit but for the benefit of their donors, stakeholders, bureaucrats and associated carpetbaggers, such as Bill Gates and BlackRock’s Larry Fink. We know who these people are from watching the meetings Prime Minister Albanese has and refuses to explain. Nothing says, ‘I’m doing dodgy deals behind the Australian people’s back,’ like refusing to publish detailed records of what was said and agreed in these meetings. This evening I’ll examine the green climate fraud and make a major One Nation policy announcement. 

Let’s start with the war on farming. The climate scam seeks to replace fresh, healthy, field-grown Australian produce from family farms with fake foods in near-urban intensive production facilities—synthetic meat-like products cultured in bioreactors in a process that mimics the way cancer cells grow, with just enough artificial nutrients added to pass as food. Fake meat from plants remains on life support, with 18 ingredients, now including cocoa, and they still can’t make people eat it. Billionaires can’t make money out of conventional farming; they can make money, they think, out of industrial food. Who owns vegetarian meat supplier Beyond Meat? Surprise, surprise: predatory global wealth funds BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street lead their share registry. 

Both the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of California Davis have found the environmental footprint of these Frankenfoods is worse than that of naturally grown pasture raised beef. Bill Gates has declared cattle an existential threat because of their methane farts. Rubbish. Cattle have been on this earth for two million years. Leading methane producer India domesticated cattle 9,000 years ago, and nothing has changed. Another leading methane producer, the United States, had bison for 150,000 years. Three hundred years ago, there were 50 million bison, or buffalo. Now they’re gone, the USA’s 28 million cows are suddenly causing ‘fartageddon’. 

There’s no science to justify this nonsense. As the University of California Davis explains: 

After about 12 years, the methane— 

from cattle— 

is converted into carbon dioxide through hydroxyl oxidation. That carbon is the same carbon that was in the air prior to being consumed by an animal. It is recycled carbon. 

Cows don’t harm the environment. The methane cycle they perpetuate has been with us for two million years, at times in greater quantities than now. 

Plants are more powerful than scientists admit. A recent finding from the US government’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found: 

Scientists Were Wrong: Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought. 

Climate scammers refuse to talk about the role of forests and crops, especially hemp, in sequestering carbon. Australia is already carbon neutral. Our forests and crops sequester much more carbon than Australia produces. So let’s stop chopping down trees for industrial wind and solar assess roads and transmission lines, and we can stay that way. 

The next lie is that global boiling will kill us. Fact check: it’s false. Between 1998 and 2023, global temperature variation osculated between minus 0.4 degrees and 0.6 degrees as carbon dioxide, CO2, levels in the air rose from 0.036 per cent to 0.042 per cent. Then the Tonga eruption occurred, and temperatures rose by 0.7 degrees centigrade more. I’ll share a link on this topic when I post this speech on my website. It includes some excellent gifs of the fraudulent data tampering and fake temperature stations that have concocted warming where none exists. Japanese data, which is not tampered with, shows no warming in the last 50 years. 

Next, carbon dioxide levels do not drive temperature. CO2 levels are a result of temperature changes. There has been a lot of obfuscation on this aspect of climate fraud. I urge anyone who actually believes nature’s trace gas can change the world’s temperatures to look more closely and more carefully. The seasonal variation in atmospheric CO2 correlates very well with the temperature, not with the human production of carbon dioxide. CO2 does not drive temperature. Temperature variation drives CO2 levels. It’s the reverse of what the UN is claiming. Global temperature itself is a product of atmospheric pressure, albedo, cloud cover and many other factors. 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the UN IPCCC—computer models downplay the factors, especially cyclical variation in solar radiation, which the UN assumes to be minor as compared to changes in CO2. Unvalidated UN IPCCC climate models replace the most powerful modes of heat transfer—conduction, convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation—with just radiation. In other words, UN IPCCC climate models are rigged to blame CO2 because the real factors are minimised in the construction of these models. No wonder these fake models have already been proven comprehensively wrong. 

The next lie is that the Great Barrier Reef is dying. Great Barrier Reef coral cover was the highest on record in 2024. The reef is healthy, yet the scare stories continue. Every time the green scammers claim the Great Barrier Reef is losing coral to scare you, the phones start ringing in north Queensland with tourists cancelling their bookings. Tour operators and the communities they support suffer, staff lose their shifts and their livelihoods, and businesses close, all for a political lie, a fraud. The reef covers 344,000 square kilometres. That’s five times the area of Tasmania. There will always be an area on the reef where an unusually low tide on a hot day causes localised bleaching with still winds. That damage repairs naturally and quickly, as it has for 14,000 years. There will always be a flood dumping fresh water onto the reef and killing the saltwater coral polyps. It’s happening right now in Far North Queensland. So stay tuned for scare stories just about coral bleaching blamed on climate change when the cause will actually be these floods in time for the election. 

The next lie is that the sea levels are rising. Since the end of the mini ice age 200 hundred years ago, ocean levels have risen a tiny amount. In 1914, the mean sea level at Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour was 1.11 metres. In 2014, 100 years later, it was 1.12 metres—one centimetre, 10 millimetres. That is natural variation. 

The next lie is that the polar ice is melting. In Antarctica there will always be an area of unusual warming associated with underground volcanos and hot springs, of which the Earth has thousands. Pressure builds up and they let off heat. They melt the ice above, and then they go dormant again. In 2009, John Kerry predicted, ‘In five years scientists predict we will have the first ice-free arctic summer.’ It didn’t happen, along with the other failed scares. The arctic ice cap floats and moves with natural varying wind and ocean current directions. In fact, after 40 years of unprecedented man-made global boiling, there’s more Antarctic sea ice now than there was 40 years ago. 

It’s time to acquit carbon dioxide. The great climate scam is about submitting to the world’s predatory billionaires delivering up our agriculture, transport, energy, manufacturing and industrial base, food, and property rights in the name of saving the planet. In reality, it’s just greed—less for you and more for them—and it’s control. 

One Nation saw through this scam in 1996, and we’ve opposed the agenda ever since. We have opposed the $200 billion wasted so far on net zero measures. Bloomberg now puts the cost of completing Australia’s transition to net zero, including the electrification of cars, homes and appliances, at $1.9 trillion. That’s a terrifying figure. The few hundred billion dollars spent so far have added so much to our electricity costs that bills are doubling or tripling. The pain is only just starting. 

The lie that solar and wind are cheaper because the wind and sun are free is not supported with evidence. To the contrary—the more solar and wind are added to the grid, the dearer our electricity becomes. The reason is simple. While the wind and sun are free, wind turbines, solar panels, back-up batteries, 15,000 kilometres of extra transmission lines and access roads are very expensive to make, transport, install and maintain. While a modern coal or nuclear power plant lasts 60 years, solar panels, wind turbines and back-up batteries only last 15. The $1.9 trillion will only get us to 2050. After that, every 15 years, solar and wind will need to be replaced at a cost of hundreds of billions more. 

Enough of this madness, this fraud. If elected, One Nation will abolish the federal department of climate change, all their related agencies and programs, including all net zero measures and mandates. This will return $30 billion a year to the Treasury, forming part of One Nation’s pledge to reduce $80 billion in government spending in our first term. More importantly, it will return billions of dollars a year into the pockets of homeowners and businesses, making everything you buy cheaper and more affordable. That’s how to solve the cost-of-living crisis. It’s time to end the net zero scam. One Nation will end the net zero scam. 

The Clean Energy Regulator is a $115 million dollar agency dedicated to implementing the UN’s Net Zero plans on Australia. I pressed for transparency regarding executive salaries and the total cost to taxpayers, expressing surprise at the reluctance to readily provide this information.

I also challenged the effectiveness and necessity of the carbon market, describing it as a concocted market driven by regulations rather than genuine demand. It’s essentially a made up cost inflicted on Australia. These are the kind of agencies we could simply get rid of and Australian’s lives would get better.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again today. A similar question to the others in the alphabet soup of climate change and energy agencies: as simply and specifically as possible, what does the Clean Energy Regulator do? Could you tell me the basic accountabilities and the uniqueness of those accountabilities?

Mr Binning: As I stated previously, we’re an economic regulator for the purpose of accelerating carbon abatement for Australia. We do this by administering a range of schemes on behalf of the Australian government.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you say you were an accelerator or a regulator?

Mr Binning: A regulator. We have two outcomes currently within our corporate objectives. The first is to contribute to a reduction in Australia’s net greenhouse gas emissions, including through the administration of market based mechanisms that incentivise reduction in emissions and the promotion of additional renewable electricity generation. The second is to contribute to the sustainable management of Australia’s biodiversity through the administration of market based mechanisms.

Senator ROBERTS: Is your uniqueness the latter?

Mr Binning: Our uniqueness is that we manage or administer the various government schemes, particularly where they involve the formation of a market.

Senator ROBERTS: The carbon dioxide market or carbon market?

Mr Binning: Yes, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: How many employees do you have?

Mr Binning: We have around 400.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the breakdown of permanent and employees and contractors?

CHAIR: Are we going to the annual report again?

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know. We’ll find out.

Mr Binning: A lot of that information will be contained in our annual report. Our chief operating officer will just come up. Perhaps if we move to the next question, then she can follow up.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Ms Pegorer will be able to help you out with that detail.

Ms Pegorer: Can I just confirm your question was with regard to the number or the breakdown of our staff?

Senator ROBERTS: Permanent, casual and contractors, please.

Ms Pegorer: I don’t have that level of detail with me, unfortunately. I do have the number of contracting staff that we’ve had from January this year until October and the number of FTE, but I don’t have the number of casuals or non-ongoing.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get them on notice, please?

Mr Binning: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total wage bill for all of those people: permanents, casuals and contractors?

Mr Binning: Again, we don’t carry that data in that form with us, so it’s best we take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the total budget for the Clean Energy Regulator, including any grants or programs you administer?

Mr Binning: Our departmental funding is around $115 million. Our administered revenue associated with the programs that we run is in the order of $37 million. However, I would just note for the record that where we have our greatest impact is actually in the issuance of certificates that then carry value in a marketplace, so both with renewable energy and with the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme we issue certificates that are of material value and which are then financial instruments managed through our registries.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s fair to say, isn’t it, that this is not a market meeting people’s needs; this is a market to meet regulations and global regulations as well—concocted needs, if you like. I’m not diminishing your work.

Mr Binning: No, I probably wouldn’t quite characterise it in that way. We administer schemes that are made by government, so if you take, for example, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit Scheme acting in conjunction with the safeguard mechanism, it then forms both the supply and demand side. Safeguard mechanisms are required through the regulations to manage their emissions within their baseline or source unit certificates. Then the ACCU generates a supply of Australian carbon credit units, and they facilitate trade in order to meet their obligations.

Senator ROBERTS: There’s no open market as such. There’s no clamouring of citizens for carbon dioxide credits. They’re a concoction of Malcolm Turnbull and Greg Hunt in 2015, just before Christmas, and bolstered by Chris Bowen in September of 2022 with the extension of the safeguard mechanism.

Senator Ayres: I think you are asking the official for, at best, an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s your opinion?

Senator Ayres: The truth is that these schemes are administered by this agency in the best interests of keeping costs down for Australian electricity consumers and efficiently managing the process of reducing emissions across sectors, and it’s judged by successive governments that, to be in the interests of doing that in the most efficient way possible, that kind of capability is retained in the agency who’s in front of you today.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me understand that. We’ve got a scheme that’s been concocted that’ll add more cost to energy—

Senator Ayres: It wasn’t concocted.

Senator ROBERTS: Hang on. It’ll add more cost, and now we’ve got a market in place due to regulations to try to bring it down.

Senator Ayres: No, I don’t agree with that.

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, then. No-one can identify a fundamental need of people. There’s no market other than the concocted market, the fabricated market.

Mr Binning: The only thing I would note in addition to the requirement for people to comply with the various government regulatory structures is that there has over recent years been a reasonably strong emergence of a voluntary market both for Australian carbon credit units and for renewable energy certificates. On the Australian carbon credit side we see in the order of a million units surrendered per annum, and on the electricity side we see very significant surrenders of certificates in the order of 10 million over and above the 33 million that is the regulated target. A lot of what has driven that are the various objectives, particularly across corporate Australia, for voluntary emissions reduction and meeting their own targets and the desire to source credible renewable energy of high integrity to do that, so the market is both performing its regulatory functions and facilitating voluntary participation.

Senator ROBERTS: I notice peppered through your statement there—and I thank you for the statement—are the words ‘regulated’, ‘comply’ and ‘carbon credits’—I call them ‘carbon dioxide credits’. These are all to make the best of a concocted market that’s only there because of regulations. It’s only there because nowhere in the world, as I understand it, has carbon dioxide been designated a pollutant. I just make that point. Final question: what is the total salary package of everyone here at the desk, particularly executive level—what band?

Mr Binning: As I think other agencies have done, our executive remuneration is in our annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the complete cost including on-costs?

Mr Binning: That’s the salaries associated with those. If you are seeking other information related to our salaries, we will take it on notice and come back to you.

Senator ROBERTS: I want the total cost that the taxpayer pays for you, for example, not just what you get in the hand but everything as part of the package.

CHAIR: Again, I would suggest that you have a look at the annual report and, if it doesn’t give you sufficient detail, that you then place a question on notice for further detail from the officials.

Senator ROBERTS: Just one final question, building on the last one: why is there so much reluctance to share the salaries? Surely you would know what you cost.

Mr Binning: We report executive remuneration as part of our annual reporting cycle. That’s the data that I bring to these committee meetings. If there is other information that you’re seeking and it’s information that’s
generally publicly available, we would be delighted to supply it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: But you would know your total costs to the taxpayers?

Senator Ayres: Senator Roberts, it’s a pretty unfair line of questioning. The official has said—

Senator ROBERTS: What’s unfair about it?

Senator Ayres: The official has said the remuneration details. It’s pretty unfair to characterise it as the official not answering your question, is what I mean.

Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t characterise it that way. You’re fabricating now, Senator Ayres.

Senator Ayres: What he has said is that information is now publicly available in their report, which you could have read on the way here. In addition to that, if there is more information that he can provide, he will provide it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

Senator Ayres: You can’t ask for more than that.

Senator ROBERTS: No, and I made the observation that I’m surprised that people don’t know this or can’t readily divulge it. That’s all. Thank you, Chair.

Why are grocery prices still going up when we have better technology and more efficient farms than ever before?

The answer is that the cost of energy is making your grocery bills more expensive. Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton are equally committed to making electricity more expensive and increasing the price of food.

One Nation is the only party that will end net-zero policies to return cheap power and cheaper groceries to Australians.

Transcript

Yesterday, Richard Forbes of Independent Food Distributors Australia told the Australian newspaper: 

As far as I am concerned, the government’s energy policy has and continues to increase the price of food. 

Employers supplying food to major supermarkets and thousands of cafes, restaurants and pubs around the country have launched a revolt against the government’s energy policies, urging more gas and coal-fired power to bring down electricity prices. 

The managing director of Western Australia’s largest independent food distributor said his company’s electricity bill had doubled in the past three years. This energy policy driving up food prices is called net zero. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton are completely committed to the net zero policies that are driving up the price of your groceries. As part of that net zero policy, coal and gas generators are told to turn off completely whenever wind and solar decide to turn on, which is unpredictable. 

The problem is coal-fired power stations are what’s called base-load power; they’re designed to run constantly, not to flick on and off like they’re being forced to now. That abuse leads to higher maintenance costs and, in the worst case, power stations failing, blowing up. Even with this unsustainable switching-on-and-off situation, the coal burnt in a coal-fired power station costs just $21 a megawatt hour. This financial year, solar and wind capital South Australia’s average power price has been $200 a megawatt hour, a bit under 10 times higher than a coal station’s fuel costs. 

Instead of making coal stations flick on and off completely, run them continuously to provide base-load power, and electricity will instantly get cheaper and more reliable. Wind and solar can top up the rest—when they work—and households can keep using their own solar power—simple. Only One Nation will bring down power prices down and grocery bills to put more money in your pocket.