I’ve been attending public hearings in relation to Climate Integrity and what I’ve witnessed in these hearings reveals a sobering preview of Australia’s future under this government.
Instead of using the Senate Committee to find the truth, I watched this Labor-Greens government use the platform to bully experts and silence dissent.
To hear a Senator claim that science is “not contested anymore” once a consensus is reached isn’t just wrong, it’s a rejection of the scientific method itself. Science relies on evidence and questioning, not government-mandated agreement.
Labor wants to be the “thought police” of Australia, censoring any opinion they find inconvenient. They are treating our Senate like a rubber stamp for censorship.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: One Nation will fight this every inch of the way. We will not let this government, with the help of the Greens, turn our beloved country into a place where free speech is not allowed.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last week, Australians witnessed a terrifying demonstration of where our future lies under this Labor-Greens government, which implemented policy that the Morrison government initiated. It’s a future that does not include the right to free speech or even the right to hold an opinion which conflicts with the government’s. Labor senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah used her position as the Deputy Chair of the Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy to impose her views on witnesses, the reverse of the committee process, which allows all opinions to be heard. From that testimony the truth shall emerge. The senator dismissed expert testimony from the Institute of Public Affairs with this comment:
The thing about science is it is contested until it is not. When consensus is arrived at, it is not contested anymore.
The senator has a PhD in artificial intelligence, has published 40 papers and should know better.
The United States National Academy of Sciences defines the scientific method as ‘a process for developing and testing explanations of the world that relies on evidence, with the understanding that new evidence may revise or replace existing explanations’. There is no consensus provided for in that definition of the scientific method. Senators and witnesses who disputed the belief, based on the evidence, that humans are responsible for our changing climate were subjected to hostility, rudeness, smugness and arrogance unbefitting the Senate. The inquiry is a travesty of the Senate process. It’s a waste of taxpayer money and is designed to justify legislation to censor opinions it does not like. The government does not get to shut down dissent, censor inconvenient truths and cancel the right to free speech. One Nation will fight, every inch of the way, your attempts to set the government up as the thought police of Australia. You will not turn our beloved country into communist China.
I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.
Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.
When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”
The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?
We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.
Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.
It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move to the port of Darwin. Minister, the Prime Minister said to the ABC, I think just before the election, but I’m not sure of the timing—he definitely said that the idea that any Australian port owned by foreign interests is not in the Australian national interest. Does that also apply to the lease of the port of Darwin—a catastrophic mistake made originally by the coalition?
Ms Luchetti: The Prime Minister has said that the port of Darwin is working to get into Australian hands.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s what?
Senator Wong: The Prime Minister has publicly committed to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it was not raised on his latest trip to China. As an electoral promise, the Prime Minister said that Labor would ensure the Australian strategic port of Darwin would return to Australian hands. When is he going to fulfil this promise, or is he too scared of the threat of Communist Party economic retaliation as threatened recently by the Chinese ambassador?
Senator Wong: I’ll speak for the Australian government. I’ll leave others to publicise what other governments say. The Australian government’s position is that we will deliver on our commitment to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands, and we are working to deliver on that commitment.
Senator ROBERTS: As Foreign minister, can you say why it wasn’t raised on this latest trip to China?
Senator Wong: I might ask Ms Lawson to add if I miss anything, but, obviously, I would just make the point that the Port of Darwin is actually leased to another corporate entity.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese—controlled by the Communist Party. I know it wasn’t Labor to do the deal, but nonetheless we want Labor to undo the deal.
Ms Lawson: The Prime Minister raised a range of issues in the national interest during his travel to China. We don’t go into the specifics of those conversations. He has said that the Port of Darwin will return to Australian hands, and that is what he has committed to do.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a timeframe?
Ms Lawson: I’m not able to give you a timeframe.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Wong: What I would say, Senator, is I think that China is well aware of our position on this.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they doing anything with it?
Senator Wong: I’m just saying China is well aware of our position.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1770862409015-76fa1e54-fc57-4468-8b39-1df0ba3d9245.png6341134Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-02-12 12:31:082026-04-07 10:21:28Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail
PM Albanese called communist China a “friend.” Let’s be clear: China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output every 12 days and is building more coal-fired power stations—98 gigawatts last year alone, one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire electricity market. Yet Australians are being forced to sacrifice our living standards, pay skyrocketing power bills, and lose manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. I asked Minister Wong what penalties she’s threatened against China for doing the opposite of what her government demands from Australians. The answer? None.
Instead of holding China accountable, this government is destroying our cheap, reliable coal generation to satisfy foreign dictates from the UN, the World Economic Forum, and the Paris Agreement. Minister Wong admitted the market has turned against coal because of policy instability—but that instability was created by the very politicians pushing net zero. They claim this is about “opportunity” and “prosperity,” yet Australians are paying the price while China powers ahead with coal.
Net zero is not about facts or fairness—it’s about control. The government says the world is moving, but the truth is China is moving in the opposite direction, using our coal while we shut ours down.
This hypocrisy is costing Australians jobs, wealth, and affordable energy. One Nation will keep fighting to end this madness and put Australia first.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Senator Wong. Last week, Prime Minister Albanese called communist China a friend. A recent study shows that, in every 12 days, China produces Australia’s yearly carbon dioxide output. Each year, China increases its carbon dioxide output. China has 66 coal-fired power stations for every one of Australia’s and is building more. Australians have been asked to sacrifice our living standards, power bills and manufacturing jobs on the altar of net zero. Minister, what have you threatened to levy on China if they don’t do the same thing your government is asking Australians to do—to stop using our coal? Or are the climate dictates turning your government into hypocrites on the world stage?
Senator WONG (Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Thank you, Senator. I would make a few points. The first point I’d make about our commitments to reduce emissions is that we are making commitments as a country because we recognise the economic imperative of transforming our economy in the context where so much of the global economy is doing the same thing. I appreciate, Senator, that you and I just simply will not agree on this. We see the imperative to transform our economy and take advantage of the opportunity renewable energy brings. We see what is happening across the world, and we want to ensure that Australia has the opportunity to continue to be a prosperous and strong nation in that context.
We simply have a different view on why, as a country, we should not turn our back on climate change. We should not turn our back on renewable energy, and, frankly, we should not turn our back on facts. The facts are that the world is moving. The facts are that coal-fired power is declining in this country. Was it 24 out of 28—24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing under the coalition. That gives us a very clear view about what the transition is.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: If the Prime Minister’s friends in communist China can use Australia’s coal and you won’t tell them off, why can’t Australia use our coal here? Are you too scared of communist China to hold them accountable?
Senator WONG: Senator, 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced they were closing within the decade under the coalition. At that time, eight had already closed, including Hazelwood, because they were too old and at the end of life. The absence of a stable policy framework meant that investors voted with their feet—or, in this case, the money—and didn’t invest.
The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts?
Senator Roberts: I rise on a point of order: relevance. We’re talking about China, not the coalition.
The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. The minister is being relevant to your question.
Senator WONG: I am making the point that, whatever you may think—and I disagree with a great deal of what you say—about why you support coal, the market is not supporting coal. I mean—
The PRESIDENT: Order! Minister Wong, did you want to continue?
Senator WONG: No.
The PRESIDENT: Order! Come to order. Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: Your friends in communist China began and resumed construction of 98 gigawatts of coal power last year alone. Many of these will use Australian coal. That is one-and-a-half times Australia’s entire national electricity market capacity in one year. Why is your government destroying our cheap coal generation in our country to satisfy foreign dictates from the United Nations, the World Economic Forum and Paris Agreement while communist China does the opposite—China, not Malcolm Roberts?
Senator WONG: Again, I disagree with almost everything you have just put to me in that question. What I would respond to specifically is the point about the why. You see, we are not doing this because other people are telling us to do this; we are doing this because we believe it is the right thing for the country, the right thing for future generations but it is also the right thing for our economy. Amidst all of the interviews that were done recently by the coalition in the last 72 hours, Senator Bragg made a very important point when he was talking about net zero and the policy debates of the coalition. He said, ‘The debate is over. What I am saying is, in terms of the economic debate around the world, it is over. Capital markets have made their minds up. There is a wall of money going to renewable energy.’
Darwin Port under CCP control for 99 years! While PM Albanese calls Communist China a “friend,” they harass our aircraft, wage trade wars and control our most strategic northern port. Their actions speak louder than words.
One Nation stands firm: Australian assets MUST be in Australian hands. Our sovereignty and security are NOT for sale!
No more election promises – hand back Darwin Port now!
Transcript
Australians are sick of the benefits of our natural resources and critical infrastructure being siphoned off to foreign multinational companies. Chinese company Landbridge will operate the Port of Darwin for 99 years. Make no mistake; that means it’s under Chinese Communist Party control. While Australia differentiates between private companies and government, there’s no such separation in communist China. Every company is a direct arm of the ruling communist party and serves its purposes, so the Chinese Communist Party is running Darwin port.
It’s not just a profitmaking venture; it’s Australia’s most strategic major northern port. Darwin in general is crucial for our Defence Force’s deployment. It’s crucial for securing our borders and millions of square kilometres of northern ocean. The security implications of having a potential foreign adversary decide how the Darwin port is developed and used over the next 99 years are obvious. Australians should own Australian assets, especially ones as critical as our Darwin port.
To be clear, One Nation supports Australians with Chinese heritage, and they have been living here as Australians since our gold rushes in the 1880s, and we support the Chinese people. We oppose, though, the government of China, the Chinese Communist Party, with their totalitarian abuse of humans, censorship and rule though fear. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese this week said communist China is a ‘friend’. Let’s see what our friend has said about Australia. During our diplomatic freeze for asking where COVID came from, a Chinese government official said, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’ and said phone calls would be meaningless. In 2020 communist China issued 14 demands of Australia, criticising us for not censoring the press and for having honest conversations about China’s activities. They’ve illegally waged trade wars on Australian lobsters, beef and barley, trying to coerce Australia because we dared to ask where COVID really came from
This year communist China’s navy circumnavigated Australia, conducting unannounced live-fire exercises that diverted aircraft flights. This week Chinese aircraft harassed and released flares in front of an Australian aircraft over the disputed Paracel Islands, the latest in a string of similar dangerous incidents. It’s very weird behaviour for a friend! They seem to mean it when they say, ‘Why should China care about Australia?’
The United States seem to know the strategic value of northern Australia better than our own government does. They’ve been encouraging us to develop and fortify our infrastructure there so that we may have a chance of defending ourselves in a conflict. A US official reportedly said:
We are surprised this issue has not yet been settled, and we are closely watching what the Albanese Government is doing. There has been some concern that getting back control of Darwin Port is no longer a priority for Australia.
It’s hard to disagree.
Before the election we heard again and again, as early as February this year, that a big decision was around the corner. Since the election, we’ve heard nothing—another broken election promise. In July, Prime Minister Albanese met with President Xi, of China, and had the chance to sort it all out. Instead, when asked if he raised the issue of the port, the Prime Minister said he didn’t need to—gutless.
Should this foreign government have a 99-year hold on our most strategic northern port? On security reasons alone, One Nation’s answer very clearly is no. Putting aside the security and sovereignty issue, there’s basic common sense. As I’ve outlined, Darwin port will essentially be under the control of the Chinese Communist Party government for 99 years. They will operate, develop and profit from Darwin port for nearly a century. The communist Chinese government will reap the profits from Australia’s most northern strategic port.
There’s a reason a foreign government would seek to get a stranglehold on a critical asset like Darwin port for 99 years: to develop it, of course, and then squeeze every dollar they can out of it to return a tidy profit back to their treasury reserves. If anyone is reaping some kind of profit from critical infrastructure in Australia, it should be the Australian government and the Australian people. At the minimum, it should be a publicly owned, wholly Australian company. This extends to Australian farmland, water, critical power infrastructure and residential homes. All critical assets in Australia should be in our Australian hands, not in the hands of a foreign government or foreign multinational corporation. Labor, get some courage and integrity and put Australia first.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/CYtif1hLSOA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-30 09:44:322025-10-30 09:44:40CCP Darwin Port Election Promise Still BROKEN!
During this session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, I raised with them that in 2021, the Coalition government abandoned plans to build an all-weather, all-season paved runway in the Australian Antarctic Territory. Minister Watt confirmed that there are currently no plans to build such a runway and noted that Australia continues to rely on a blue ice runway during summer – leaving our bases largely isolated from the outside world for most of the year.
I pointed out that China is expanding its presence in the region, having already established three bases within the Australian Antarctic Territory. I also raised concerns about the recent reduction in the number of planned programs; however officials denied any funding cuts, asserting that Australia is meeting its obligations in Antarctic research despite China’s growing influence.
When questioned about China’s policy of conducting dual-purpose military and civilian research at its stations, the Department responded that military research would breach the Antarctic Treaty. China does not appear to share such concerns.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll be quick. In November 2021, the then coalition government made the poor decision to abandon the proposed construction of an all-weather paved runway near the Davis research centre in Antarctica due to perceived concerns of potential disruption of bird and seal colonies. It was a very poor decision, in my opinion, that missed the opportunity for Australia to advance its claims to usage of their allocated portion of Antarctica under the existing Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959. That will be up for renegotiation in some years hence or sooner if the treaty is challenged. My understanding is that there’s no formal expiry date. My first question is: will this government, the Labor government, reconsider and confirm the building of an all-weather runway to open up the Antarctic to year-round access via an eight-hour flight and replace total reliance on sea access that may take weeks?
Senator Watt: I’m not aware of that being considered. The officials can elaborate if they have info on that.
Ms E Campbell: At the moment, there are no plans for an all-weather runway, but we do have a really strong and capable blue ice runway. We have four-hour flights that go to Antarctica through the summer, and that’s a critical support for our stations and access. It’s at the Wilkins runway, which is about four hours, by tractor train, from Casey Station. I’ve had the pleasure of going on that flight a couple of times. It is a wonderful asset for Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that an all-weather runway would radically reduce the operating costs and logistics of accessing Australia’s research stations. It would be the first and only all-weather runway on the continent and provide access to speedy evacuation in medical or other emergencies.
Ms E Campbell: We certainly use the blue ice runway for access to the station.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by blue ice?
Ms E Campbell: It’s a runway set up on the glacier just above Casey Station. We land jets on that runway in the summer months. To your point about ‘cheaper and effective’, my understanding—and it was before my time in this role—is that one of the reasons that the previous government decided not to progress with the all-weather runway was cost.
Senator ROBERTS: In the context of changing geopolitical dynamics, especially when China is expanding its influence in the Southern Ocean and in Antarctica, what else is Australia doing to protect its interests from encroachment in the Southern Ocean and Antarctica?
Ms E Campbell: We’ve got a really strong program in Antarctica. We talked previously about our science voyages and the step-up in our science work in Antarctica. Elements such as inspections, which we’ve talked about, are part of our influence in Antarctica. Going to international meetings, rebuilding our stations—these are all really strong parts. We can certainly provide references to the strategy and action plan. We’ve got a million year ice core where we’re travelling 1,200 kilometres inland with a traverse tractor to drill for ice. We’ve also reestablished the ability to go across our territory and explore new areas, which is really exciting.
Senator ROBERTS: Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that scientific programs have been cut. Why is the supply of critical food and medicine no longer assured? Has the government not heard of the phrase: ‘Use it or lose it’? That’s important for my next question.
Ms E Campbell: I don’t accept that we’ve cut funding. The government has invested more than ever. Funding has gone up.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s been no cut to scientific funding?
Ms E Campbell: No.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. China is currently the most active national player in the Antarctic, yet Australia has the largest designated proportion of area claimed of the Antarctic continent, at 42 per cent—so over 40 per cent. It is referred to as the Australian Antarctic Territory and, in landmass, is the largest territory of Australia. China has five research bases there, and it’s soon to be six, with three of the bases it’s built within the Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has only three bases in the territory and a fourth at Macquarie Island. Am I correct so far?
Ms E Campbell: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese research stations have a dual purpose, supporting both military and civil functions. Common sense suggests that this will influence a Chinese call for a recognised claim for a part of the Australian Antarctic Territory, at our expense. Australia must do something soon to reclaim its senior role in Antarctic affairs. Will this government do what the coalition failed to do and build this vital runway to protect our claim to our territory?
Ms E Campbell: I might correct a couple of points of fact. First of all, you said at the beginning that—and I did say it was right—China was the most active player. China is certainly very active in Antarctica, as are many other countries. I think the US would say they have been the most active player, and I think we’re close behind. There’s not evidence that there is a dual-use function of Antarctic stations, and that would be a breach of the treaty. There has been no finding—
Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by ‘dual use’?
Ms E Campbell: You talked about dual military and scientific use. That would be a breach of the Antarctic Treaty, and there is no evidence that that has happened.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you think that would bother China?
Ms E Campbell: I think you’re asking my opinion. Under the treaty, that would not be allowed.
Senator ROBERTS: So we’re leaving it to the Chinese?
Ms E Campbell: That’s not what I said.
Mr Sullivan: They’re your words, Senator, not Ms Campbell’s.
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
There’s an Act recently passed by the US House of Reps and currently awaiting approval by the Senate called H.R. 1503 Stop Forced Organ Harvesting.
‘To combat forced organ harvesting and trafficking in persons for purposes of the removal of organs.’
It seems globalisation has opened Western democracies to more than ‘trade’.
The suspected existence of international organ harvesting is a grisly reminder of the moral variance across borders.
This Act specifically aims to ‘hold accountable persons implicated, including members of the Chinese Communist Party’.
Unlike Australia’s vague foreign interference laws, the US did not shy away from naming the culprit.
The Act was introduced by Representative Chris Smith, who said of the measure:
‘Mr Speaker, every year under General Secretary Xi Jinping and his Chinese Communist Party, tens of thousands of young women and men – average age 28 – are murdered in cold blood to steal their internal organs for profit or to be transplanted into communist party cadres – members and leaders.
‘These crimes against humanity are unimaginably cruel and painful.
‘Between two and six internal organs per victim are extracted. It is murder masquerading as medicine.
‘Ethnic groups targeted included Uyghurs, who suffer from Xi Jinping’s ongoing genocide, and the Falun Gong, whose peaceful meditation and exercise practices and exceptional good health makes their organs highly desirable.’
This is the narrative of a horror film, and yet it is a real-world scenario carried out by the communist regime our Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, has gushed over meeting. He behaves as though shaking the hand of the CCP and climbing deeper into their economic sphere is a ‘good thing’ for Australia.
It is not.
Especially not at the expense of our US relationship.
Australian Senators may bicker over the finer details of international human rights, however, selling human beings into an organ-harvesting trade is universally condemned as an abomination against all moral and ethical standards.
‘In June of 1998 – 27 years ago – I chaired my first hearing on forced organ harvesting in China. A Chinese security officer testified that he and other security agents were executing patients with the doctors right there with ambulances ready to harvest their organs after the bullets were fired … at another hearing in 2022, we learned that some of the organs are stolen from victims who are still alive. One doctor testified how he had performed one such surgery on a victim of a botched execution and discovered, as he began cutting, that the victim was in a state of shock – not dead yet – and a live vivisection on a living human was being performed.’
If, as is claimed by our well-informed American counterparts, ‘state-sponsored forced organ harvesting is big business for Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party which shows absolutely no signs of abating’ – what responsibility do Australian politicians have to ensure the 1.4 million people of Chinese ancestry within Australia are safe from this trade?
Politicians are aware that CCP influence reaches into Australia, with the communist regime spying on migrants via a network of Chinese chat apps and peers. They exert pressure on Australians of Chinese ancestry by threatening members of their family who remain in China. It’s a level of control that endangers both migrants and the wider Australian population.
On July 14, Sky News Australia published comments warning that Beijing might be weaponising expatriates to ‘interfere in domestic elections’.
‘Senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, Dr John Lee, said the People’s Republic of China had spent ‘enormous efforts’ influencing and interfering with Australian domestic politics to advance its interests.’
He added, ‘…it creates problematic structural problems for social cohesion in Australian society and politics.’
It was also recently published that Foreign Minister Penny Wong had been made aware of anonymous letters sent to Australians ‘offering a reward for information on the whereabouts of an Australian-based Hong Kong dissident’.
Ms Wong said, ‘The Australian government does not accept other governments interfering with our citizens, making anybody feel unsafe.’
Will Anthony Albanese bring this incident up with Xi Jinping on his trip?
Probably not.
Will he ask for the Port of Darwin to be peacefully returned to Australian hands?
He has already said that he will not.
Will he give Xi Jinping an earful over the live-fire exercises off our coast which disrupted commercial air traffic followed by a bit of casual circumnavigation of our borders?
Again, no, he will not.
Mr Albanese is a coward when it comes to diplomacy.
Socialist-leaning parties, such as Labor and the Greens, have a fascination with China’s dictatorial leadership. This leads them to turn a blind eye over repeated violations of international human rights laws and even the CCP’s utter disregard of environmental laws.
The CCP embodies everything these ‘humanitarian’ Australian political movements claim to be against. Their undying support and, in the case of the Prime Minister, diplomatic infatuation, remain a mystery to sensible people.
We cannot trust our international bureaucracies either. In 2021, the Office of the High Commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights said they were ‘alarmed’ by credible allegations of CCP organ harvesting.
Then, a few years later, the UN Human Rights Council elected China to serve its sixth term.
‘Diversity’ and ‘inclusion’ on an international level generally means ‘including’ ‘diverse’ approaches to morality, legality, and humanity.
This is far from the only dubious appointment by the UN. It’s time Australia asks whether we wish to have any part of this organisation as it collapses into a depraved quagmire of quasi-religious environmental propaganda, anti-capitalist dogma, and the empowerment of the world’s most ruthless and dangerous regimes while dragging nations such as Australia through the mud over trivial matters.
As an Australian Senator, I have many people come up to me at public events and ask for help.
Usually, they want me to combat the rise of brutal left-wing policy – a task that I’m dedicated to. They tell me heartbreaking stories about their lives that have been stolen by ill-conceived government directions and the general mismanagement of the Australian economy.
There are others, particularly migrants, who come to me wishing to raise awareness about the horrors of their homeland.
In particular, the hidden crimes of the Chinese Communist Party whose reach extends across our borders and into the Australian community.
For over 20 years, the world has been aware of the CCP’s disgusting underworld of human trafficking for black market organs.
However, because the CCP’s cheque book is vast, politicians have taken the money and sold the economic relationship back to the Australian people as a net benefit.
Since then, Australia has lost sovereignty over its manufacturing, energy, food, and communications network. Our natural beauty – beaches, oceans, forests, and farmland – are to be cut down and smothered with short-lived, CCP-built ‘renewable’ technology.
Cheap, substandard goods constructed with slave-like labour continues to out-compete our domestic retail landscape.
Is this the future we want for our children and their children?
Trade relationships have to be about more than just money.
They are about the future we create, the independence we hold, the stability of our civilisation, and the quality of our culture.
Pacific nations will no longer be able to come knocking at Australia’s door for assistance when a tariff from China can cripple our economy.
By sacrificing our economic independence to China, America will be the only entity policing freedom of navigation and trade routes in the Asia Pacific region.
And if Mr Albanese continues his antagonistic approach to America, we may no longer have that guarantee of safety either.
Murder masquerading as medicine by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Will Albanese question Xi Jinping about the CCP’s alleged human organ trade?
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Panda.jpg?fit=719%2C960&ssl=1960719Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-17 17:14:152025-07-17 17:14:22Murder Masquerading as Medicine
Hong Kong is a lesson of what happens when communism is imposed on democracy. China assured the citizens of Hong Kong they would be respected, and then promptly broke that promise. The top 10% of income earners in Hong Kong own 40 times the wealth of the bottom 10%, with income inequality worsening every year under communism. This confirms that free enterprise lifts people out of poverty, while communism puts them in it. Communism promises joy and inclusion – while delivering misery and repression.
China is improperly imprisoning freedom journalist and businessman Mr Jimmy Lai. China is taking a well-worn path of totalitarian governments seen throughout history. We must remain alert here in Australia against the actions of a government with its own totalitarian tendencies.
One Nation firmly stands for free enterprise, small government, and the primacy of the family—unlike Communist China.
Transcript
Hong Kong is a lesson in what happens when communism is imposed on democracy. China assured Hong Kong citizens that they would be respected, and then promptly broke that promise. In Hong Kong, the top 10 per cent of income earners now own 40 times the wealth of the bottom 10 per cent. Every year under communism makes income inequality in Hong Kong worse. It confirms that free enterprise lifts people out of poverty, while communism puts them in poverty. Communism promises joy and inclusion, while delivering misery and repression. Repression leads to everyday citizens having less, leading to more repression, which leads to more inequality, and on it goes.
China is improperly imprisoning freedom journalist and businessman Mr Jimmy Lai. China is taking a well-worn path of totalitarian governments across history.
Australia has cause for reflection. We’re discussing this motion in the shadow of a looming Senate legislation guillotine. In a guillotine, the government gets the numbers to do whatever it wants, and it does just that, which is how communism starts—with unchallenged power. Senate guillotines have become commonplace. They should not be. Both parties have silenced democratic debate during guillotines, although it seems that Labor is wearing out its guillotine faster than Robespierre.
Three days of hearings into the misinformation and disinformation bill heard from expert witness after expert witness, all criticising the government for introducing a ministry of truth tasked with issuing sanctions against any social media platform which resisted removal of what the ministry considered ‘misinformation’. This is how communism starts. The committee report had little in common with witness testimony. The report was nothing more than the government’s ‘truth’. The first target for the Albanese government’s ministry of truth should be the Albanese government.
I welcome calling out Chinese communist repression, and I look forward to a wider conversation on where our actions in this chamber are leading Australia.
During the COVID response I was temporarily banned from social media for pointing out that COVID could have emerged from the Wuhan lab.
This fact is now widely acknowledged, even by the former directer of the US Centre for Disease Control. Who’s spreading misinformation now?
Transcript
In light of acting minister Senator Chisholm’s comments when he mentioned COVID, I wish to note and draw to the Senate’s attention that the bill that was passed this morning, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2022 Measures No. 1) Bill 2022, combined with this bill, makes it impossible to dodge vaccine mandates.
I want to draw the attention of the Senate to two points. The first is an article by the Washington correspondent for the Australian, Adam Creighton. The article is headlined ‘”US helped fund Covid-19″: ex CDC director Robert Redfield’. Dr Robert Redfield is a former director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States. It’s supposedly an authoritative body. The article says: Dr Redfield … said … during a House Select Coronavirus Pandemic Subcommittee hearing on “Investigating the Origins of COVID-19” that the deadly coronavirus “more likely was the result of an accidental lab leak”—
Whoops! Those conspiracy theorists were right! The article says:
The former head of the US Centers for Disease Control has told Congress the US government likely helped fund the development of Sars-Cov2, which he believed leaked from a Chinese lab in late 2019, ultimately killing more than 6 million people globally.
Asked by Republican congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis whether “American tax dollars funded the gain of function research that created this virus”, Dr Redfield, who was CDC director between 2018 and 2021, replied “I think it did”.
This is serious stuff. The article goes on to say: “As a clinical virologist I felt it was not scientifically plausible that this virus went from a bat to humans and became one of the most infectious viruses we have for humans …
His testimony came a week after revelations the FBI and the US Department of Energy had assessed the lab leak theory — once dubbed a ‘conspiracy theory’ — where have I heard that before — to be the most likely explanation for the origin of the pandemic.
Dr Redfield, who was appointed by the Trump administration … said he had been side-lined early on by Dr Fauci — where have I heard his name before — and NIH head Dr Francis Collins — where have I heard her name before — who, Dr Redfield said, wanted to “create a narrative” the virus emerged naturally.
It’s rubbish. The article continues: The two hours of testimony and questioning by Democrat and Republican representatives of four expert witnesses on Wednesday … centred around private emails from top US scientists to Dr Fauci in late January, which suggested the new virus ‘looked engineered’ — Senator Babet — and what may have prompted their subsequent about face.
On February 4th, four of those scientists among a group of 11, who had convened on a confidential conference call organised by Dr Fauci, from which Dr Redfield — head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — was excluded, claimed the lab leak idea was not feasible in a draft academic paper that became the “Proximal Origin of Sars-Cov2”, published in March.
“I didn’t know there was a February 1 conference call until the Freedom of Information came out with the emails and I was quite upset as the CDC director that I was excluded,” Dr Redfield said.
One of the witnesses, Nicholas Wade, both former editor of Nature and senior New York Times science writer, said the media had been “used” to establish the natural origin theory.
Like this government has been used. The article continues: He also pointed out the scientists — remember, this is a Democrat — who seemingly changed their mind over the course of a few days later received a US$9 million grant from Dr Fauci’s NIAID in May 2020.
This is serious stuff. The article continues: Another witness, Dr Jamie Metzl, said the idea the virus emerged from wet markets was never the most logical explanation.
“I’m a lifelong Democrat. I consider myself a progressive person, but … I couldn’t find the justification for the strong arguments, calling people like me, investigating looking into pandemic origins in good faith, conspiracy theorists”.
This smells. The TGA bill, combined with this bill, enables injection mandates. Let’s have a think about who could be the beneficiaries here. On Tuesday I discussed the fact that, over the last 15 years, 47 market-leading drugs have aged out of patent, costing pharmaceutical companies $30 billion a year in lost sales, including drugs that made up 42 per cent of Pfizer’s drug revenue and 62 per cent of AstraZeneca’s. This patent cliff is set to get worse, with another 15 leading drugs—nine of them among the world’s top-20 best-selling drugs—due to expire this decade. Pfizer will lose another $15 billion in annual sales. The only way to replace so much revenue is with a whole new class of drug: mRNA—not tested, thought to be dangerous, killing people in this country and globally.
We’ve now seen that drug on the market, through mandates that the federal government drove.
The former Prime Minister drove the injection mandates in this country.
He bought the injections. He indemnified the states. He gave them to the states and gave them access to the health data that enabled the states to control the mandates.
We are looking at something being set up here that is heinous.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/aYKPnNIN-ZM/hqdefault.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-03-15 15:38:152023-03-20 11:11:22The Wuhan “Conspiracy Theory” – Not a conspiracy any more
Reports last year indicated that the China has set up police stations across the world including one in Sydney.
Chinese authorities have said the stations, sometimes called “contact points”, provide services to citizens, such as renewing national identification cards, passports and drivers licences, by using facial recognition technology.
But human rights groups fear overseas police offices could also be used to target dissidents abroad or compel people to return to China where they could face potentially politicised trials.
Despite this potential National Security Breach, our spy agency ASIO doesn’t appear worried and claims to not know anything about it. China must be laughing at our government.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending today. Mr Burgess, you said in your opening statement that
Australia is the target of sophisticated and persistent espionage and foreign interference activities from a range of hostile foreign intelligence services. I take it they use a range of means of doing so.
Mr Burgess: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a Chinese Communist Party supported contact point in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: I’m not aware of that.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s been reported in the media, I understand.
Mr Burgess: I see many things in the media, but I let the data that we have available to us determine that. I wouldn’t comment on operational matters, but I’m not aware of that in the context of that media reporting.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re not aware of how long it’s been in operation or what its purpose is?
Mr Burgess: You’re assuming it’s true.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Mr Burgess: We will investigate things that are associated with acts of foreign interference, but I won’t bring colour to them in a public hearing.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there Chinese police officers working out of premises in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: Not that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: Are their operations of interest to our security agencies?
Mr Burgess: If anyone here were engaged in acts of espionage or foreign interference, that would be of concern and something that we would investigate.
Senator ROBERTS: What about potential breaches of Australian national sovereignty?
Mr Burgess: Again, my agency will investigate anything that’s a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Chinese citizens or Chinese people living here in Australia? Should they be concerned? You would protect them, even though they may not be Australian citizens.
Mr Burgess: Anyone in this country is free to be here, assuming they’re on a valid visa, of course, or they’re a citizen or permanent residence, and they’re of no concern to us unless they’re engaged in matters of prejudicial security, in which case we would show an interest in them.
Senator ROBERTS: Individual security as well as national security?
Mr Burgess: Threats to security are what ASIO worries about.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not aware of people operating from this contact point, so you wouldn’t know whether or not they have any contact with or influence on Australian Chinese residents or Chinese visa holders.
Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific operational matters, but I will say this because I’ve said this publicly before: the threat of espionage and foreign interference is a real threat in this country. It is our principal security concern. It comes from a range of countries, and I think it’s unhelpful for me to call out specific countries and in particular when we talk about the vast range of diaspora communities in this country, the members of those communities are not the problem. It’s the foreign government and the foreign intelligence services that will be the focus for me and my agency.
Senator ROBERTS: The Chinese Communist Party itself has belted our country economically. What Australian overview of agencies that operate in this country is there for premises like the supported contact point in Sydney?
Mr Burgess: Again, I don’t comment on specific matters, but if we have a need to investigate things that may be of concern in relation to security, things that could be used as platforms for espionage or foreign interference, I can assure you my agency will be on it and investigate it. And I can assure you we had a very productive year last year, removing espionage and foreign interference problems from this country.
Senator ROBERTS: And you may or may not be able to tell us about those operations, depending upon the circumstances. Is that correct?
Mr Burgess: I wouldn’t talk about them publicly in detail.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a series of very short questions on a topic that was underway in last Senate estimates in this room, as I was asking the questions, but it was denied. That was the ISIS brides that were brought back. What are the costs to Australia of bringing these women and children to Australia?
Mr Burgess: The repatriation was not a matter for ASIO. We gave advice on the individuals, but beyond that you’d have to pass that question to others.
Senator ROBERTS: What security measures are to be taken to keep Australian community members safe, because these people have been part of some radical terrorist groups and associated with them?
Mr Burgess: The only comment I’d make there is that ASIO gave security advice to government and, in particular, gave security assessments on all the individuals that returned. That was our job.
Senator ROBERTS: What was that again? You assessed them?
Mr Burgess: We did security assessments on returning individuals, and they returned, and that’s okay.
Senator ROBERTS: Are any of these women currently wives or partners or sisters of terrorists?
Mr Burgess: I won’t go into specific matters.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they genuine refugees?
Mr Burgess: They’re Australian citizens who have returned home.
Senator ROBERTS: Given their recent social circumstances, are any of these people going to need
deradicalization programs?
Mr Burgess: Again, I wouldn’t comment on that publicly, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How many of the women have been charged with terrorism related offences?
Mr Burgess: I’m not law enforcement. I’m aware of one charge.
Senator ROBERTS: One.
Mr Burgess: You should speak to the AFP about that.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, if it assists you, we do have the AFP a little bit later today. They can answer some of those questions for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Given that most of the husbands and children’s fathers have been
killed by Western soldiers, how traumatised and angry were they when you assessed them?
Mr Burgess: I can’t speak for how they’re feeling.
Senator ROBERTS: No, but you would be aware, surely, of their potential threat?
Mr Burgess: As I said, we did security assessments on all the individuals, and anyone who falls into that
category that believes that violence is the answer would be subject to my agency’s inquiry and investigation.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ongoing support to be provided, and what is it?
Mr Burgess: Again, that’s not a matter for my organisation, other than to say that we will continue to watch anyone that is a threat to security, but I’m not making any comment on these individuals.
Senator ROBERTS: You may not be able to answer this, but I’m guessing you would know the answer
because it would form part of your assessment of terrorism threat. Given the children’s exposure to violence, either as victims or perpetrators, what are the plans for their assimilation, and did you make any comments about what was needed?
Mr Burgess: Again, that question is best put to others in Home Affairs and more broadly.
Senator ROBERTS: Does your agency work in providing a diagnosis and recommendations?
Mr Burgess: On individuals or children?
Senator ROBERTS: On treatment of people to make sure that they don’t violate our standards of behaviour.
Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that. We talk about the security threats people might face, and others worry about what treatments, if any, might be needed.
Senator ROBERTS: So, you do interact. If you can see a potential threat, you pass it on to someone. You
don’t just—
Mr Burgess: We’re part of a broader apparatus that helps counterterrorism in this country, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I see Mr Pezzullo nodding in agreement. Have the communities where these people are to be housed been fully consulted? I guess that’s for other people to comment.
Mr Burgess: It’s not a question for me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: Does your assessment of the threat include any consideration of family members here in Australia whose friends or family members have been killed by ISIS terrorists? Do you consult with the community in which they’re going to be placed?
Mr Burgess: No, we’re not involved in that consultation of where they get placed.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the families be housed together or apart?
Mr Burgess: Again, I can’t answer that question.
Senator ROBERTS: I was thinking more from a security point of view.
Mr Burgess: No, that’s irrelevant. They’re Australian citizens; they’re entitled to be where they want to be
unless there’s some legal condition on them. But I’m not law enforcement, so I’m not part of that.
Senator ROBERTS: So, would you be monitoring them more closely if they’re living close together in an enclave?
Mr Burgess: We will monitor anyone that we deem to be a threat to security.
Senator ROBERTS: So, it wouldn’t be part of your recommendations to keep them separate in this country?
Mr Burgess: No, we were not in that space.
Senator ROBERTS: I just have a final question, Chair, on violence. Does ‘violence’ include destroying
artworks, interrupting everyday Australians and destroying roadworks? I note that left-wing extremism in the 20th century killed 120 million people. I presume you monitor all types of extremism?
Mr Burgess: We’ll monitor any individuals that have an ideology that thinks violence is the answer.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much and thank you for your clear statements opposing violence.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/j3lIndoX3tY/0.jpg360480Sheenagh Langdonhttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSheenagh Langdon2023-02-13 19:37:122023-02-14 14:12:05Spy agency ASIO not aware of secret Sydney Communist China police station
Deputy Labor Leader Richard Marles has shown that his first allegiance lies with China, not Australia.
Marles has clearly shown that his true colour is red, like Labor, when he delivered a speech praising the Chinese Communist Party, delivered in China in Beijing in 2019.
He said in the speech that Chinese investment in the Pacific was a good thing and called for closer military ties between China and Australia.
He had even cleared the contents of the speech with the Chinese Embassy in Canberra before delivering it, but it was not shared with the Australian government.
Why would Mr Marles cowtow to the Chinese unless he is either totally misguided, stupidly dangerous or a Chinese government servant?
In 2017 Mr Marles had given a speech praising China’s considerable humanitarian achievements, describing them as a “force for good”.
Pity the poor Uighurs who have been forced to live in labour camps for re-education.
Marles argued that China did not seek to export its ideology or to influence other countries’ political systems, even though this was contrary to then existing ASIO warnings about foreign influence in Australia.
Richard Marles is the Deputy Leader of the Labor Party and if elected at this federal election, he could become one of the most influential voices in Australian government. Will we all need to learn to speak Cantonese?
This must not be allowed to happen.
Labor will be soft on China if it comes into government.
To stop this happening Mr Marles must step down or be made to do so and Labor must not be voted into power.
Pauline Hanson’s One Nation represents all Australians and supports Australia as a sovereign country.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/Marles.png?fit=650%2C367&ssl=1367650Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2022-04-27 13:13:302022-04-27 13:13:35Marles must go
