Posts

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

,
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.

Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.

This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.

Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.

‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’

When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:

‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’

Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:

‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…

There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:

Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.

It does.

According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.

This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.

As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’

If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.

Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.

The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.

What is the Paris Agreement?

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.

Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…

The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.

And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.

A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.

And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.

As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.

This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.

‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan

The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.

There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.

The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.

An expensive bit of paper…

This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.

And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.

Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.

These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…

This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.

And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump

Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.

At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.

This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?

On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:

57 Paris Agreement

That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.

Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.

In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.

In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.

We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)

However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.

/3 Comments/by

The Battle for Farrer – and Conservatism

,
This is why David Farley must win.

While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.

Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.

Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.

A battle for conservatism.

With a real choice.

The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.

Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.

How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?

As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.

On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.

The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.

Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.

It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.

The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.

One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.

And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?

No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.

Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?

The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.

We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).

On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.

We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.

It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…

While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.

One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.

By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.

How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?

Who knows.

You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.

And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.

Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.

David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.

Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.

The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This is why David Farley must win.

Read on Substack

/by

Nationals confirm commitment to Net-Zero DESTRUCTION

,

Here’s the deputy leader of the Nationals confirming their party is 100% committed to the country-wrecking net-zero.

That means net-zero farms, net-zero trucks, net-zero red meat, net-zero diesel. The Nationals are the party of destroying the bush.

/1 Comment/by

Net Zero Destroys, It Doesn’t Deliver

Australia’s political class is not putting Australians first.

The Nationals and Liberals are more interested in fighting each other than actually putting forward something that will benefit the country – cheaper power and cheaper groceries by ditching Net-Zero.

Interview with @empactnews

Transcript

Australian leaders, to be good, to be effective, have to put Australia’s interest first. That is the theme that drives Pauline and myself.

You know, Pauline has a very simple political philosophy. Is it in Australia’s interest?

David Littleproud’s net zero, it’s his baby, is not in Australia’s interest. It is counter to Australia’s interest. It is death to Australia’s energy sector, death to manufacturing, death to our environment with solar and wind turbines destroying the environment.

You know these people are pushing up solar and wind to protect the planet while killing the environment. I mean, this is insane. On environmental grounds, on farm and food security grounds, on economic grounds, on energy grounds. Every which way we look, this is rubbish. And to make it worse, it’s all based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull.

You know there is no evidence to back it up.

/4 Comments/by

Unity through honesty must carry the stage

,

Published in the Spectator 6 October 2022

There often comes a time when a friend has to put his arm around a mate who is behaving badly and ask what’s going on. The Liberal Party and I had such a moment on Sunday during my speech at CPAC.

The Liberal Party seemed to consider CPAC as an opportunity to restore their conservative credentials and engage in a membership drive to the exclusion of other conservative parties, including One Nation.

The Liberals were staking their claim to an unearned (and undeserved) conservative voting ground. It was for this reason that I changed my speech on Sunday morning to start a conversation on what should be expected of a conservative politician.

CPAC was an amazing event, I congratulate the organisers for all their hard work.

While the speakers on the stage were excellent, what was even better was the full and frank conversation I had with attendees representing the full spectrum of conservative thought.

My speech condensed the advice I received from attendees into a six-minute critique of the Liberal Party.

On Saturday morning, the Outsiders panel with Spectator Australia editor Rowan Dean and fellow Sky News Australia co-hosts Rita Panahi and James Morrow declared Jacinta Nampijinpa Price and Katherine Deves as Australia’s bravest women. I absolutely agree that Jacinta and Katherine are brave, intelligent, and strong women. Amazing women. Each is a credit to the conservative movement.

However, they are not Australia’s bravest women. That title has gone to Pauline Hanson for the last 25 years.

Pauline has fought the very battles frequently mentioned during CPAC – those battles to protect family, community, Christianity, Australia’s borders, the Indigenous industry, our flag, veterans, and way of life from predatory political ideologies.

It is ironic that the omnipresent party at CPAC was the same party that sent Pauline to jail to shut her up – the Liberal Party.

After being released and exonerated, Pauline put aside her time as Australia’s first political prisoner to lead One Nation in the fight for conservative values.

This should never be forgotten, especially with the release of a new national anti-corruption body lacking in checks and balances One Nation expected to be there.

In this last Parliament, Australia’s Covid response asked many questions of our elected leaders. Questions like:

What happened to my body my choice?

What happened to the vaccine approval process?

What happened to freedom of movement and freedom of association?

What happened to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship?

What happened to free speech?

And how could a virus infect you in a small business, but not in a big business?

One Nation went to this last election defending conservative values and fighting for your freedom.

Senator Ralph Babet and the UAP were also there defending your freedom. The Liberal Democrats were there standing up against the genuinely evil Daniel Andrews regime in Victoria. Commentator and documentary filmmaker Topher Field was arrested for his courage and went on to produce the award-winning documentary Battleground Melbourne that I urge all Australians to watch.

What did the Liberal Party, which is now asking for your support, do in the last election? They chose to preference the Labor Party ahead of One Nation in many races, in the end delivering the Senate to the ALP.

And why was Peter Dutton and the Senior Liberal Party leadership absent from CPAC if conservatism is written large in the DNA of the Liberal Party?

Former Prime Ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott prepared messages, so why not members of the Liberal Party leadership who hold power? Why are they hiding from conservatives?

Attendees at CPAC want to see the Liberals rediscover their roots in true liberalism, although it would be unbelievable if the Liberals achieved that task in a single weekend. It could be argued that their performance over the weekend and subsequent defence of it has worsened their position within the conservative movement.

Many Liberal Party voters believe that the party quite simply sold Australia out.

‘You betrayed us!’ echoed from the crowd at one point, amid boos after some in the party misread the sentiment of the room. To those on stage who insisted that the behaviour of the Liberals was ‘not as bad as Labor’, we ask:

Who was it that locked Western Sydney residents into their homes and put troops on the streets to keep them there – that was the Liberal Berejiklian government.

Who closed their state off to the rest of Australia, imposed business closures, restricted movement, and forced medical mandates on their citizens – that was the Liberal Marshall government.

Who changed the rules to allow emergency health orders under the Biosecurity Act, and then tore up the vaccine approval rule book, while sharing the vaccine status of citizens with anyone who wanted to see it?

That was the Liberal Morrison government.

With the benefit of hindsight, we know the measures taken by the old parties, including the so-called conservative Liberal and National parties, were wrong and probably resulted in more loss of life than if the virus had been treated as a flu.

Australian Actuarial Data shows for the 3 months to March 2022 deaths from respiratory diseases, including Covid, the flu, and pneumonia were 7 per cent lower than the long-term average.

Put simply, Covid is now less deadly than the flu, based on overall deaths.

What that actuarial data also showed was that deaths from heart disease were up 10 per cent, Cerebrovascular disease was up 5 per cent, and Australia’s death rate overall is 13 per cent above the expected rate – all this despite respiratory deaths being 7 per cent down.

Why are deaths spiking?

There never was a firm or consensus medical basis for the measures that were taken by the Federal Liberal Party, and State Liberal Party governments in New South Wales and South Australia – but they did it anyway.

We must have a Royal Commission to get to the bottom of all of this.

If the Liberal Party want their supporters to ‘hold the line’, as we heard during CPAC, then they need to change their leadership, change their policies, apologise for their failures, and start over.

At CPAC, I also heard a speaker in favour of retaining the two-party system of government.

I do not agree.

It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives a victory in Italy, that was a multi-party coalition.

It was not a two-party system that delivered conservatives to government in Sweden, that was a multi-party coalition.

While Brexit did deliver the first black eye to the globalists as another speaker mentioned, the conservatives did not do that. Nigel Farage did that, working outside of the establishment parties.

And it was not the Republicans that won the Presidency in 2016, it was Donald Trump.

It will not be the Republicans that regain Congress in a month, it will be Donald Trump and his Maga movement.

And they will retake Congress over the dead body of establishment republicans.

Can a unified conservative movement achieve more than a disunited movement?

Of course it can.

That is why all these decent, everyday Australians came to CPAC. They were there to make a difference.

We are people from all parties, united in the desire to defend conservative values. We can win this fight. Just as victory in two world wars was not any nation’s alone, rather, nations came together, allied in a single cause, to defend against evil and create a future that protects freedom, family, and abundance.

After a long period of peace and prosperity, those who seek to take everything and leave us with nothing are in the ascendency.

We have been at rest too long, my friends.

We are in a war against neo-paganism masquerading as Wokeism.

We do not need to be one party to triumph over evil, but we must be one community. We must be united, we must be resolute and most importantly, we must start today.

There is no need for a single conservative party, especially not one as arrogant and out of touch as the Liberal Party.

There is however a pressing need for conservative allies to unite, and fight side by side with a clarity of mind and purpose.

And so I implore all conservatives, now is the time, as Shakespeare said so eloquently, ‘Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more.’

/15 Comments/by

Nationals walk away from coal

,

In the Senate Chamber today the Nationals voted against a One Nation motion to construct a new coal fired power station in the Hunter and walked away from their election promise only one month after announcing it.

Senator Roberts’ motion in support for coal mining and the building of coal fired power stations used the words of Senator Canavan, however the Nationals, too weak to stand alone, joined the Liberals to vote the motion down.

Senator Roberts said, “The Nationals just walked away from the Hunter Valley coal industry and should be ashamed of themselves for their duplicity. This decision shows no support for the coal industry.”

The National’s Manufacturing Policy, released in January states on page 18 that “Australia needs to build modern coal fired power stations…the Government should also support a new coal fired power station in the Hunter Valley.

Senator Roberts said, “The Nationals, having spruiked about building coal fired powers stations on social media and in their glossy policy, have today shown Australia this was just talk.

“Voting for the Nationals is a wasted vote as they do not have the guts to stand by their policies nor stand up to the Liberals.” The coal mining industries of the Hunter Valley, the Bowen Basin and elsewhere in Australia can be clear that “only a vote for One Nation is a vote for the future of the coal mining industry and affordable and reliable power.”

https://www.facebook.com/malcolmrobertsonenation/videos/461543738205570

/1 Comment/by

Nationals lied about changes to Murray Darling Basin plan

, ,

Last week the Nationals claimed to have significantly changed the Murray Darling Basin plan for farmers. I want to be blunt. THEY LIED.They are wilting under the pressure One Nation has put them under through our use of facts and in response instead of doing good are trying to look good.

Take a listen to what the Nationals claimed the report said and what the report ACTUALLY says.

Transcript

Hi, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts and I’m on the road from Rocky to Mackay in Central Queensland. I wanna make a statement about the and ask some questions about the Murray-Darling Basin Plan notice that came out of the government last week.

And I wanna ask a few basic questions after Friday’s media headlines. And I’m gonna read these questions, because I wanna make sure it’s accurate. Sky News called this the biggest change to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan in 10 years, oh really? The Australian announced buybacks axed in Murray overhaul.

So I asked Minister Pitt for a copy of this supposed landmark report. And this is it, 10 pages, that’s all. The recommendations are two pages and a bit, that’s it. Does it really represent any change in the current policy? No, it does not. It doesn’t say any such thing and yet the Nationals Party and the government has been saying that.

One major issue and this is the first topic. One major issue with the Murray-Darling Basin Plan is the last 450 gigalitres of water acquisitions called SDLs. Which is to be taken off farmers and given to the environment in South Australia. Since the plan started 2100 gigalitres of water has been taken from farmers.

That’s forced many farmers off the land and reduced our agricultural output by more than $10 billion. This is money that our economy needs especially when we try to recover from COVID. This is food that has been taken from the world’s hungry.

Now Senator Bridget McKenzie, who is leader of the National’s Party in the senate made this statement just a week ago. Quote, “You cannot take any more water from our communities. The 450 gigalitres will not be coming from our farmers. Enough is enough, you have taken enough.”

Well, that was clear, wasn’t it? But what does the reports really say? Let me read the recommendations. Quote, this is what the report says. “Work with the states to accelerate planning and delivery of the 450 gigalitre SDL acquisitions. Not stop the acquisition accelerate the acquisition.”

What of the promise to not take water off farmers? Perhaps Senator McKenzie is talking about this line. Quote, from the report, “Shift the focus away from on-farm acquisition to off-farm infrastructure.” What sort of a promise is shift the focus? These are with weasel words Minister Pitt.

450 gigalitres through fixing leaky pipes and burying irrigation channels, not possible. And for the record irrigation channels are lifelines for native Australian birds, animals and reptiles in a drought. Those canals are an entire ecosystem full of fish, turtles and crustaceans that die when you bury them underground.

This idea is literally killing our environment to save it. Secondly, as for splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two, not so much. This is recommendation six, which establishes an Inspector General of Water Compliance. Now is this a new post?

No, they are simply renaming the Inspector General of Murray-Darling Basin Water Resources. When he was appointed, the existing Inspector Mick Keelty was called the tough cop on the block. What happened to that? This is nothing more than a re-branding exercise.

And the media has slapped it up the media has fallen for it. Does the media check anything anymore? Or do they just parrot what this government tells them? Thirdly, as for punitive powers, the Inspector General does not have any. Those powers vest with the State’s New South Wales in particular.

Where the most water rorting is going on. Has not even given the Murray-Darling Basin any punitive powers at all. If big Corporate Agriculture builds a new floodplain harvesting dam in the Northern Basin, the Inspector General has no powers to order that demolished nor even issue a fine.

The New South Wales State Agriculture Minister, Nationals Leader New South Wales, Nationals MP John Barilaro, has to make those orders and the government damn well knows it. Minister Pitt I have three questions. Who wrote this misleading press release?

Secondly, show me where in this report it actually says there will be no more buybacks from farmers? Thirdly, how does re-branding one position without any extra powers suddenly become splitting the Murray-Darling Basin authority into two? It doesn’t, does it?

I’ve heard the Nationals talk a lot of rubbish lately. But this takes the cake. These are lies they speak to distract. Under the Nationals, farmers will lose their water and rural communities will be destroyed. The only winner will be the Nationals Corporate Agriculture Mates.

When will the Nationals for a change? Join us in one Nation in putting Australia first.

/by