Posts

Empty Towns, Full Bird Nests: Labor’s Priority

,

Another round of questioning regarding the Labor government’s pursuit of environmental water. And frankly, the answers I’m getting from the Department and Minister Watt leave me deeply concerned for our rural communities.

Here is where we stand:

I asked the officials exactly how much water they’re still looking to strip from the system. It turns out they are only about halfway to their 450-gigalitre target. By their own admission, there are still 229 gigalitres left to be recovered. That is a massive amount of water that will no longer be growing food or fibre.

I asked Minister Watt why he’s ignoring his own Labor counterparts in the New South Wales Legislative Council, who voted unanimously for a Royal Commission into water. The Minister dismissed the idea as an “expensive repeat,” preferring to stick to their own reviews. It’s clear they don’t want a truly independent set of eyes looking at the damage being done.

This is the part that should really worry every Australian.

The government is paying an average of $5,040 per megalitre for buybacks. Meanwhile, temporary water trading prices have jumped 250% over the last decade. They are forcing water prices to “ludicrous levels.”

They claim they want “value for the taxpayer.” The Reality? They’re outbidding farmers, forcing them off the land.

When I asked how much more taxpayer money is needed to finish these buybacks, they refused to give me a number, claiming it’s “commercial-in-confidence.” Simply, they don’t want sellers to know!

All Pain, No Clear Gain!

I asked them directly what exactly this 229 gigalitres will achieve that justifies gutting our farming sector. The answers were the usual bureaucratic fluff about “supporting variations in flows” and “waterbird breeding.”

They are prioritising bird breeding over the survival of the towns that feed this country.

The government admits their “Sustainable Communities Program” is in such early stages that they can’t even tell if it’s working, yet they are charging ahead with buybacks that will be finished by December 2026.

We cannot allow “environmental outcomes” to become a suicide pact for regional Australia.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How much is the remaining water for the environment in gigalitres? What’s outstanding? How much more will we claim back?  

Senator Watt: There are a couple of different categories, so maybe one of the officials can give you the updated figures.  

Mr Southwell: Are you referring to the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, Senator? 

Senator ROBERTS: I thought it was 292. That’s the remaining water for the environment, as I understand it. Am I wrong?  

Mr Southwell: Do you mean the sustainable diversion limit, Senator?  

Senator ROBERTS: I mean the total buybacks yet to be bought.  

Mr Southwell: Okay. Perhaps I can start by answering the question around the 450 gigalitres of environmental water, as I think that might go to part of your question. We’re around halfway towards that target. As of 31 December, we’ve recovered 221 gigalitres towards that. That’s a mixture of purchases and infrastructure as well as other mechanisms. I’m hoping that that goes to your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve got about 229 left to go.  

Mr Southwell: Correct, Senator. We’re about halfway.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, the Legislative Council of New South Wales has voted unanimously to call on the federal government to convene a royal commission into water. Your own party, the Labor Party in New South Wales, voted for this measure. Do you support a federal royal commission, and, if not, on what basis do you disagree with your state counterparts? 

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that it was a unanimous vote of the legislative council. I am aware that there was a vote of the legislative council. It’s not my view that we need yet another royal commission into water policy or the Murray-Darling Basin. I recognise there are some Independents, particularly in the New South Wales parliament, who support that. This year, we have several reviews under way around the future management of the Murray Darling. You may have seen, just last week, the Murray-Darling Basin Authority released a discussion paper about the next version of the plan. My view is that we should proceed with the work that is already intended, rather than launch an expensive repeat of a royal commission.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Third review of the Water for the Environment Special Account report has found that the money in the account used to buy back water will only last until December 2026. How much more money is needed to complete the 450 gigalitres of buybacks the Albanese Labor government is intent on undertaking?  

Mr Sullivan: In terms of the money required, traditionally we wouldn’t give you that figure because it’s a commercial tender process. The money is available inside the contingency reserve to complete the government’s commitment to 450 gigalitres. But, in terms of the water purchasing component of that, my understanding is that that is a figure that is not for publication—  

Senator ROBERTS: Because you don’t want sellers to find out.  

Mr Sullivan: Exactly. Mr Southwell: I’ll just add to that. We’re trying to maximise the value for taxpayers through this process.  

Senator ROBERTS: According to the report, at 1.1.1, recent purchases have averaged at $5,040 per megalitre. Water for actual farming is uneconomic above $100 to $200 a megalitre, depending on the crop. Is your buyback forcing up the trading price of water to ludicrous levels, forcing family businesses off the land?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and perhaps ask for some of my colleagues to come to the table. We’re very much well aware that water purchasing has an impact. As you’re aware, as part of the process for initiating a purchase program, there is a consideration of socioeconomic impacts. That process is a routine part of our decision-making when conducting these water purchase programs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Average water trading prices in the December quarter 2025 were over $500 per megalitre, which is 250 per cent higher than in the same quarter 10 years ago. Both quarters had similar rainfall below long-term averages, with some areas in drought. So they’ve got similar inflow in the period. If water prices have not been inflated by buybacks, what has inflated them?  

Ms MacRae: Water prices, particularly the temporary water prices that I think you’re referring to, are $200 to $500 per megalitre for the annual purchase of water as opposed to the permanent purchase of water, which is what we focus on in the department. Permanent access is more like buying a house as opposed to renting a house. Of course, it is more expensive to buy a house outright permanently than it is to perhaps buy that house, for example, for a 12-month period. That’s the price difference you mentioned. We’re paying on average $5,400 per megalitre, but temporary trades are in that $200 per megalitre range. I think over the last 10 years there have been many shifts in irrigated agriculture as well as water reform that have led to a change in pricing. This can be compounded by many things, including—  

Senator ROBERTS: You have affected the market though. 

Ms MacRae: There is an impact on prices in the market from the government purchasing water. There are many reports that do talk about that. But in many cases, while there is an initial impact, that does settle down initially after a period of time.  

Senator ROBERTS: To get to this point so far you’ve bought up water that farmers didn’t need, and/or you’ve bought up water that farmers did need but who needed your money more than they needed the water. You’ve brought up water that only appears in a flood, and now you’re down to buying water that’s needed to grow food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. What price do you expect to pay for the remaining acquisitions?  

Mr Southwell: We run open and competitive tender processes. Those processes are underway. As I said earlier, we seek to obviously maximise the return for the taxpayer through this process, and we will evaluate those purchases based on the offers that are made and determine them based on value for money.  

Senator ROBERTS: The report at 1.1.2 also found current funding was insufficient to make up for the damage your buybacks are doing to rural and regional communities. What increase in allocation will you need to provide just compensation for the loss and damage you’re causing to rural communities?  

Ms Johnson: The government’s Sustainable Communities Program is providing $300 million over four years for community adjustment assistance. That was something that was referenced in the WESA third report. It found that the Sustainable Communities Program has the potential to offset some impacts in these communities that receive adjustment assistance. But because, of course, that program is still in the early phases of delivery, the third WESA report, which was tabled last year, found it was too early to assess the outcomes. But that’s certainly an important program when we think about community adjustment assistance in this space.  

Mr Coates: That’s actually in section 1.1.2 of the WESA report, where it refers to funding sufficiency. It’s talking about constraints measures, not the Sustainable Communities Program or programs to mitigate socioeconomic impacts.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you mean by that?  

Mr Coates: Constraints is a whole different program under the Basin Plan. It’s not my area of expertise, but it’s about achieving environmental outcomes.  

Ms Johnson: Senator, on that one, the report found that the funding available to 31 December this year, 2026, is sufficient for the projects that are likely to be delivered in this period. Others can talk to constraints; there is quite a significant body of work that can be done. But, for the projects that are underway, you’ll see in that section 1.1.2 that it found that the funding available is sufficient for those projects expected to be delivered this calendar year.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, may I just inquire as to remaining questions and if there’s any possibility of putting some of those on notice. I’m not going to cut you off.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m nearly finished, I think. I think they’ll be short answers.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what specifically will the remaining quantity of what will actually be 229 gigalitres for the environment be used for?  

Senator Watt: What will it be used for?  

Senator ROBERTS: What are the KPIs? What environmental need is so critical that farming needs to be so damaged by these buybacks?  

Mr Southwell: I’ll start and then hand over to my colleague Simon Banks. The water purchasing and water recovery for that 450-gigalitre target is to acquire water to support environmental outcomes to meet the Basin Plan. Dr Banks can talk through the detail of what that water is used for, but effectively it will deliver outcomes that support the—  

Dr Banks: Any water that is recovered through the program entitles us to a greater share of water in any particular year that we can then use to return to the environment. We’re able to support variations in flows and support the movement of native fish and the building of condition of native fish. We’ve been able to support waterbird breeding, which again is about how we improve the overall basin outcomes for the environment. So I can assure you there will be plenty of opportunity to use the available water, and my job is to make sure that we get the best out of the water that we’re responsible for managing.

/0 Comments/by

New Robodebt Scandal Waiting to Happen

,

One Nation cannot support this bill in its current form. While we agree that Australians caught up in the Robodebt scandal deserve closure, this legislation fails to deliver justice and accountability.

The government’s amendment MM100 introduces Section 44A, giving bureaucrats the power to use AI to mine data, match records, and even issue debt notices — all without human oversight. This is Robodebt 2.0. The same flawed approach that caused harm, heartbreak, and even loss of life is being repeated. The Royal Commission exposed the dangers of automated debt recovery. Why would we allow it again?

On top of that, Schedule 5 was added after the committee stage with zero scrutiny. It could suspend benefits for people accused, yet not convicted, of crimes. That’s a denial of natural justice and a dangerous precedent. An accusation is not a conviction, and financial penalties before due process is unacceptable.

One Nation supports restoring the six-year debt recovery limit, but without proper safeguards and accountability, this bill is a recipe for disaster. We’re calling on the government to pull these last-minute inclusions or send the bill back for full scrutiny. Australians deserve fairness, not another robodebt scandal.

— Senate Speech | November 2025

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Minister, this bill includes provisions that have been introduced after the committee stage and, as such, have not been subjected to proper scrutiny. It’s true that those who were caught up in the robodebt scandal need closure. One way or another, they need closure. A line needs to be drawn under as many of these debts as possible. This bill as it is, however, fails to achieve that objective to One Nation’s standard. 

I note that government amendment MM100 was passed this morning on the voices. I would like to ask Hansard to note One Nation’s opposition to that amendment, and here’s why: the amendment includes section 44A, which allows the government to use a computer program—in other words, AI, artificial intelligence—to mine data and match data and decide whether a debt occurs, and even to issue the debt notice. Are you kidding? This just restarts a robodebt type of debt recovery, but this time using AI. The fundamental problem still exists—data matching across systems with different software, different indexing and different ages that led to matching errors. The government has spent $2 billion trying to sort this mess out and has now pushed back the timeframe to complete the linking of government data back to 2028. We’ll get you. Why ask for these powers now when you have no ability to deliver? There’s no scrutiny and no guardrails; just do whatever the hell the secretary wants. This is a recipe for robodebt 2. 

The government must be responsible, accountable and transparent. The failure of robodebt was to try to match data from incompatible computer systems, which led to innocent people being presented with a debt notice, and it led to inaccurate amounts being claimed. This resulted from the use of computer matching software. Amendment MM100 repeats that same mistake and will surely lead to the same outcome of substantial errors in data matching leading to erroneous debt collection. As the Royal Commission into the Robodebt Scheme found, people died as a result of these debt notices. Introducing a system that makes these notices, untouched by human hands, is not the answer. The answer is careful scrutiny. 

One Nation cannot support this bill with section 44A included. Senator David Pocock introduced a perfectly logical amendment to pull schedule 5 from the bill. The schedule was introduced after the bill went to committee. It has not been properly scrutinised. The provisions of schedule 5 could be misused to suspend benefits for persons accused, but not convicted, of a crime. In particular, fathers accused of domestic violence will be robbed of their benefits—whether that is unemployment, parenting payment, rent allowance or whatever—placing them in a weakened position to defend those charges. This schedule is designed to encourage domestic violence allegations. This provision should be limited to persons who have been convicted, not accused, of a crime, even where an arrest warrant has been issued. An arrest warrant is not a conviction. It is the police saying the accusation is serious and the complainant may be in danger. Suspending their liberty via an arrest warrant is how this is dealt with, not levying a financial penalty by terminating their income before a conviction. Greens amendment (2) on sheet 3487 restores the six-year limit for debt collection. While One Nation would have gone with seven years to align with the tax law, I understand that the six-year limit restores a provision the Liberal-National government repealed in order to facilitate robodebt initially. Again, you’re bringing it all back. Without this provision, the government has unlimited recovery powers. It has gone back to 2004 in some cases. I understand they have gone back to last century. This is a denial of natural justice and administrative fairness. Who has the documents from that far back to challenge a notice? Make no mistake: these debt notices are guilty until proven innocent. One Nation will support the Greens amendment. 

Without all of those amendments in place, One Nation cannot support this bill. We are happy to work with the government to clean the mess called robodebt and have the bill reintroduced next year with due scrutiny of the ramifications of using AI and with schedule 5 properly scrutinised. Minister, my question is: will you pull these last-minute inclusions out of the bill or send the bill back to a committee so that these last-minute inclusions can be properly scrutinised by the people’s representatives in this house? 

/0 Comments/by

Illegal COVID Fines: Royal Commission NOW!

,

The New South Wales government recently withdrew and intend to refund over 23,000 COVID fines, in addition to the 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. These fines were unlawful and should never have happened.

I criticise the Albanese Government’s whitewash COVID “review” for ignoring state government actions, including these unlawful “fines”. There is so much about the State and Federal Government actions during COVID that must be examined immediately by a Royal Commission. Only a Royal Commission has the power to subpoena documents and compel witnesses to appear and testify truthfully.

Senator Wong responded to my questions that the fines are a state matter and then defended the government’s approach, saying that they were focusing on learning from the pandemic rather than assigning blame.

I questioned the government’s commitment to transparency, pointing out the lack of a royal commission into COVID-19 despite a promise of transparency. Senator Wong reiterated the government’s focus on preparing for future pandemics rather than prosecuting past health policies.

There is a need for accountability and justice, especially for those affected by vaccine injuries, and I question why the government is reluctant to call a comprehensive COVID royal commission. What do they have to hide?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to minister representing the Prime Minister, Senator Wong. The New South Wales government has just withdrawn and refunded more than 23,000 COVID fines for
offences like walking outside in the sun. This is in addition to 36,000 fines withdrawn in 2022. People who chose to fight these had police charges hanging over their heads for years while the fines were illegal all along. Your voluntary COVID review didn’t say one word about these fines because it was specifically instructed by your government to turn a blind eye to everything state governments did. Why is the Prime Minister so scared of calling a royal commission with the power to take evidence on oath, subpoena documents and look at all aspects of state and federal government responses to COVID? Why won’t you commit to calling a royal commission now?

Senator WONG: Thank you, Senator, thank you for the question. While I do not agree with the view you take of these issues, I will say you are very consistent in the views that you put on these issues. I would make a few points. The first is that the offences or the fines that you refer to are under state jurisdiction, and I can’t comment on how the states are approaching the enforcement or non-enforcement of those penalties. That’s a matter for the relevant state authorities. I appreciate that you have been consistent in calling for a broader inquiry. I did take the time—and I’m sure you did too—to look at not every page but a fair bit of the inquiry that did come down. I thought it was a very thorough, very considered piece of work which focused much less on pointing the finger and allocating blame than on working out how Australia as a country, and particularly how the Commonwealth government, can learn from the experience of the pandemic. That is the approach that the government is taking to this. I appreciate you had a different view about the federal government’s response. There were certainly mistakes made. There were certainly things we could do better. We were very critical, for example, of the failure to assist stranded Australians after the borders were closed and so forth. But the focus of the report was very much on what we learned from something that we have not experienced in our lifetimes before and how, in an age of pandemics, we can ensure that we are better prepared for the next pandemic.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Prime Minister Albanese was elected promising to govern with transparency. Within months of being elected the government called a royal commission into robodebt. It’s now
30 months after you were elected to government, and there is still no royal commission into COVID. Will you govern with transparency and call a COVID royal commission that goes way beyond what your inquiry did, or does your government’s transparency promise only apply when it’s politically convenient to you?

Senator WONG: I’d refer you to the answer to your primary question. We have taken the view that, rather than a process of allocating blame, the most important thing for us to do as a country was to be upfront and very honest about mistakes that were made or areas where we could have done better—state and federal—and focus on how we better prepare the country, in particular the Commonwealth government, for the risk of future pandemics. It is a very thorough report. It is a very thorough assessment of what we did well and what we didn’t do well. It makes, I think, very good recommendations, including near-term and medium-term priority areas where we need to strengthen our capacity and our capability. That is a good thing for us to do. It’s an important thing for us to do. Pandemics are likely to be, regrettably, more prevalent, so we need to be better prepared, and that’s what we’re focused on.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: We agree that accountability and justice are essential. We’re not interested in blame. That’s for future prevention. Throughout state and federal governments’ COVID response, endless things were labelled misinformation that turned out to be true. The tens of thousands of vaccine injured and bereaved are owed massive compensation. Those are just the things we found out without a royal commission. Why is the government so scared of calling a proper COVID royal commission that would answer once and for all whether it was really the government who put out misinformation?

Senator WONG: I think your last question really bells the cat, if I may say. This is not about engaging in an argument around vaccines and health information and the views that you and others have about what is correct and what is not. With respect, I know you have your views. They’re not shared by the government. I don’t think they were shared by the Morrison government, and they’re not shared by many people in the public health space. You’re entitled to those views, but we are not looking to have a royal commission which is about reprosecuting health policy and health facts. That is the subject of independent advice. What we are interested in is making sure that, in a pandemic where we saw so many people around the world die and which had such an effect on the global economy and on Australia’s economy, we improve our response to such pandemics. ( Time expired )

/2 Comments/by

COVID Report a Whitewash: Royal Commission Now

,

I joined Ben Dobbins on Rural Queensland today to talk about the Government releasing their COVID cover-up report. There were more holes in this inquiry than a block of swiss cheese, we need a Royal Commission to get the evidence so charges can be laid.

Transcript

Ben Dobbins:

Welcome back to Rural Queensland Today. I normally don’t get two politicians in one day, but this is very important. Malcolm Roberts joins us this morning, the One Nation Queensland senator, and rightly so, is pissed off. Now, the federal government have released a report after holding an inquiry into the COVID-19 response. Well, it was meant to come out in September, but their delay is typical. But gee whiz Malcolm, a lot has come out now to show that, jeez, we handled this poorly. We handled it so poorly and a lot of what everybody was saying was wrong from the government. Good morning.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Good morning Ben, and thank you for having me on. You’re absolutely correct.

Look, let’s face it, mate. This is a whitewash inquiry. And despite the fact that it was a whitewash and a cover-up, they couldn’t suppress some key points that you just very clearly articulated. The inquiry members were three supporters of lockdowns. They’re insider appointments from the government. They choked the terms of reference, they had left out the states, and yet the states were so egregious in the handling of this virus that they couldn’t help but condemn the states. There was no power in this whitewash inquiry to compel witnesses and to compel the giving of evidence.

And Ben, it’s so ironic. I moved a motion that was successful in the Senate last year, about this time last year, to have an inquiry into developing … Drafting the possible terms of reference for a possible future Royal Commission. That was an outstanding inquiry. We have got terms of reference, and I must commend Senator Paul Scarfe and the Liberal Party, who was chairman. Gave us free rein. And mate, we developed a phenomenal, and he in particular developed a phenomenal set of terms of reference, and that work has been used by the Kiwis in now extending their royal commission and making it a fair dinkum Royal Commission, and yet here we are in Australia with no Royal Commission.

Ben Dobbins:

Okay. What do you want to see now happen? Because it caused a lot of heartache for a lot of people, financially, emotionally. The whole thing has been a disaster. What would you have liked to have seen and what were the recommendations that come out of this report?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Well, first thing I’d like to see is a proper fair dinkum Royal Commission. A judicial inquiry that can compel witnesses, compel, evidence. The bureau of-

Ben Dobbins:

What are we going to get from that, Malcolm it’s a dog’s breakfast.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

What we going to get is details around what was a dog’s breakfast. For example, I’m just going off some of the words from Minister Butler, the Labour Party minister and the Senate Health Minister in Canberra, who introduced the report from these commissioners yesterday. There was no shift. Listen to this. There was no shift from precautionary principle, which was used at the start, and we accept that, to a more evidence-based approach, including non-health aspects in a proportionate response. He is basically saying, in nice words, that was not evidence-based, it was not data-driven. It was disproportionate and completely over the top. That’s what we need to understand why and how that happened.

Then he said there’s a lack of transparency about the profound effect, exactly as you just said, on the lives of Australians and the loss of freedoms, their words from the report and from the minister. And then he said that there’s been a massive decrease in trust because a lack of real-time evidence-based policy. In other words, the policy was not based on real-time evidence. It was not based on data. And he said, “There’s been a huge decline in trust,” and that’s what the committee has said. We need to go into the details of all this and hold people accountable.

Ben, you will not get people to trust again until we know what went wrong in detail. You’ve got to have accountability. The government did not … And he also pointed out the government did not trust the people. So what we’ve got to do is restore basic freedoms, restore basic trust from the government and the people and get the details about this.

Ben Dobbins:

Yeah. I absolutely, absolutely agree with you 100%. I think it’s imperative that this happens, and something that I think needs to happen more and more. I absolutely fundamentally think that this should be something long-term that we look at even more and more. It’s important that we do this. It’s important that we have a long-term plan to make sure that this never happens again. We absolutely never go down this same road. So is that the reason why you want to get this … So if it does happen again, we never get locked up, vaccinated, our liberties absolutely taken away from us, families seeing loved ones die in the hospitals and not having any say of seeing them goodbye. Is that what you’re trying to get to so we never see this happen again?

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

Correct. But bit more than that. The minister himself and this Whitewash committee has confirmed that it was a disproportionate response along the lines you just said. For example, the panel has said, apparently, many of the measures taken in COVID are unlikely to be accepted by the population again. That means until the trust is restored, there will be no compliance, and there’ll be no voluntary adherence to it.

But Ben, we need to go further. I’m not going to talk about what you just said because you said it very, very well. We need to go further. Remember, in the early days of COVID we couldn’t get masks, we couldn’t get a lot of other things? We need to develop … One of the recommendations from this whitewash inquiry is to develop a whole of government plan to improve domestic and international supply chain resilience. Mate, we know that the food production is being interfered with in this country. The regions are doing their best to provide food, and the government is undermining their policy. We also know that you cannot manufacture and process without cheap energy, and our energy policies have been destroying our country’s productive capacity. We need a royal commission to get into the details of what is needed for complete recovery of our country. It’s on a highway to hell.

Ben Dobbins:

Yeah, I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Malcolm, thanks so much for being with us. We might actually get this report up. One Nation Senator, thanks so much for being with us.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re welcome, Ben. Thanks for telling the truth.

Ben Dobbins:

Good on you. We’ll take a break. Come back. This is Rural Queensland Today.

Thanks mate.

Senator Malcolm Roberts:

You’re welcome, Ben. Keep doing what you’re doing, mate.

/3 Comments/by

Labor Rejects Royal Commission into COVID

,

Labor refuses to call a Royal Commission into COVID, because they’ve already been given $1 million in donations from Big Pharma.

One Nation is calling for a COVID Royal Commission now, to ensure we never repeat the same mistakes.

/by

Middle East in Turmoil, Misinformation Bill doomed to fail? ADH TV with Chris Smith

I talked the Middle East, Misinformation, COVID Royal Commission, the Immigration Housing Crisis and Net Zero Madness on ADH TV.

As the middle east descends into war again my concern is making sure we don’t send Australian sons and daughters to another conflict in far away lands again.

Thanks for having me on Chris.

www.adh.tv

Transcript

Chris Smith: Well, the federal government’s latest stance on Israel’s war with Hamas, Hezbollah. And now Iran has put Australia at odds with its number one ally, the United States, as well as with Israel, the United Kingdom and Canada. It seems as if labor is redrawing Australia’s military and diplomatic position in the world. And, as I mentioned earlier, does taking such a solo stance no longer guarantee reciprocal support from those countries? 

If or when Australia is faced with aggression from, say, China or whoever in the Indo-Pacific? Let’s bring in Queensland One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts on that and more. Senator, welcome back to TV. Thank you Chris. Good to be back. Thanks for the invitation. Israel’s most recent attacks on Hezbollah were aimed at preventing a repeat of the October 7th massacre. 

Is Peter Dutton right to say the Prime Minister should be condemned for falling out with our allies? 

SENATOR ROBERTS: This is a big escalation on Israel’s part. It’s almost all at war, but it’s something that I think that Israel has a right to defend and defend itself. The history of this, this area, this region of the world is rife with lies, complexities, contradictions. And, you know, the first casualty in war is the truth. So we’ll never know. 

But Israel has a right to defend itself, but we must keep Australia out of it. We must keep Australia out of it. We followed the Americans into just about everything, without question. They’re an important ally of ours. But we must hold them accountable as well.  

Chris Smith: Do you sense that Anthony Albanese is trying to appease voters in those Muslim concentrated seats in south western Sydney? 

SENATOR ROBERTS: Yes, without a doubt. Anthony Albanese has shown a distinct, lack of respect for Australia’s position in in his deliberations. What he wants to do is promote the Labor Party that the the national interest is not in Anthony Albanese’s calculations.  

Chris Smith:There are some good signs among crossbenchers, Malcolm, that Labor’s information, misinformation and disinformation bill will struggle. That’s a sign of good news. 

SENATOR ROBERTS: It’s a very good sign of good news. We put, a motion out, matter of urgency thus Monday of the sitting in the Senate. And there were quite a few signals coming across to us that people wouldn’t support it. So that’s why we did that. That matter of urgency had forced a vote on it. But just remember, it’s not labor’s, misinformation. 

Disinformation bill. The Morrison Liberal National’s with Morrison Littleproud in charge introduced it into the into the parliament. Labor brought it back and and he’s now putting it into the voting regime process. And now the liberals are saying they will come up with their own before the next election. The liberals just don’t get it. No one wants this bloody censorship bill. 

And One Nation makes a promise they will never introduce such a bill. The best, best defense of truth is to let debate happen. And then we’ve got the largest perpetrators of misinformation and disinformation is the government. This Albanese government takes the cake. It’s all about control and censorship and they haven’t got the guts to do it themselves. 

They’re trying to intimidate the, search engines and platforms into doing it for them and putting them in a position where, as someone said recently, they’ll be fined if they if they don’t exercise enough control, enough censorship, but they will not be fined if they if they exercise excessive censorship. This is just about getting government control over the over the debate in this country and suppressing free speech. 

That’s all it is. One nation will never, ever introduce such a bill.  

Chris Smith: I couldn’t agree more. As a matter of fact, if an opposition or a government wants to do anything about what we say freely, I think they should win back the restriction that exist right now, because the Esafety czar is out of control. I agree with you. And this this compounds the the problem.  

SENATOR ROBERTS: As I said, the best the best defense of truth is to let open free debate continue. That’s the best way of finding out the truth. And you can never take responsibility for someone’s opinions. That’s their responsibility. They formed it. This will just make more victims in society and suppress free speech.  It’s just a road to tyranny. That’s all it is.  

Chris Smith: Okay. Another subject. Labor has delayed the public release of its Covid 19 review. What is the government afraid of to show, do you think? 

SENATOR ROBERTS: Review? You’d hardly call it a review. Chris, I think you’re being very, very kind. Look, the panelists were biased. They were lockdown supporters. They’re not allowed to look at the state responses. They’ve got no investigating powers. Investigative powers. They’ve got no compare to compel. Compel evidence, compel documents, compel witnesses. This is just a sham. It is to get at Morrison and Morrison should be got out. 

He deserves to be really hammered on this. But he’s no more guilty then than, he’s just as guilty rather as the state premiers who will mostly labor. This is a protection racket for the labor premiers and the labor bureaucrats. We need a royal commission now 

Chris Smith: Now you say, I would have thought the Royal Commission needs to look at two things that that so-called review is not even touching the states, as you mentioned, and their role when it came to lockdowns and all kinds of freebies that were handed out to the public. But also on top of that, the deals that were done with big Pharma over those, those damn vaccines that have proved to be a con themselves. 

SENATOR ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely. There are, in fact, there are many, many areas that need to be looked at. Chris, we, I moved a motion to get one of the committees, two in the Senate, to investigate and develop, a draft terms of reference for a possible royal commission. And that that was passed through the Senate, that the committee did it. 

And I want to commend former barrister Julian Gillespie for he pulled an enormous team together and developed a phenomenal submission, 180 pages. I think it was 46,000 signatures. It was the people’s submission. And they covered it. Was it it turned it into a de facto inquiry into Covid. And it covers everything. And the royal and the, the chair, Paul Scott, I must say, the committee did a phenomenal job, along with the Secretariat, of pulling that into something that’s very, very workable. 

A draft terms of reference ready to go. And they’re completely comprehensive, cover every topic imaginable.  

Chris Smith: Let’s get on to energy. Now, a report from the US Energy Department is saying that with nuclear electricity, prices will drop 37%. Chris Bowen says renewables will always be cheaper. This is basically a blatant lie, isn’t it, Malcolm?  

SENATOR ROBERTS: Well, you stole the word right out of my mouth. It is a lie. It is fraud. Fraud is the presentation of something as it is not for personal gain. Chris Bowen has been pushing this bandwagon the lies fraudulently to get political capital. He is telling lie after lie. Solar and wind are the most expensive forms of energy that’s repeated everywhere. You know, AEMO doesn’t even cost the lowest price system. 

What they did with the relying on GenCost in the first place was false assumptions underpinning their calculations for solar and wind to make them look favorable and negative assumptions, and under coal to make it look unaffordable. That is completely false. And now we’ve got a circular argument that’s baked in, that’s beaten back to us all the time. 

Now, it doesn’t cost the lowest price systems. It’s forced to exclude the cost of calculating coal or nuclear disaster. Rubbish stuff that comes out of the south end of North Band bull.  

Chris Smith:Yeah, well, the CSIRO should be condemned completely for their reliance on that gen cost report. Malcolm.  

SENATOR ROBERTS: That is fraud as well Chris. That was a deliberate misrepresentation of the energy structure. It was politically driven to achieve a political objective the same as their climate. The CSIRO has admitted to me the politician’s quoting them as saying that there’s a danger in carbon dioxide from human activity. The CSIRO has denied ever saying that and they said they would never say it. They admitted to me that the temperatures today and not a not unusual, not, unprecedented. 

So the whole thing is based on the stuff that comes out of the south end of North Bound book. The CSIRO is guilty of misrepresenting climate science, misrepresenting nature and misrepresenting climate presenting energy. It’s just a fraud to extract money, to make billionaires richer, and to make, foreign multinationals richer.  

Chris Smith: Spot on.  

SENATOR ROBERTS: We pay for it  

Chris Smith: You’re not wrong. I think it’s fair to say to Malcolm that Australia’s immigration program is now officially out of control, and the worst it has ever been. 

SENATOR ROBERTS: Without a doubt. Completely agree with you. We have more than 2.4 million residents, excluding tourist million residents who are not citizens. Excluding tourists. Rent is up 52% in five years. Now, just remember that, the Albanese promised a after the last financial year where we got 518,000 net immigrants, by far the largest ever, almost double the previous record. 

Albanese comments. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we’ll cut it. Immigration is coming in this year is higher than the record from last year. Higher. These people are just telling lies after lies. Lies. And the thing is they’re hiding over a per person per capita recession. That’s what they don’t want to be. 

The government that was in place when the recession occurred. They would rather see people sleeping under bridges, in tents, in cars. I mean, working families. Kids are going home at night to their kids and sleeping in cars. Where do they shower? Where do they toilet? I mean, we got the richest state in the world, potentially in Queensland, and we got people living under bridges, families, working families. 

And because the government, it just wants to look good by by lifting up GDP to make sure we don’t have a recession, we would be in a recession now without large scale immigration fudging the numbers. 

Chris Smith Fudging the numbers. That’s exactly what large scale immigration does. It’s terrific to have you on the program. Senator Malcolm Roberts, thank you for your time. 

SENATOR ROBERTS: You’re welcome Chris, any time. All right. Queensland Senator Malcolm Roberts, 

/1 Comment/by

PRESS RELEASE: UNIVERSAL SUPPORT FOR COVID ROYAL COMMISSION AT FIRST INQUIRY HEARING

, ,

Key stakeholders have universally supported establishing a COVID Royal Commission while many slam the Prime Minister’s COVID review panel as a toothless tiger. 

Doctors, unions, human rights lawyers, vaccine injured and Royal Commission experts were among the witnesses to give evidence at a Senate inquiry tasked with proposing terms of reference for a future COVID Royal Commission as pressure mounts on the Albanese Government. 

In a rarity for parliamentary inquiries, every single witness was united in their support for an expansive, fully empowered Royal Commission into the Federal and State Governments’ response to COVID. 

Senator Malcolm Roberts who established the Senate inquiry said the evidence heard on Thursday meant it was only a matter of time before the Prime Minister’s hand was forced. 

“The largest government economic and health response in the wake of COVID deserves a fully empowered Royal Commission. 

“Nearly four years on from the start of COVID-19 Australians still don’t have answers about why Government took some of the most draconian measures in Australian history. 

“Anthony Albanese’s COVID review panel is made up of insiders who vocally supported the harshest lockdowns in the world. It’s a toothless tiger made to whitewash everything the Federal government did while turning a blind eye to anything State governments did. 

“The Albanese Government took less than three months to call its first Royal Commission. With the Government’s second anniversary approaching without a COVID Royal Commission Australians are asking the Prime Minister, what have you got to hide? 

“Only a Royal Commission can answer why government had vaccine mandates for a vaccine that didn’t stop transmission, secret health advice that was never published, established plans for pandemic response that were ignored and the longest lockdowns in the world called over a virus as severe as some flus. 

“We cannot afford to make the same mistakes again. Anthony Albanese must call this Royal Commission so we can get to the bottom of it all. 

ENDS 

A recording of the public hearing is available below:

Senate Inquiry to Draft Terms of Reference for a Future COVID Royal Commission
/20 Comments/by

COVID Royal Commission Draft Terms of Reference Release

Pauline Hanson’s One Nation is giving the Australian people a say about a Royal Commission into the management of the COVID-19 pandemic by Australian governments.

While the Prime Minister may be prepared to wait and kick this can down the road, One Nation is not.

I’ve been working with Pauline Hanson on developing draft terms of reference for the Royal Commission. We want to make sure these terms of reference capture all of the information which Australians need to see – the deliberations of National Cabinet, the advice from health bureaucrats which state and territory governments used to justify lockdowns and vaccine mandates, and the real data on COVID-19 deaths.

We’ve posted these draft terms of reference on the One Nation website and we’re now asking for input from the Australian people. It’s absolutely essential this Royal Commission enables individual Australians to tell their stories of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Thousands of Australians lost their jobs due to lockdowns and mandates. Our children’s education was severely interrupted. Businesses across Australia suffered significant losses or closed altogether. Australian governments spent hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars in pandemic relief. Experimental vaccines were rushed through approvals and imposed on millions of Australians. This has been one of the most disruptive events in our history.

Australians who’d like to provide feedback are invited to visit the One Nation website: https://www.onenation.org.au/covid-19-royal-commission-draft-tor

/8 Comments/by

Greens expert runs from giving evidence

,

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

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

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

Transcript

[Senator Roberts]

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

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

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

[Greg Mullins]

Uh, yes.

[Senator Roberts]

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

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

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

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

[Greg Mullins]

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

[Chair]

Thanks Mr. Mullins, Senator Roberts.

[Senator Roberts]

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

[Greg Mullins]

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

[Senator Roberts]

One would do, just one.

[Greg Mullins]

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

[Chair]

I think what I propose, thanks Senator Roberts.

[Greg Mullins]

That was not an admission, it was exasperation senator.

[Senator Roberts]

Now we have talked also about-

[Chair]

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

[Senator Roberts]

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

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

[Greg Mullins]

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

[Senator Roberts]

Thank you very much chair.

[Chair]

Thanks senator Roberts,

/by

Murray Darling Basin investigation a whitewash

, ,

One Nation Senator Roberts expressed sheer disbelief and disappointment with the Keelty report into the Murray Darling Basin’s water allocations to farmers who need water to grow food.

Senator Roberts said, “As the nation reels from COVID-19 and faces food shortages this report is woefully inadequate and a tragic waste of taxpayers’ money. “

“An investigation should demonstrate rigour and analysis and instead Mr Keelty’s report is full of inadequacies.”

The report fails to include in its datasets this year’s substantial rainfall event and does not acknowledge rainfall within the MDB has increased over the past 100 years. Instead the Keelty analysis deceitfully uses ‘declining inflows’ as a way of arguing why farmers should be denied a fair allocation of water.

When 4000 disenchanted farmers descended on Canberra to protest the unfair allocation of water between the environment and farmers, they were promised that their zero allocations would be the subject of this review.

“It is deeply disappointing, particularly now when our agricultural productive capacity is under-utilised, that this issue was not rigorously examined by Mr Keelty.  Astonishingly the report fails to even mention those zero allocations,” added Senator Roberts.

As predicted by many farmers, the former Water Minister David Littleproud used the promise of an investigation into the MDB to quieten the crowd of protestors and conveniently shift blame to the States and irrigators.

Irrigators are suspicious of MDBA figures that show declining inflows when the Murray River has been running so high that environmental damage has resulted along the upper Murray and Barmah/Millewa forest from excessive water.

Disturbingly the report claims that environmental water is not being wasted, ignoring the unnecessary flooding of forests, excess water flushed out to sea in South Australia and keeping the lower lakes filled above their natural levels with Murray River water.

“The report may as well have been written by the MDBA itself, as it addresses none of the concerns from farmers, some of which have gone without a water allocation for 3 years.”

COVID-19 has highlighted the critical importance of Australia restoring our productive capacity across many strategic industries, including our agricultural sector.

“The Keelty report’s lack of due diligence in this investigation is akin to the last nail in the coffin of one of Australia’s most substantial food bowls. No water, no food,” Senator Roberts added.

Unsurprisingly, the report found that a lack of trust and leadership worsened the problems. One Nation calls for a Royal Commission into misconduct in the implementation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.

“Trust cannot be restored until rorting has been exposed and fixed.  Australia needs management of the MDB Plan that reflects a genuine triple benefit – for irrigators, communities and the environment,” Senator Roberts stated.

200421-Murray-Darling-Basin-investigation-a-whitewash_

/by