When harvest fuel bills double and take weeks to recoup from supermarkets, family farms simply can’t finance the food on our tables.
If Canberra keeps treating our fuel sovereignty like someone else’s problem, store shelves will empty fast.
Our food producers are already feeling the heat.
Government needs to step up and start looking after Australia.
Transcript
Yesterday, I met with Johanna Brighenti from NSW Farmers and member organisations across horticultural and meat industries. They raised issues caused by the Albanese government’s fuel crisis that are terrifying. The cost to get produce to market is going up by between 25 per cent and 75 per cent because of increased fuel costs.
Farmers and truckers using diesel are only getting 30 per cent of their fuel order. This is making Australian produce unaffordable. After the drought years, family farmers have nothing left to get through this.
It’s even worse for farmers in the middle of a harvest. One farmer saw their harvest fuel costs double, from $15,000 to $30,000 a week. Fuel bills have to be settled in 14 days. Supermarkets pay two months. Farmers can no longer afford to finance their harvest, and food will not get to supermarkets.
If the Canberra bubble think that this is someone else’s problem and that they need do nothing about it, I can assure you it’s going to get very real very quickly. For food producers it is already real.
One Nation opposes the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 which implements the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty. This bill represents an unnecessary surrender of Australian sovereignty, creates excessive bureaucracy and risks global food security and medical research.
This bill mandates strict notification and database requirements for collecting marine DNA. This will discourage expensive deep-sea medical research, protect pharmaceutical companies and impose unprecedented criminal penalties for collecting ocean compounds.
It also allows the UN to declare specially managed ocean areas, aligning with the UN’s “30×30” target (conserving 30% of oceans by 2030).
Despite clauses protecting commercial fisheries, the bill threatens the global seafood supply (up to 11 billion tonnes annually) without viable substitutes.
Further, it requires mandatory assessments for activities that may cause environmental harm. This is vague, bureaucratic overreach that fails to address actual ocean issues, such as third-world plastic pollution forming major ocean garbage patches.
It also establishes a large enforcement apparatus (inspectors, permits, audits), committing Australian taxpayer funds without a capped limit. This is literally giving a “blank cheque” to the UN.
One Nation will always protect taxpayers from unquantified financial burdens, safeguard global food security, and resist the transfer of regulatory power to international bodies.
Australia first!
— March | Senate Speech
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia’s obligations under the agreement made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It’s called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN’s full of acronyms, isn’t it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia’s rights in that region. Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature’s own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can’t be patented. They’re a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature’s remedies hidden in the ocean depths.
Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN’s powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease.
The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans.
The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world’s oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty ‘shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine’ existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world’s ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I’ll explain in a minute.
I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia’s fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they’ll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world’s hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia’s aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn’t include wild-caught fish. What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania’s fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It’s not the first time I’ve asked them that question, and I still haven’t heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will.
The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word ‘may’, which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations’ recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva.
How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won’t. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can’t, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won’t take them on.
Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here’s the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That’s the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes.
The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said ‘more bureaucracy’, I wasn’t joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for.
And here’s our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn’t say how much. You do not say how much. It can’t, because the UN hasn’t set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers’ money, and we have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent properly. When you can’t fulfil that obligation, we don’t want to spend it. There’s no reason why the spending can’t be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it’s the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty. Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation’s overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that’s just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories.
That’s exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world’s oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world’s hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That’s what you’re all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/KCZZyVMQAO8/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-26 15:25:562026-08-26 15:25:58One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules
Months ago, we saw a pivotal moment in the Senate.
It showed exactly what the 2028 election will centre on for One Nation: protecting Australians, strengthening families, keeping education affordable and defending the values that make this country work.
I made it clear that One Nation stands for facts over fashionable politics and for confronting violent extremism wherever it appears.
When Senator Hanson was attacked for raising concerns about radicalisation, I reminded the chamber that her comments were about extremists, not ordinary people of faith. I also warned that shutting down honest debate only leaves Australians exposed.
As we head toward 2028, my message remains the same. One Nation will defend Australia’s values, culture and security – and we won’t be intimidated out of telling the truth.
Transcript
Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated.
Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We’ll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that’s radical Islam, antifa, ‘trantifa’ or any other group.
Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I’ve not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all.
As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, ‘There are no good Muslims,’ is a lie. Her exact words were as follows:
I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about. You know, you say, ‘Oh, well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims?
The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are.
Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between ‘good Muslim’ and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I’ll repeat Janet’s words:
There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want:
safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims.
The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC—
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—
Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith.
These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims.
The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people.
Yesterday, when I read Janet’s comments, the Greens objected to Janet’s differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who’ve assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism.
The political left’s refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That’s fact; that’s history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation.
In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I’ll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational.
Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson:
If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you …
I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end.
The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate’s ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate:
For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger—
Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber—
while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged.
And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it’s been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting.
The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany’s version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states.
Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi’s head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate.
Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who’ve already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It’s common sense. It’s designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it’s not the whole problem.
I’m a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028.
On a motion supporting the people of Persia and the safety of all in the Middle East and globally, I read a letter from Janet Shay, an Iranian woman who escaped the Islamic regime, converted from Islam to Christianity and now lives safely in Australia.
Janet calls for honest debate, the freedom to question belief systems, and for clear distinctions between those who live peacefully and those whose convictions threaten public safety.
She urged the government to apply consistent standards, learn from Iran’s experience, and put Australians’ security first.
Her message is clear: It’s not good enough for our government to call behaviour ‘Terrorism’ when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it’s inside.
The safety of Australians must never be sacrificed because politicians are too afraid to have difficult conversations.
Transcript
This morning, I received an email from a constituent who was born into the Islamic regime in Iran. Her parents were Muslim yet converted to Christianity, and they were successful in fleeing Iran and moving to Australia. These are her words, based on her lived experience and that of her family:
My name is Janet Shay. I’m an Iranian-Australian.
Yesterday, on the 1st March 2026, the Leader of the Islamic Government of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed.
The Iranian people have waited 47 years for this moment.
This is a historical and joyful time for Iranians and for the world.
Although I am joyful for them, and hopeful that soon I may visit my family the graves of my loved one in Iran, I am deeply concerned for us here in Australia.
I’ll say that again: she is ‘deeply concerned for us here in Australia’. She continues:
In 2025 Prime Minister Albanese declared Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (the IRGC) a terrorist organisation. Thank you Prime Minister.
However, declaring a group a terrorist organisation means very little if the ideology that drives that group continues to be taught and defended on Australian soil without consequence.
What does our government intend do about those living among us who actively promote and defend the same ideology that endorses killing of apostates, abusing women and the sexual violation of children.
On the 14th of December 2025 there was an attack on Bondi: on Australian soil, against Australians. The Prime Minister said sorry. Ok.
But sorry is not honesty about what we are dealing with. An ideology cannot be called terrorist overseas but acceptable when it’s in our own country.
See, the people protesting in Iran are not afraid of being politically incorrect, to NAME what they endured under Islam. They are not going to be gaslit into calling it a misinterpretation.
So I’ll follow in their footsteps and speak plainly.
There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want:
safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims.
The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC, Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith.
These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims.
The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people.
The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam.
A phobia is an irrational fear—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sterle): On a point of order, Senator Shoebridge.
Senator Shoebridge: The inflammatory language here of ‘good Muslims’ and ‘true Muslims’—attacking the Muslim faith in the way that this senator is—is contrary to the standing orders. I’d ask you to have him withdraw that commentary and ensure that the debate we have in this chamber does not lead to that Islamophobia that we just heard from Senator Roberts.
Senator Hanson-Young: Or hate speech.
Senator Shoebridge: Or, as my colleague says, hate speech.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Shoebridge, I don’t quite see it as you do, but I’m going to check with the Clerk to make sure. The Clerk has concurred with me. You have the floor, Senator Roberts.
Janet Shay continues:
The word “Islamophobia” is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have opposing conversations about the religion of Islam.
A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Quran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values isn’t irrational.
Christianity is openly mocked in our country without legal protection from criticism. Nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned.
But when Islam is questioned the conversation shuts down and the person asking the question is called ‘the problem’. And the question about Islam NEVER gets answered.
She says:
Australia, we have the right to read, question and think for ourselves. Go to your local library. Pick up a copy of the Quran. Read the Hadith, the recorded words and example of their Prophet Muhammad. Draw your own conclusion and decide if Islam should be shielded from scrutiny in a democratic nation.
Demand that our government clearly distinguish between those who wish to live freely alongside us and those whose convictions oppose the safety and freedom of Australians.
And let us build our immigration, our policy and our national values accordingly.
That is not hatred. That is not phobia. That is us protecting ourselves.
It is not good enough for our government to call behaviour Terrorism when it’s outside of our country and refuse to say the name when it is inside.
The people of Iran were duped into accepting an Islamic government and have paid for it in blood for 47 years, while the world stood by and didn’t listen.
Do not let Australia learn that lesson the way Iran did.
Long live a free Australia.
Thank you, Janet Shay. I will return to this topic later today—the interests of Australian people at a time of threats to our security. This is what matters. The security of Australians is paramount to One Nation, and it should be paramount to every member of the Senate.
Judge for yourself: does the head of the department overseeing security and immigration seem reluctant to answer simple questions? Do her answers give you confidence?
Secretary Stephanie Foster refused to say how safe Australians currently are. Instead, she tried to deflect the question to ASIO, only belatedly mentioning that the government had allocated $102 million to assist with security for Jewish sites.
Minister Watt and the government haven’t received the message: One Nation will not vote for legislation that packages necessary legal provisions we support with “bundled” provisions that strip away basic rights such as free speech and instil needless control over the people.
The answer to terrorism is not to take away the basic freedoms of Australians; the answer is to stop terrorists from entering Australia in the first place. Based on Minister Watt’s response today and Minister Ayres’ response yesterday, it’s clear that Labor is growing concerned about the surging support for One Nation.
Rather than misleading by omission and spreading falsehoods about One Nation, wouldn’t it be more effective if the “Uniparty” — Liberal and Labor — started serving Australians?
Telling the truth can be tough. However, as One Nation does, it’s better for the long-term interest of the country to raise difficult truths and facts. Instead of dragging others down out of fear, Labor should try lifting itself up.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: These questions are for Home Affairs. What is the risk to Australians of a terrorist attack on Australian soil since the Bondi atrocity at the hands of Islamic terrorists of Middle Eastern extraction and the failed bombing attempt by homegrown white supremacists?
Ms Foster: You’re absolutely right that is a question for the Home Affairs portfolio, but the threat assessments are actually done by ASIO. Director-General Burgess will be appearing later today.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to ask him similar questions. Isn’t it pertinent that you should know as well?
Ms Foster: That’s a specific role assigned to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you interact with ASIO and AFP to coordinate activities?
Ms Foster: We do. In terms of actually formulating that assessment, that’s a role that belongs with them.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you whether or not you formulate the role. Thank you for explaining that ASIO does that. I thought they did that. What I’m asking is: do you know it? I can ask you questions about your department’s response based on the level of threat.
Ms Foster: I’m hesitating because an amount of the assessment work is classified in nature. I’ll need to take the question on notice before I answer about what is my state of knowledge of the classification level of the material that I have.
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to know whether or not your department knows what the level of risk is right now. What’s the rating?
Ms Foster: That’s the question I’m being cautious of. When agencies make assessments about threat, that can often be drawn from classified sources. It’s on the public record that the Director-General raised the threat level for terrorism to ‘probable’ on 5 August 2024. That’s the national terrorism threat level, which as he explains means a more than 50 per cent chance of that occurring.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask him this question as well, and thank you for that answer. My understanding is that the risk level rating has to be increased immediately after an attack. Has it been increased? What I’m getting to, Secretary, is: what are you doing differently now compared with before Bondi?
Ms Foster: Again, publicly, the director-general has affirmed that the national terrorism threat level remains at ‘probable’, that he did not, on the basis of information available to him, change that at the time. In terms of what we collectively have done since Bondi, you’ll see a very significant range of activities—obviously some of which you participated in in the debates on the bills which were passed a couple of weeks ago.
Senator ROBERTS: How safe are we now, living in Australia?
Ms Foster: I can only give you my previous answer, which is that it is the director-general of ASIO who makes assessments of Australia’s national terrorism threat level, and he will be appearing later today. But I’ve given you the publicly stated information to date. Mr Hansford has just reminded me that, in terms of another very significant action since Bondi, there is the allocation of a $102 million investment in security for Jewish institutions, places of worship and educational facilities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you do anything to educate everyday Australians or citizens of Australia as to what we can do to enhance our safety?
Mr Hansford: We—as in the Commonwealth—have a range of actions, including information on the national security website and a range of information that can help people to be informed about security issues in Australia. We also play a leadership role, and I co-chair the Australia-New Zealand Counter-Terrorism Committee that has met post Bondi a number of times to talk about how we prepare, knowing what we know about Bondi from the law enforcement and policy community across Australia. We’ve had discussions around how law enforcement and policy agencies can respond to and learn from what’s happened in Bondi, cognisant of the inquiries that are underway.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t sound very concrete to me. What about things like tightening up immigration standards regarding who we let into the country?
Senator Watt: We recently passed some laws to strengthen the minister’s powers to cancel visas of people promoting hate, and your party voted against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things that we did not like in the bill.
Senator Watt: So you voted against what you were asking for?
Senator ROBERTS: We voted against the other provisions of your bill.
Senator Watt: Which were to make it easier to ban association with Neo-Nazis. Was it that bit that you didn’t like? What was it that you didn’t like?
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, we could talk for hours about the specifics of that bill. This is a time for you to answer my questions; it’s not for me to answer your questions.
Senator Watt: The problem with One Nation is that you call for things to happen and then vote against them. You’ve done that now on hate speech and hate crime.
Senator ROBERTS: We do not vote against tighter immigration.
Senator Watt: You voted against same job, same pay, when you called for better labour standards.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you increase the immigration vetting standards?
Senator Watt: You voted against cheaper medicines when you wanted things done for poorer Australians. At some point, Australians are going to see through One Nation and observe that you make promises that you don’t keep when you come to Canberra. You did it again recently, by calling for hate preachers to be banned and restricted and then voting against laws that would do that. You called for migration screening and then voted against it. So I’ll leave it to Australians to see through what One Nation does rather than what One Nation says.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you think Australians are fools and not seeing what you’re doing right now? We’ve asked for tighter immigration standards. Will you answer the question: will you provide tighter immigration standards to keep terrorists out?
Senator Watt: We just did that, and you voted against it.
Senator ROBERTS: That was because of other things in your bill.
Senator Watt: But we did what you were asking for, and you voted against it—
Senator ROBERTS: Correct, because of the other things.
Senator Watt: just as you always vote against the things that you say need to be done, and we’re onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re happy to leave it in the hands of the Australian people.
Senator Watt: The Australian people, over time, will be onto you.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you call out ideologies that promote terrorism?
Senator Watt: We’ve done that, and we’ve just passed laws.
Senator ROBERTS: It took a long while for you to call out ideologies—
Senator Watt: We’ve done that. We’ve gone and done more than just call it out; we’ve passed laws. We’ve just passed laws. We don’t just call things out; we pass laws to restrict hate speech and hate preachers, and you vote against those laws.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, until the Bondi attack, only one party was calling out ideological Islam, and that was us. Now, all of a sudden, we’ve got more doing so.
Senator Watt: That’s not true.
Senator ROBERTS: The Prime Minister didn’t.
Senator Watt: There’s a long series of statements from the Prime Minister and ministers in this government. They have condemned some of the hate speech that we’ve seen in the community, whether it be from Islamic preachers or white supremacists; there is a long series of those statements. But we don’t just call things out. When we come to Canberra, we pass laws to restrict that kind of activity. So I invite you to work with the government to restrict that kind of activity, rather than just pretend that you care about these issues.
Senator ROBERTS: Secretary, do you have adequate resources to do what needs to be done?
Ms Foster: The Department of Home Affairs has a very substantial budget and staffing level, and I am able to deploy those resources to the government’s priorities.
I asked Minister Wong about Labor’s failed promise to return the Port of Darwin to Australian hands.
Before the election, Anthony Albanese was happy to call foreign ownership of our ports a mistake. Now that he’s the PM, he has gone quiet.
When I pushed for a timeframe, Minister Wong couldn’t provide a date, nor a plan. All we got was more “we’re working on it.”
The PM didn’t even raise the Port during his recent trip to China! Is he too scared of retaliation from the Chinese Communist Party?
We have a foreign power (the CCP) controlling our most strategic northern port on a 99-year lease. This was a catastrophic mistake by the Coalition, yet Labor is proving they are too weak to fix it.
Australian assets must be held exclusively by Australians to ensure our national interests are protected.
It is time to put Australians ahead of Beijing’s feelings.
— Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, let’s move to the port of Darwin. Minister, the Prime Minister said to the ABC, I think just before the election, but I’m not sure of the timing—he definitely said that the idea that any Australian port owned by foreign interests is not in the Australian national interest. Does that also apply to the lease of the port of Darwin—a catastrophic mistake made originally by the coalition?
Ms Luchetti: The Prime Minister has said that the port of Darwin is working to get into Australian hands.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s what?
Senator Wong: The Prime Minister has publicly committed to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it was not raised on his latest trip to China. As an electoral promise, the Prime Minister said that Labor would ensure the Australian strategic port of Darwin would return to Australian hands. When is he going to fulfil this promise, or is he too scared of the threat of Communist Party economic retaliation as threatened recently by the Chinese ambassador?
Senator Wong: I’ll speak for the Australian government. I’ll leave others to publicise what other governments say. The Australian government’s position is that we will deliver on our commitment to return the port of Darwin to Australian hands, and we are working to deliver on that commitment.
Senator ROBERTS: As Foreign minister, can you say why it wasn’t raised on this latest trip to China?
Senator Wong: I might ask Ms Lawson to add if I miss anything, but, obviously, I would just make the point that the Port of Darwin is actually leased to another corporate entity.
Senator ROBERTS: Chinese—controlled by the Communist Party. I know it wasn’t Labor to do the deal, but nonetheless we want Labor to undo the deal.
Ms Lawson: The Prime Minister raised a range of issues in the national interest during his travel to China. We don’t go into the specifics of those conversations. He has said that the Port of Darwin will return to Australian hands, and that is what he has committed to do.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there a timeframe?
Ms Lawson: I’m not able to give you a timeframe.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair.
Senator Wong: What I would say, Senator, is I think that China is well aware of our position on this.
Senator ROBERTS: Are they doing anything with it?
Senator Wong: I’m just saying China is well aware of our position.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1770862409015-76fa1e54-fc57-4468-8b39-1df0ba3d9245.png6341134Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-02-12 12:31:082026-04-07 10:21:28Foreign Control on Australian Soil: A Big Fail
Last weekend, the Australian National Review hosted a free speech summit on the Gold Coast. Although I was unable to attend in person due to commitments in Canberra for the opening of the 48th Parliament, I expressed my strong support for all those standing in defence of free speech and national sovereignty.
We answer to God, our communities, and ourselves.
Transcript
Thank you to the Australian National Review and the organisers of this summit on Free Speech. I can’t be with you in person because I’m in Canberra attending the opening events of the 48th Parliament and working with our newly elected Senators from NSW Warwick Stacey and from Western Australia Tyron Whitten to hit the ground running in the 48th Parliament.
As Senator Pauline Hanson said after the recent election – this is not the end of an election, it’s the start of a movement.
A movement that requires conservatives and patriots to set aside political differences, to forgive those who tried to take a slice out of each other to grow their own support and to band together against the evil that threatens our beautiful country.
Australia is under threat from a parliament that’s been captured. Globalist interests continue pursuing an agenda leading ultimately to serfdom for everyday Australians.
When the World Economic Forum says, “you will own nothing and be happy” they actually mean “The billionaires they work for will own everything and you will be happy – or else”.
This was never a conspiracy theory. Their annual meetings in Davos spend days explaining how the transfer of wealth and sovereignty will be conducted.
Most elements of their control agenda have already been put in place. Continuous, hidden facial recognition and identity verification tied back to a Digital ID is already in place in Australia.
There are no controls over the data, no audits to ensure data is not being copied and that deletions occur in the correct time frame. The audit that’s done looks only at the procedures in place with no forensic audit to see what’s really going on.
Children under the age for Digital ID are being disenfranchised not just from social media, they’re cut from the internet as a whole.
Earlier this month Bing and Google announced they are trialling a system that prevents anyone under 16 accessing the internet without a parental lock. For those who would defend the idea based on “keeping kids safe” understand that evil always finds a way.
Protecting children is the role of the parent and should involve educating the child on how to recognise and avoid harm. Above all else, it should involve defeating grooming. And that involves showing our children love and enabling them to feel valued and worthy. Thereby preventing groomers from cultivating feelings of being valued and worthy.
These are the Christian values on which our society has been founded. The further we move away from these principles, giving life to an age of needless white guilt, victimhood and immorality the worse our society has become.
I was astonished to read a story a few weeks ago of a child predator here in Australia who met his victims on dating apps. Children as young as 13 are on dating apps.
Most of the sites which are of concern, and these are not X, Facebook or Youtube, have apps that the current legislation does not cover. Virtual Private Networks, VPN’s, will become huge.
The Government’s war on freedom of association will have no benefit beyond increasing the tech skills of children so they can continue to talk to their friends online.
This may involve migrating chats from regulated social media to porn sites like Pornhub whose forum has over 300 million users.
To sign up requires no age verification. Visitors simply click a check box saying they’re over 18 and provide an email address.
Video games now have chat facility, and this is a growing area for groomers to find their victims. These are not included in the Government’s control agenda.
What can we conclude from this situation? The social media ban is not about protecting children because it only protects children from the least dangerous websites.
IT’S ABOUT CONDITIONING THE PUBLIC TO ACCEPT THIS LOSS OF PRIVACY AND PERSONAL SOVEREIGNTY.
It’s about perfecting the technology to be used at some point against all of us.
And it’s about getting children used to government control from cradle to grave.
We’re seeing the weaponisation, the inversion, of human rights to justify the loss of freedoms to an extent that just a few years ago would have been unthinkable.
No longer are human rights about DEFENDING freedom. In this inverted world human rights are used to limit our freedom, limit our choice of words, limit our right to protest, limit our right to freedom of association and freedom of commerce.
This is a move that’s an essential precursor to the final stage of their global control agenda, which is the imprisonment of citizens inside home units that are nothing more than human filing cabinets, located in prison communities, called variously 15-minute cities dishonestly labelled as so-called “sustainable” cities.
In these digital prisons you will not own a car, your furniture, your whitegoods. Instead, there is life-by-subscription. Which is well underway.
During the governments’ COVID response we witnessed these predatory billionaires respond to the virus using their control of the media and their control of corporations like Coles and Woolworths to spread fear.
Fear that offered as the solution jabs from pharmaceutical companies these same parasitic billionaires own.
In this way, $5 trillion was transferred from everyday citizens worldwide to the world’s predatory billionaires.
All under the protection of politicians who take donations from these crony capitalist companies.
This is called crony capitalism and it’s the greatest threat to human rights in our lifetime.
The growth of conservative powerhouses such as Reform in the UK and AfD in Germany shows the public have finally realised the water around them is boiling.
The fight for free speech and human rights is the challenge those at this conference have accepted.
Praise to you.
Restoring freedom must start with the people’s media, which is rising. Yet it won’t bring enough people to our movement without improving credibility through more rigorous journalism.
Self-control is something we adults teach our children yet often forgot to use ourselves.
In the Senate, I’ve prided myself on being factual and this has protected myself and One Nation, playing a large role in the growth of our electoral support.
Finally, as a movement we need to restore Christian values, biblical values.
We do not answer to Julie Inman Grant. We do not answer to Anthony Albanese. Nor to the World Economic Forum, nor to the UN World Health Organisation, nor the UN.
We answer to God. We answer to our communities. We answer to our self.
Good luck to all the award nominees for the Australian Media Awards and enjoy the summit.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/08doSkp27kg/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-07-23 08:06:132025-07-24 11:50:47Australia Must Unite Against Globalist Control
Last week (May 27 to June 1, 2024), the World Health Assembly (WHA77) of the World Health Organisation (WHO) debated two matters. The first was a new Pandemic Treaty designed to expand the powers of the WHO beyond pandemics, to include any health issue related to human, plant, or animal health, granting them the power to compel nations to comply with its directives. After two and a half years of negotiation, the Treaty was not brought to a vote and has been delayed for another year. This is a black eye to the nations, including Australia, that tried to subjugate Australian sovereignty to unelected bureaucrats in Geneva and who are owned by pharmaceutical companies.
The second matter that passed involved changes to WHO’s operating manual, known as the International Health Regulations. The proposed changes would have granted the WHO similar powers to the Pandemic Treaty. These changes were also opposed by member states. The outcome were minor changes that take on board lessons learned from COVID and contains no loss of sovereignty. These changes will reduce the chance of a nation infecting the world with a virus while pretending nothing was wrong, as happened with COVID.
There are legal objections to the amendments passing. For instance, the notice given of the changes breached the WHO constitution, which poses a significant problem.
Yesterday at Estimates, I asked the officials who attended WHA77 about the comments made by Health Minister Mark Butler, where he called for stronger binding powers. Instead of addressing Minister Butler’s comment, their response focused on the measures that were passed, thereby avoiding the topic of “binding”. Let me help the bureaucrats out: binding (adjective) that which must be obeyed.
This is what they were avoiding saying: Minister Butler is calling for Australian sovereignty to be ceded to unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats on the other side of the world, as if they know better than our own health workers, here on the ground, what is best for Australia.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are in regard to Minister Butler’s comments at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week and, following on from that, the World Health Organization’s attempts at pandemic treaties and international health regulation amendments. Minister Butler, at the Seventy-seventh World Health Assembly in Geneva last week, made the following comments: We are fully committed to concluding the World Health Organization pandemic agreement. Together, we have made considerable progress in our shared ambition towards a set of binding international commitments for pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. Could you please explain to me what he means by the word ‘binding’?
Prof. Kelly: I was present in the room in Geneva when the minister made that statement that you’ve quoted. I must say it was one of the proudest moments I’ve ever had as an Australian to hear our own minister for health at such an assembly defending and encouraging the world to think about multilateralism to protect us from the next pandemic. That’s what the changes to the International Health Regulations that went through the assembly by the end of last week and the continued work on the pandemic agreement represent. If we think about a global pandemic, the only way to protect Australians in the best way is to be part of a global approach to preparing for the next pandemic, for putting in place things that can respond quickly and appropriately and for the whole world to have the same direction. I’ll pass on to my colleague Mr Ross Hawkins, who will be able to give more detail on the specifics of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Can someone answer that specific point about ‘binding’?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation of the IHR, there are elements that are binding on nation states, and we can go to the process that this would need to go through in terms of its adoption within Australia and what that looks like in terms of JSCOT processes. It’s important to note there are certain elements in there that we would look to commit to. These are things that Australia is already doing. But largely, this is around the kind of multinational approach that Professor Kelly took us through there and getting a sense of commitment across the globe on how we deal with global health issues. With the notion of the binding elements within the IHR, there’s elements regarding the establishment of an IHR authority, which Australia has in its interim CDC. It talks about the strengthening of frameworks—
Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me? Could you explain that, please—’which Australia has’?
Mr Hawkins: Yes. Professor Kelly will take us through the interim CDC that we have, and that will be—
Senator ROBERTS: CDC being the Australian CDC?
Mr Hawkins: Centre for Disease Control, correct.
Senator ROBERTS: But Australia’s?
Mr Hawkins: Correct. I think it’s really important for us to establish that there is no change in the IHRs to the way that member states adopt within national legislation what this would look like. There is no power grab by the WHO. This is actually around how we will adopt this within Australia, or what we’re already doing in Australia to strengthen our surveillance and prevention and preparedness for a global pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand there’s no power grab. It started off as an enormous power grab, but it got watered down because the African nations told them to go to hell, basically.
Mr Hawkins: I would—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that’s not parliamentary and not appropriate for this committee.
Senator ROBERTS: The African nations said they wouldn’t be supporting it.
Mr Hawkins: I would not agree. We’ve seen the various iterations of this. Let’s be honest, the IHRs have existed since 1969. They had an iteration in 2005, and this is the latest iteration in 2024. They are there in place to protect us with respect to trade and travel across the globe. These are things that protect Australians. It’s not a power grab by the WHO. There is a genuine sense that from a multilateral perspective all nations take a similar approach to how we deal with surveillance and preparedness.
Senator ROBERTS: So, what does ‘binding’ mean?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve described to you, there are various elements within the current form of the IHRs that Australia would look to comply with.
Senator ROBERTS: So we would cede our sovereignty on those issues?
Mr Hawkins: As I’ve reiterated, let me please read to you what sits in article 3, which is really clear, within the IHRs that ‘states have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law the sovereign right to legislate and to implement legislation in pursuance of their health policies’. It is enshrined in here that we are not ceding sovereignty.
Senator ROBERTS: So ‘binding’ denotes penalties for noncompliance, I assume. What penalties should be applied to countries that refuse to do as the WHO tells us in the event we don’t agree the instruction is in our best interests? Where are you drawing the line on penalties?
Mr Hawkins: There’s no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: So what makes them binding?
Mr Hawkins: This is under international law and this is part of that broader international framework. But sitting within the current formation of the IHR there is no penalty.
Senator ROBERTS: Within the current formation of the IHR?
Mr Hawkins: Within the formation that’s just been agreed within the World Health Assembly.
Senator ROBERTS: So we have an initial IHR that goes back to 2007. I note the earlier ones—
Mr Hawkins: 2005
Senator ROBERTS: but it goes back to 2007. Then they tried to bring in very strong amendments, and the Africans and other nations said no, and they’ve watered it back almost to the same as in 2007 is my understanding.
Mr Hawkins: No, that’s not my understanding. We would go by what is an official document. The 2005 IHRs were accepted and agreed. There have been amendments historically to the IHR that have taken place over time. It’s just that with the nature of COVID and with the work that Helen Clark did in terms of broader preparedness—
Senator ROBERTS: Helen Clark, the former New Zealand Prime Minister?
Mr Hawkins: Correct, working for the WHO. This is all work that’s taken place in terms of the broader approach to the IHRs and to the pandemic agreement around what’s needed to strengthen the global response to COVID. This is the work that’s clearly taken place over that time, and the formation through this process two years ago. This is the kind of process that people have gone through over a significant amount of time in order to ensure that we’ve got robust global controls in place.
Senator ROBERTS: If I have time at the end, perhaps we can come back to the World Health Organization’s process, because it’s not as you said it is; it’s not innocent. Health is constantly—
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I do need to allow the official a chance to respond to that, please. Mr Hawkins.
Mr Hawkins: I’m sorry. I’m giving you the information that’s available to me. The majority of this is available on the World Health Organization website. I’m trying to respond to you. I’m not trying to hide from you anything that doesn’t or—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not accusing you of doing that.
Mr Hawkins: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Not at all. I’m just saying we differ in our opinions. I’ve had other advice that’s very solid on the process. We’ve been monitoring the process for the last two-and-a-bit years.
Prof. Kelly: Senator, if I could also correct the statement you made about the African nations? As my colleague has said, this process has been going for the last two years specifically around the IHRs. It is a negotiation. Many views have been placed on the table. On Saturday, 194 member states of the WHO—and it’s a member organisation—voted unanimously to adopt those changes by consensus, plus the Holy See and Liechtenstein. So there were 196, actually. There was a block of African nations who were concerned about some of the issues related to the proposed changes, but in the end it was adopted by consensus.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ll come to that later, but my understanding is that some months ago, even a year ago, the Africans said, ‘No way.’ The UN World Health Organization requires consensus. As a result of the African bloc and some European countries and a lot of people around the world being upset, the World Health Organization trimmed its demands and now we’ve gone back to something that’s fairly simple. As I said, let’s get into that at the end.
Senator Gallagher: It’s an agreement, and it’s not unusual in multilateral forums for negotiations to land in a particular way. In my experience, that is prevalent in every single international negotiation.
Senator ROBERTS: Agreed, but what happened here was the Africans told them they would not agree to the previously very strong changes, and they’ve watered them back as a result of that. Health is constitutionally a state matter. External affairs powers allow the Commonwealth government to make certain treaties. Was there any attempt in the minister’s rush to sign away our sovereignty to get agreement from the rights holders from the states?
Mr Comley: Can I just intervene for a moment here. Responsibility for dealing with the technicalities of international law and all constitutional advice is actually a matter for the Attorney-General’s Department.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I just said.
Mr Comley: I’m respectfully suggesting that if you have a detailed question around that it should be put at the estimates for Attorney-General’s Department. We can help you with what we understand by the current state as we’ve advised. If I just go back a step, as to the point that I think Mr Hawkins was trying to make at the start—and it goes to language—’binding’ is often used in international conferences, but no international instrument or treaty can change Australia’s Constitution nor prevail over Australian laws without it being adopted into Australian law. When it gets adopted into—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s the key point.
Mr Comley: That is the key point, which I don’t think we are disputing. This comes to the point of sovereignty and comes to the point that, if we were going through a process of adopting an international law, the standard process goes through a consultation process, including through JSCOT and engaging with relevant stakeholders. On your observation about constitutional responsibility for health—there is a mixed responsibility in the Constitution because there are powers that allow Commonwealth health benefits for individuals. I don’t want to go much further into that because I think I’m straying into what is a constitutional interpretation of the roles. The fundamental point here is that international agreements have to be adopted into Australian law. They go through a process, including JSCOT. If they’re adopted through that JSCOT process they become binding in that country. When the minister says we want a binding agreement, he is urging the international community to follow through with the commitment they’ve made in the conference to adopt those into their domestic law. Some countries may ultimately choose not to, and then that will come back to that body. This is not unusual in international law. In my previous lives doing climate change, there were times when there’s been a change of administration in countries that have led them to decide whether they would stay as a ratified member of a treaty. The process is quite clear. At the point in time they were in the agreement that was the intention of all the parties, to make the binding commitment. My experience in international negotiations is that countries do not make a commitment lightly, even though there may be domestic processes to give effect to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’ve done just then, Mr Comley, is actually reinforce my comment that it is an external affairs power, but the states are involved in health. My question was very simple: have the states been consulted on these changes? Are the states involved in the process? That was my only question. Is there an answer?
Mr Hawkins: There is. We’ve consulted the states and territories. I’ve personally been on two teleconferences with them to talk them through the broad approach, noting that obviously, as already outlined by Senator Gallagher and Mr Comley, these things often form part of a negotiation that took place at the WHA. But we’ve been talking with states and territory officials around this process.
Senator ROBERTS: The minister also said: We have a strong basis on which to finalise important amendments to the international health regulations this week. I urge all member states to redouble their efforts to agree on critical reforms to our global health architecture, because we simply cannot afford to fail. Why can’t we afford to fail? Is he saying that our Australian health department is incapable of running a pandemic response in Australia all by itself without the big daddy World Health Organization telling us what to do?
Senator Gallagher: Senator ROBERTS, I wasn’t there; perhaps Professor Kelly is better placed to answer. The way I understand those comments is to say that protection of the Australian people relies on a global response to pandemic management. We’re not immune from what happens in other parts of the world, as we have experienced in the last pandemic.
Senator ROBERTS: And the World Health Organization—
Senator Gallagher: So it’s around national security and national safety and protection of the Australian population.
Senator ROBERTS: The World Health Organization, in the last outbreak with COVID, was telling us there was no human-to-human transmission and that there was nothing to see at first. That delayed the response in other countries. The World Health Organization is guilty of that. They’re a corrupt criminal organisation.
CHAIR: You have your views on that, Senator ROBERTS, and I don’t seek to convince you otherwise, but we—
Senator ROBERTS: You’d be going against the facts.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: They’re two factually correct statements.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with the comments you’ve made about the World Health Organization. I think the minister for health has represented Australia’s national interest at that international forum, and for good reasons. It’s about the protection of the Australian people.
Prof. Kelly: What was agreed on Saturday morning—and Australia was one of 194 countries member states of the WHO, being a member state institution; it’s not a big daddy, as you suggested, it is guided by the member states—under the WHO and other UN arrangements we have a year to go through all of those processes we’ve talked about in terms of Australian legal requirements. We are not safe unless everyone is safe. An infectious disease has no borders. As we know from our experience in the COVID pandemic, we closed our border and it caused a lot of disruption in other ways. We had to reopen our border and, as soon as we did, the virus appeared. It can only be by working internationally with all other countries that we can deal with a pandemic like that, and we will have other ones in the future. These amendments that were made through long negotiations right up to and including last Friday night were successful in getting those things over the line. I’m very happy that’s the case. I’ll reiterate my statement that it was one of my proudest moments as an Australian witnessing that Australian leadership at ministerial level, at officials’ level, to get those negotiations completed.
CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS, at this point I am due to rotate the call. If you wish to seek another call in this section, I will come back to you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5eF3gK9_398/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-06-06 10:04:002024-06-26 08:13:02Minister Butler Remains a Puppet for WHO
There are currently two separate proposals being promoted by the WHO to increase their power. Firstly, the new Pandemic Agreement and secondly, changes to the WHO’s ‘operating manual’, the International Health Regulations. As the latest version of these documents is not online, I asked the Health Department to provide them.
Given that New Zealand has already published the changes they will be supporting in the IHR Amendments, I asked why is the Australian government’s position so secretive. Does this government take the position that these potentially sweeping changes to our health system are none of the public’s business?
Of these two proposals being put to the WHO’s member states, it’s the IHR amendments that still contain clauses giving the WHO powers of compulsion — medical tyranny. Officials and the Minister failed to actually provide the position of the Government on these changes – where is the transparency and accountability promised by the Albanese government?
Here is the Minister’s response – “The World Health Authority is exactly that. The World Health Organisation can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty in regards to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our border. I don’t think I can be any clearer.”
This ignores that the WHO does have a power to compel by using the UN’s powers over the SWIFT international payment system, and has used those powers against Russia and Belarus recently. The answer is specious.
Let’s hope the promise not to sign away Australian sovereignty is one promise this government keeps.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll move on to the World Health Organization’s International Health Regulations and the so-called pandemic treaty or accord or protocol or whatever it’s called these days. The World Health Organization is currently reviewing two separate proposals to increase its powers—firstly, the pandemic agreement. A recent version of that document is on the World Health Organization website, dated 30 October 2023. Is this the latest version? If not, can I have the latest version?
Mr Exell:I do think there may have been an additional draft, but I’ll check and come back to you. I’m happy to provide the latest publicly released documents that are being considered.
Senator ROBERTS: The second proposal is for amendments to the World Health Organization’s operating manual, the International Health Regulations. These were proposed by the United States in 2022. They have apparently been modified in a negotiation process over time—several times! Do you have the latest version of this document, please?
Mr Exell:Again, the latest version of the document will be on the WHO website, but I’m happy to provide that to you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The New Zealand government has published sections of the International Health Regulations changes it will be supporting. Clearly, their openness is more than yours on exactly the same matter. Minister, why is the government’s position to be considered none the public’s business on this very significant international health regulations draft?
Senator McCarthy:Senator Roberts, I’d totally disagree with your question in terms of the government not wanting to advise Australians on issues. I’d totally reject outright the premise of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: While the latest public version of the pandemic agreement does not sign away Australian sovereignty, the latest public version of the International Health Regulations amendments do sign away Australian’s sovereignty. Minister, will the Albanese government support the International Health Regulations amendments if they continue, as written, to include compulsion on Australia to follow World Health Organization directives?
Senator McCarthy:Our government always looks to the international sector in terms of what’s going on, whether it’s in health or any other areas, so we will always continue to do that. But of course our priority is Australians and the sovereignty of our decisions with regard to health for Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re guaranteeing sovereignty?
Mr Comley:I’d don’t think we would agree with your characterisation that it cedes sovereignty. Mr Exell might want to comment on how that will operate in practice.
Mr Exell: I am happy to add that I think both draft documents that are available refer to protecting the sovereignty of nations. The process is actually a member state process. In that sense there is no WHO. The working groups are led by member states. The participation is by member states. Then, when there is consideration of the Australian government, there is a formal process through the JSCOT mechanism that individually considers each and every resolution or change or consideration that comes before it. There is no notion of Australia giving up sovereignty. There’s an active process of consideration at both levels—the World Health Organization by Australia and other counties, and then, when it reaches the domestic ledge, it is also considered very carefully.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand that in earlier versions of the International Health Regulations that were strongly worded compulsions on the African nations. Several members of parliaments and congresses around the world have kicked up such a stink that the International Health Regulations have been watered back down again. But I’m very concerned about sovereignty.
Mr Exell:There are always a range of proposals and resolutions and adapted text. That is happening right now; there are consultations that are underway. The due date for a draft to go to the World Health Assembly is by May this year. They’re trying to do that, but there are lots of changes and discussions going on, so I wouldn’t want to comment on one particular draft or one particular set of ideas put forward by various countries.
Senator McCarthy:I have to reiterate that in terms of public health policies, Australia will always retain its own sovereignty in making decisions around our borders. I need that to be really clear with you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I need to be very clear: I’m concerned about how much the international influence, particularly through the World Health Organization, drove our response to COVID. Minister, will you give a clear statement now that the directions of the World Health Organization are not binding on Australia and that the decision to follow WHO guidance, if it’s made, is entirely a matter for the Australian government, who can then be held to account for these decisions?
Senator McCarthy: The world health authority is exactly that: the World Health Organization can give advice, but it has no legal mechanism to be able to enforce it upon us. As I’ve said, Australia has its own sovereignty with regard to making policy decisions around health for Australians and our borders. I don’t think I can be any clearer.
CHAIR:I do need to rotate the call.
Senator ROBERTS: I hope the term ‘world health authority’ is not a Freudian slip.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BxkLvDxePG0/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2024-02-22 17:18:142024-02-27 15:15:52The WHO Is Taking Two Shots At Increasing Its Powers
Despite their name, free trade agreements are never free. These agreements always come at a cost to someone, and that’s usually everyday Australians, workers and business owners. Once signed into existence, these agreements are not subject to sufficient scrutiny.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I say that One Nation supports fair trade agreements. Is the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement the spawn of the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Is it free trade or fair trade? It’s certainly not free trade. Each of the signatories have carved out substantial areas of their economies from the agreement. This information is tucked away, hidden away in annexes where it would seem not enough have looked. Tariffs are being defended. Schemes that protect the power base of local politicians are being defended, at Australia’s cost. There are hundreds of pages of carve-outs in this agreement. Many of them are ours. That’s probably a good thing. But the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement is not a free trade agreement. It is at best slightly freer trade.
In the Productivity Commission submission dated July 2022 to the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties into certain aspects of the treaty-making process in Australia, the Productivity Commission comes out and basically supports what I’m about to say. The government prepared a national interest analysis on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement and found it did provide a net benefit to Australia. This was relied upon by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and subsequently endorsed by the Morrison-Joyce government and the alternative Albanese-Bandt government. This consensus of the establishment parties is disconcerting. Despite their name, free trade agreements are never free. These agreements always come at a cost to someone, and that’s usually everyday Australians, workers and business owners. Underdeveloped countries do not sign free trade agreements with industrialised nations in order to give away what they have. It’s the industrialised nations that give away their wealth, our wealth, through lower tariffs, greater market access of cheaper goods and greater incursion of foreign workers into our Australian economy. They’re facts.
Free trade in this situation is a race to the bottom. The nation with the worst environmental protections, the lowest wages, the worst working conditions, the crudest and most unsafe working conditions will win every time, in effect dragging our conditions down at the same time as dragging theirs up. Our environment loses. Our wages lose. Everyday Australians lose.
I saw nothing in the National Interest Analysis that constituted a genuine attempt to identify who the winners and losers will really be. That’s probably a design feature to allow the establishment parties to take all the electoral gain and protect themselves later from any electoral loss in this election cycle, because all too often in this country, in this parliament, it seems to be about looking good, not doing good.
Once signed into existence, these agreements are not subject to sufficient scrutiny. The last Productivity Commission inquiry into a free trade agreement was in 2010. The last review into Australia’s most important free trade agreement, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement, was in 2018. Before Australia enters into future trade agreements, this parliament must address the lack of transparency in the trade negotiation process and the signing of an agreement before this parliament ratifies it.
My next concern is to the new regulatory environment that this agreement will create. In his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, Bryan Clark from the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry highlighted: ‘There are five separate trade agreements with Malaysia. Businesses are getting very confused trying to work out how to use these agreements, and the best outcome for Australian business would actually come from sorting out all this red tape and creating clear rules for Australian businesses.’ I agree completely.
Here’s a specific example of this, thanks to the Australian Fair trade and Investment Network. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement— with the UN it’s always a mouthful, isn’t it; they twist and turn and hide and bury and camouflage in acronyms and long titles that confuse people, so I’ll start again. The United Nations Central Product Classification system used by the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement has a separate classification for aged care, which implies that without a specific reservation by Australia any increase in the regulation of aged care would be a breach of this agreement. So if we find something we need to improve and regulate it, it could be a breach of this agreement. The NSW Nurses and Midwives’ Association agreed that: ‘At worst, aged care is exposed to the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. At best, there is sufficient ambiguity to allow overseas companies to exploit the framework for their own benefit.’ The globalists, the elites, moving our industries—whole industries, whole sectors, workers, farmers—as pawns in their game of ‘central’, of control and money, and parliaments in this country, without accountability, are their tool. They work through us—this parliament.
The government has responded that there is provision for a review of unexpected consequences so we should not worry aged-care standards will drop under the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement. There is, though, no framework in place to ensure this action actually occurs. In the years ahead, we will read stories that the parliaments’ mates, be they union bosses or crony capitalists and globalists, are exploiting loopholes in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership agreement for their own benefit. That’s how they get through unaccountable parliaments. Resolving that will be at the discretion of the minister. This is a terrible system. The benefit of a free-trade agreement must be tested annually. I call on the government to introduce a system of annual review of the economic gains and losses for each of the agreements. Australia will not restore its position as a leading world economy by exposing Australian businesses to unfair competition and multiple layers of red, green and blue tape. Red tape is the bureaucracy. Green tape is pseudo-environmental regulations, impositions, under the guise of environment but really with the intent to control. And blue tape is UN policy on behalf of the UN’s masters, the globalists, who move industries and people around the globe at will.
Australia will not emerge from our self-inflicted COVID-19 recession by destroying business and increasing reliance on government welfare. To restore the wealth of everyday Australians, we must get the government out of the way and let personal free enterprise create wealth again. Ideas, effort, energy, heart—that’s what brings life to an economy when it is a free economy with fair trade. Fair trade has an important role to play in that process—fair trade.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/72F3PT6aoOA/0.jpg360480Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2021-10-22 15:16:552021-10-22 15:17:02Free Trade a Race to the Bottom
