Posts

Scientific Proof or UN Propaganda?

,

Last Friday (6 February 2026), the UN’s Senior Adviser on Information Integrity, Charlotte Scaddan, appeared via teleconference as a witness at the public hearing on “Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy.”

The UN wants to categorise any statement that “undermines” their consensus as misinformation. Yet, when I asked for the logical proof behind their climate claims, she couldn’t provide a specific page number or a shred of empirical data.

It’s alarming that those in charge of “information integrity” at a global level can’t cite the very science they claim exists to silence others.

To claim someone is spreading “misinformation” requires producing objective hard evidence that justifies the claim.

We cannot allow “consensus” or UN-dictated “integrity” to replace real, verifiable science.

I’m still waiting for the specific proof. And have been since 2007.

— Public Hearing | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Scaddan, for appearing. It must be about 5.50 pm in New York.

Ms Scaddan: It is, exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: On what basis do you categorise a statement or an action on climate or a climate system as misinformation or disinformation, or lacking in information integrity?

Ms Scaddan: We have very clear scientific consensus around climate change. Anything that is undermining the scientific consensus as laid out by the IPCC and the legal frameworks we have for taking climate action would be considered to be false information. I couldn’t say if it was misinformation or disinformation—that depends.

Senator ROBERTS: To make claims that climate is changing owing to human carbon dioxide, or carbon dioxide from human activity, would you agree that one needs scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: As I just said, yes; we have the scientific consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: What constitutes scientific proof?

Ms Scaddan: That is not a question I’m going to answer here. As I’ve said several times now, we have very clear scientific consensus around climate change, its causes and its impacts.

Senator ROBERTS: Consensus is a political aspect; scientific proof is the scientific aspect. Isn’t scientific proof simply empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I can’t answer questions about science; it’s not something I’ve studied. But scientific consensus is not political; it refers to 99 out of 100 scientists agreeing on scientific evidence and the interpretation of that. That is my understanding of it, but you’d have to ask the scientists to explain it to you. I’m not one.

Senator ROBERTS: We have amassed 24,000 data sets on energy and climate from around the world— legally. There is no data at all that shows there’s a changing climate, only inherent natural variation in cycles. One what specific basis do you claim climate change? Consensus?

Ms Scaddan: I can point you to the work of the IPCC, which is the UN body, as I’m sure you know, that delivers our scientific evidence and consensus around climate.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m well aware of the IPCC. I’ve read the first five reports. One of my staffers read the sixth and final report. Nowhere in any of those reports is there specific, empirical, scientific data proving logical scientific points and cause and effect. On notice, could you point me to a specific location, chapter number and page number, and the authors, within a report where we have empirical scientific data and logical scientific points proving cause and effect? Just give me one.

CHAIR: I’ll stop proceedings at this point in time. Senator Roberts, we are asking about climate disinformation and misinformation—

Senator ROBERTS: Exactly.

CHAIR: No, we’ve asked Ms Scaddan to come on to talk about a global initiative and a multilateral approach. You’re now going to use your line of questioning around whether climate change is real or not. Please be relevant to the terms of reference, otherwise I’ll rotate the call.

Senator ROBERTS: But this is fundamental to the misinformation.

Senator ANANDA-RAJAH: One nation are a bunch of climate deniers. That’s what this is demonstrating: climate deniers and delayers. Have you not learned your lesson from multiple elections?

CHAIR: Can we all just be respectful—

Senator CANAVAN: I wanted to make a point of order. I think accusations and imputations about other senators are certainly not in order. The inquiry is about climate misinformation, so in terms of your point about the terms of reference, I think a question about whether or not climate change is something to take action on is clearly a threshold issue about whether to take action on misinformation. It’s clearly within the terms of reference.

CHAIR: That’s a substantive issue. You’re not making a point of order.

Senator ROBERTS: Ms Scaddan, have you heard of a man called Maurice Strong? Yes or no?

Ms Scaddan: I don’t believe so. I can’t tell you for sure because I meet a lot of people. CHAIR: Is this relevant to the terms of reference?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is. He used misinformation and disinformation techniques while working within the UN. But you’re not aware of him, so I won’t ask any more questions about it. If someone gets scientific proof then the next thing is to establish a policy basis—correct?

Ms Scaddan: That would be the logical step.

Senator ROBERTS: To set a policy to cut carbon dioxide from human activity, we need to first quantify the specific impact on climate, such as temperature, rainfall, natural weather events, storm frequency, duration and severity per unit of human carbon dioxide. Do you agree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, what’s this got to do with misinformation and disinformation? Could you reframe the question like, for example, Senator Canavan did—’Would that be an example of misinformation or disinformation?’ Ms Scaddan’s not here to answer your questions on what is scientifically verifiable or not. She’s here to talk about misinformation.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking her to verify it. I’m just asking her to verify the logic, and she’s done half of it already.

CHAIR: No, this is way outside the terms of reference.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got to understand the basis of misinformation and disinformation, Chair.

CHAIR: Why don’t you frame that question that way, then?

Senator ROBERTS: As a basis for understanding comments about climate action, whether or not climate change is real or what aspects of it are, we use scientific proof. We’ve agreed on that. To address climate action and to assess misinformation and disinformation, we need to understand the policy basis. We’ve semi-agreed on that. What is the policy basis? What is the specific impact? I don’t expect you to know it, but point me to a specific location, page number or report that shows the policy basis for climate action.

Ms Scaddan: I’m happy to answer this. If you don’t expect me to know it, it’s a little surprising that you’re asking. However—and I’m sorry to disappoint—I don’t know the specific page, paragraph number or point. But I am happy to follow up and send you the relevant IPCC reports and pages that would give you the scientific consensus on climate.

Senator ROBERTS: Wonderful. Can we just—

CHAIR: This is your last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s great. When you’re replying, Ms Scaddan, please give me the specific page number of the scientific proof which is the empirical scientific data within logical scientific points proving cause and effect and then please give me the specific impact of human carbon dioxide on any climate factor as policy basis. I want specific locations.

Ms Scaddan: That is noted.

CHAIR: It’s noted.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much, Ms Scaddan.

/3 Comments/by

Questioning the Commissioners

,
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.

Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.

At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.

What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.

‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner

Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.

Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?

Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.

Roberts: You can’t?

Cody: No, I can’t answer that.

Roberts: Wow. [headshake]

Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?

Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?

Roberts: What your position is.

Cody: On which issue?

Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?

Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?

Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?

Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.

Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?

Cody: No, I would not a agree.

Roberts: You don’t agree?

Cody: No.

Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?

Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.

Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.

Cody: Not always, Senator.

Roberts: No?

Cody: No.

Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?

Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.

Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?

Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.

Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?

Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.

Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.

The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.

Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?

Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.

Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?

Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-

Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?

Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.

Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?

Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.

Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.

Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.

In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.

The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.

Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.

Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.

I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.

If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.

In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.

For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.

Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.

Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny

Read on Substack
/3 Comments/by

WHO Treaty Signed — Parliament Yet to Ratify

I understand that many Australians are deeply concerned about protecting our country’s sovereignty, especially when it comes to public health decisions.  One Nation firmly opposes surrendering Australia’s sovereignty to unelected global bodies like the United Nation and WHO. No international organisation should have the power to impose lockdowns or medical procedures on Australians. The WHO has proven it cannot be trusted with our national interests and Australia must exit and protect its sovereignty.

To clarify where things currently stand, the WHO Pandemic Agreement was adopted by the World Health Assembly in May 2025 and signed by Australia’s Health Minister Mark Butler. However, it’s important to note that this agreement hasn’t been ratified yet. For it to take effect, both houses of Parliament must assent to it.

Any international treaty, including this one, must go through Australia’s formal treaty-making process. That includes review by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This committee will resume when Parliament returns later in July. Even once ratified, formal legislation must still be passed by Parliament to give effect to any elements of the agreement. I encourage you not to worry about any dates being circulated right now. No legislation has been passed, and we’re keeping a close eye on any developments. If anything changes, I’ll be sure to keep you updated.

One Nation supports full parliamentary debate and formal votes on any treaty, and will work to ensure this occurs in this case as well.

Watch my latest video on the WHO Treaty, which was prepared for an international summit – Reject the WHO and the Globalist Coup!

Transcript

In May of 2021, the United Nations World Health Organisation released a report titled COVID-19 Make it the Last Pandemic. The report called for closer cooperation between nations and more power. More power for a World Health Organisation to coordinate and initiate that collaboration.

In December 2021, the UN World Health Organisation held a special assembly to consider a proposal for a pandemic treaty to give effect to their report. The proposal from the United Nations was a nefarious document. It proposed turning the World Health Organisation into the World Health Police, with powers to compel member nations to comply with any directive from the WHO. This could include forced vaccinations, forced medical procedures, lockdowns, border and national closures, business closures, school closures, and the spending of huge sums of money on medical countermeasures.

Those provisions were not a conspiracy theory. The proposal actually said in plain English, the WHO should have the power to force medical procedures on citizens in member nations. It allowed the Director General of WHO to declare a pandemic at any time for any reason, meaning the world would forever be under a pandemic order and the WHO would forever be able to order these horrible anti human measures.

Fortunately, the 2021 Special Assembly failed to reach an agreement when a block of 42 African nations opposed the proposal. Having been used for decades as a testing ground for disease and vaccine research coming at a huge cost in African lives, these nations were not signing up for more deaths.

The outcome of the World Health Assembly in 2021 was to set in place a three year time frame for a pandemic agreement to be developed. A committee of WHO luminaries was set up to review the proposal. These were many of the world’s leading health experts who had worked with The WHO for many years. Their wisdom shone through and they tore the proposed treaty to shreds, stating it would destroy support for the WHO.
Their staff did not want to become the World Health Police, they just want to work on improving health in underdeveloped member to countries.

In the end, that’s what prevailed.

Multiple new drafts were produced across three years and given to a steering committee to test support and each time failing to get the numbers. A new version followed, which further watered down the compulsion and the destruction of national and personal sovereignty. A final version, a consensus document, was produced and passed at the World Health Assembly in May this year.


Gone were 50 pages of nefarious provisions. Nothing that gave the WHO powers of compulsion has survived from the original version. This agreement contains no compulsion on member states. Wherever the wording says a member state shall it’s always followed by a modifier, such as subject to national laws, having mined to national sovereignty, subject to financial resources and so on. There are no binding provisions in this agreement beyond the need to advise the Who when a disease outbreak occurs that may be of national or international significance. Which is a good idea! After all, China sat on COVID for months in 2019 to give the billionaires time to hold event 201 and to craft a response that maximise their financial benefit. A response which caused untold suffering and deaths around the world using fraudulent science, mass propaganda and military coercion.

A deadly response which was not designed to minimise suffering. Instead, the response was designed to maximise the transfer of wealth from everyday citizens to the world’s predatory billionaires.

For complete clarity, this document’s latest version is not what people are saying it is. There’s no loss of Australian sovereignty and no new powers for the World Health Organisation. No new powers that can be forced on a member state.

Our political party, One Nation, of course opposes the pandemic agreement and the changes to the International Health Regulations that implement the provisions of the agreement for the simple reason we do not accept there is a role in the world for these unelected, unaccountable anti human bureaucrats.

This has always been One Nation policy.

In my first Senate speech in 2016, I called for an AUS Exit Australia to exit the UN and in April 2022, thanks to my diligent and knowledgeable staff team, I was the first Australian politician to oppose the pandemic treaty.

AUS exit is necessary because the UN and their agencies, including The WHO, have been hopelessly compromised by the world’s parasitic, indeed predatory, billionaires.

The WHO now gets most of its funding from entities tied to pharmaceutical companies. In return, the WHO mandates those companies medical products. It’s classic crony capitalism. Naked wealth transfer from the people. It’s theft.

By centralising power in the hands of unelected foreign bureaucrats, we’ve made the buyout of the UN easier. All the people they need to compromise to become the de facto owners of the world are in the one spot pretending to act on our behalf while actually lining the pockets of their billionaire parasitic benefactors.

These people are not the good guys. These people are your prospective owners. Make no mistake, our health authorities and their politicians have signed up to this agenda.

In the next pandemic, they will do the same nefarious, destructive, murderous policies again, and this time they will say the WHO made us do it.

Well, the truth is that the WHO is not making anyone do anything. These people are choosing to behave like this because it’s good for their power, their egos and their careers. The UN and its agencies are in darkness and cannot be saved.

One Nation calls for a withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, from the United Nations, from the World Economic Forum and from the World Bank.

Thank you.

I wish you a successful conference.

/5 Comments/by

The Labor-Greens Agriculture Wrecking Bill

In 2016, I stood in the senate for the first time and warned that the United Nations wanted to reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs through climate policy. I said back then we need an #AusExit, that our values and way of life were at risk from the dangerous socialist agendas of the UN. And here we are now.

Here is more legislation being pushed through Australia’s house of review, the Senate, without proper scrutiny or debate. Labor is doing more dodgy deals on behalf of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals. Labor has also introduced a Motion to allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this Bill. This allows the Greens to put a Bill of their own making onto the end of the government’s Bill then vote it all through in one go. A Bill that we cannot review, amend or debate. This isn’t conventional parliamentary process. This is undemocratic dictatorship.

The ‘Nature Repair’ Bill allows large corporations to greenwash their image by leveraging the PR benefit of Nature Repair Projects they buy. It provides the means to restrict productive capacity through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. It will prevent Australians and visitors to our country from being able to get out and generally enjoy our magnificent national parks because it hands more control over to traditional owners.

The globalist agenda is being rolled out in the self-interest of the world’s predatory investment funds. It’s delivered through the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented in shoddy, rushed legislation like this bill proposes.

One Nation proudly stands against everything this Bill represents and I offer the same advice as I did in 2016. We must exit the United Nations #AusExit!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS (Queensland) (20:06): As a servant of the many different people who make up our one Queensland community, it’s my duty to ensure I deal with every bill that comes before the Senate fully and properly. All too often, this government does dodgy deals with the Teals, the crossbench and the Greens to get legislation through without scrutiny. This is legislation that’s written for reasons of ideology, not human need, and that as a result makes things worse. This is legislation that must get through without debate, lest the electorate be informed about what the government is really doing to them in the name of the United Nations’ sustainable development goals.

I’m speaking about the Nature Repair Bill 2023, only 30 minutes from when the vote will be taken, yet I’m speaking to an interim bill. The massive amendments to this bill, which I know now are substantial, had not been revealed to the Senate just an hour ago. It appears to be the government’s plan to provide the amendments and then require an immediate vote. That was exactly what we saw. That’s not how the house of review, our Senate, works.

Even more troubling is that the government now has a motion that would allow the Greens to amend the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act as part of this bill—news to us until an hour ago. What that means is the Greens, with Teal Senator Pocock’s support, are being allowed to put a bill of their own making onto the end of the government’s bill and then vote it all through—a bill we can’t read, can’t amend and can’t debate. There’s a longstanding convention in the Senate that we do one bill at a time and amend only the bill at hand, a rule the government are happy to ignore when they get desperate enough numbers to do a deal with the Greens and Teals. This isn’t parliamentary process; it is undemocratic dictatorship. What a joke, and the people will be paying for it. When we call the Greens watermelons—green on the outside and red on the inside—this is why. Soviet Russia would pull a stunt like this, not democratic Australia.

I’ve spoken on several occasions recently on how this Labor government is best friends with the world’s predatory parasitic billionaires. This bill is a perfect example of that. Like the failed national electricity market, which is really a racket, this bill allows large corporations to greenwash their businesses. To explain, greenwashing allows a business—most likely a foreign multinational company—to make a claim such as being ‘net zero friendly’. That’s simply not true. They’re deceiving investors and customers in the process. They get to net zero by purchasing green certificates or carbon dioxide credits to balance out the environmental costs supposedly incurred in their business operation. A European Union report found that 95 per cent of carbon dioxide credits came from projects that did not make a difference to the environment, and Europol just a few years ago said 95 per cent are crooked. In other words, it’s all a con.

The mining industry have come out in favour of offsets, which they call ‘avoided-loss offsets’. These offsets occur after purchasing and improving an area of land with the same habitat as that which is destroyed or damaged in the development. This may appear to be mining-friendly, yet it’s really more expense and more green tape that would best be handled through the existing system of remediation—put it back the way you found it, or better, which is what is happening.

Indeed, one could be concerned that these avoided loss offsets are an alternative to remediation. I certainly hope not.

The bill helps wind turbines with the horrible problem of clubbing koalas on the koalas’ property—clubbing them to death! They could literally club 10 koalas to death and then buy a national biodiversity certificate for 10 new koalas bred somewhere else. As we speak, the Australian Carbon Credit Unit’s review is underway. The review is looking at a thousand carbon dioxide credit generating projects to see if they were fair dinkum and have been kept up. The lessons from that review were going to be added to this bill to ensure the national biodiversity certificate system was legitimate. Bringing forward this bill actually ruins that process.

One Nation opposes greenwashing, although, in most cases, we would suggest that the better option would be for our mining and manufacturing industries to first use environmentally friendly techniques, as they usually do. Then, having done that, be proud of their role in developing the economy, providing jobs and supplying materials that people need for a life of abundance. Perhaps that’s just we conservatives taking care of the natural environment and taking care of people. Some submissions to the Senate inquiry called on the government to purchase the certificates themselves to provide certainty that, should a project be completed, there would be someone to buy the resulting certificate. Minister Plibersek has ruled this out—the only decision in this whole process One Nation can support.

I was amused with the submission from champagne socialists in the Byron Shire Council, who submitted that— quote—’free market alone may not facilitate rapid uptake of this scheme,’ and called on the federal government to kickstart the market by committing to purchasing certificates itself. It will never stop. I would think that the federal government would be better off spending money on tax cuts for working Australians and paying off our debt so that interest rates come down, but that’s just conservative values again—human values; real environmental values.

Minister Plibersek has described this bill as creating a ‘green Wall Street’. Wall Street provides a means for financing businesses to expand productive capacity. This bill provides a means to restrict productive capacity
through taking productive farmland and returning it to Gaia. I don’t see the comparison with a genuine financial product, unless the minister was making a comparison to Bernie Madoff. That would be accurate in that case. The product itself, biodiversity credits, is subjective and, over time, will require more and more personnel to conduct compliance on an ever-increasing number of projects, just like the National Electricity Market—the racket. This does not increase productive capacity. It does increase bureaucracy at the public’s expense, of course. Many submissions opposed the use of these certificates for environmental offsets, including the Greens’, and I note their amendments remove the offsets for the purpose of these certificates. This would seem a significant conflict between the minister’s intent and the Greens’ intent. What a mess! The Nature Repair Market Bill 2023 is a solution to a problem that has not yet been defined and does not meet real needs, just like the failed National Electricity Market.

The government is working on an update on the entire Environmental Protection and Biosecurity Conservation Act—the EPBC—informed by the Samuels review into the legislation from three years ago. Those amendments will frame the problem this bill is supposedly solving. This is something that Senator Thorpe has correctly pointed out in the second reading amendment, which I will support. How do you pass a bill like this ahead of the implementation of the Samuels review? How do we know which projects should be supported and which are not needed, or, worse, which projects are a load of bollocks, like the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound bull, as most climate projects are—climate fraud?

In relation to ensuring integrity around the use of offsets, the Australian government is working to introduce a new national environmental standard for actions and restoration contributions. This new standard is expected to include a requirement that offsets must deliver net gain for impacted protected matters and that biodiversity projects certified under the Nature Repair Market Bill will only be able to be used as offsets if they meet the new standard. What new standard? Oh, wait, you haven’t written it yet! Great. Minister Plibersek is trying to pass a bill that implements a standard that hasn’t been written yet. Can someone please give the government’s legislation chocolate wheel back to rotary and we’ll go back to doing things properly—you know, in the correct order.

This legislation implements something called the Nature Positive Plan. That sounds good. This is the government’s overarching environmental blueprint. I notice that, on page 32, this plan includes a provision that
traditional owners will have more control over Commonwealth national parks. More control!

Australians who are used to bushwalking, camping and generally enjoying the beautiful national parks Australia offers are flat out of luck under this Labor government. ‘No nature for you. Get back to your 15-minute cities.’ That’s exactly what the United Nations sustainable development goals do—they reduce everyday Australians to the status of serfs, imprisoned in their 15-minute cities, locked in a digital identity prison, owning nothing and eating bugs instead of real food. I first said that in the Senate in 2016, and the sniggers were obvious. Well, nobody’s sniggering now. Now you’re all trying to justify the abomination your globalist masters are working to impose.

Over the remainder of the Albanese government, those in this chamber will be required to face the reality of this government’s globalist agenda. It’s not an agenda written for the benefit of everyday Australians or for the Labor heartland. It’s an agenda that serves the self-interest of the world’s predatory investment funds, delivered through lobby groups like the United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum and implemented repeatedly in legislation like this. It’s an agenda that will make life a misery for everyday Australians, sending them back to serfdom. One Nation stands against everything this bill represents. It proudly stands against everything this bill represents.

/12 Comments/by

How much does the U.N. cost Australia? DFAT at Senate Estimates

, ,

SIMPLE QUESTION: HOW MUCH DOES THE U.N. COST AUSTRALIA?

I could not believe no one in government could give me a total cost on what we pay to the UN, its subsidiaries and how much we spend in complying with their dictates.

Transcript

[Senator Roberts] And thank you all for attending today. My questions are about the United Nations. So I don’t know who will answer those questions. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations or subsidiaries each year, in dollar terms? Do we need to take that on notice?

[Minister Payne] No, I don’t think we do, I think someone’s coming down from upstairs. We will unfortunately get into questions of definition about which subsidiary agencies and all the rest of it, we may need to… in order to give a completely comprehensive answer, we may need to take it on notice, that there’ll be a number of things that we can say that are general level that I hope will be what you’re after Senator.

[Senator Roberts] I’m after a comprehensive level, yeah.

[Minister Payne] Well if you need comprehensive Senator, I’ll ask officials to do their best at the table.

[Senator Roberts] Yes.

And then if parts of it needs to be taken on notice, we’ll return to the committee.

[Senator Roberts] Of course. – Thank you.

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. Apologies. I just had to come down the stairs. Justin Lee, first assistant secretary multilateral policy division. Senator, can I just ask you to repeat the question?

[Senator Roberts] Yes. In total, how much does Australia pay to the United Nations, or its subsidiaries, each year, in dollar terms?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. The key contribution that Australia makes is our assessed contribution to the United Nations and that’s based upon the size of Australia’s economy. Australia contributes 2.21% to the UN regular budget.

[Chair] The question was in dollar terms.

[Justin Lee] Yes. And that equates to, in 2021, around $82.2 million, is our assessed contribution to the UN. We also make other contributions for example, to UN peacekeeping. And that is also based on an assessed contribution to the United Nations. And in 2019/20, which was the last year, we had a figure out for that. Australia provided $212 million in assessed contributions to support UN peacekeeping missions. Senator that is not the total of course though, of our contribution to the United Nations. And I don’t have a figure because that is provided by a range of contributions that may be made through the development corporation programme. It may be made through contributions to UN specialised agencies. They would be looked after by other Australian government agencies as well. So getting the total contribution that Australia makes to the UN, and all of the subsidiary agencies, requires a collation of data from across government, which we don’t have.

[Senator Roberts] I’ll be happy to take that on notice. Thank you. This is a very important issue for our constituents because they’re concerned at the cost and the impact on the country. The next one is along the same vein. In total, how much does it cost Australia to comply with, or to implement, UN dictates in the form of various forms, treaties, agreements declarations, protocols that are expected of the UN members?

[Justin Lee] Thank you, Senator. I don’t think that we would be able to provide a figure on that because if Australia, Australia of course seeks to adhere to its international obligations, including treaty reporting processes, a lot of that would be the responsibility of Australian government agencies and, and to to calculate that, you would need to look at the the staff costs, the time costs. Sorry, I, I… I just don’t think that we would have that figure or be able to collect a figure, on implementation of international obligations in that, in the way that you portray it.

[Senator Roberts] It would be. Thank you for your openness. It would be enormous. I’m thinking of the compliance with the UN Kyoto protocol. That’s cost a lot of farmers to lose their property rights. That’s been estimated by some people to be either a 100 or $200 billion. So it’s rubbery but it’s a difficult thing. Compliance with the water act, which puts compliance with international obligations as it’s, one of its primary aims, right through. Compliance with the UN Paris agreement, particularly when other nations don’t have to wreck their economy to comply because their goals are so easy. So manufacturing the UN Lima agreement, a declaration from 1975 and the governance impacts from the UN Rio declaration in 1992. So just take it, but I am. I am wondering if anyone has figured out the cost to this country in dollar terms, the cost to our economy the cost to a loss of our governance and sovereignty.

[Justin Lee] Senator, I think the only other way to portray it though is the, is the benefits that, that Australia gets from these arrangements and these agreements.

[Chair] With respect, I understand that but this isn’t the forum for arguing somebody seeking costs. And if somebody else wants to ask a question about the benefits, then that’s up to them. But time is very limited. I’m sorry.

[Senator Roberts] So that, that leads to my third question which is given the globalist approach of the UN, what value is there for Australia to constantly pay out money directly and at huge indirect cost to our governance and our economy?

[Justin Lee] Oh, well, I think the answer to that would be the benefits that we get from those, those arrangements, both in terms of having, having rules that are that guide many things that, that guide the Australian economy. If we look for example, all the work that we have been doing around rules that guide international aviation, international shipping, telecommunications, all of those rules are set by the United Nations. That means that we’ve got a global economy that we can participate in that sets equal rules between countries which Australia is a, is an open trading economy and an economy of our size can, can benefit from. Similarly, we have international organisations dealing with global challenges. So the roles that the WHO is playing in response to COVID. Dealing with, dealing with those challenges that we want addressed in the world, by making contributions to those, we get benefit from that. So we appreciate that there are costs, both direct costs and obligations that Australia has to adhere but we also get a number of very significant benefits.

[Senator Roberts] And I’d put it to you that the benefits, for example in aviation, they could be done by a country hosting the other countries of the world to come up with a convention on that. So that doesn’t have to come from the UN. And we’ve shown that in the history of our planet. What would it mean to Australia, if Australia chose to withdraw from the United Nations? If we exited.

[Minister Payne] Senator, I can assure you that there is no consideration of that, that our engagement in the international system, and indeed Australia’s security and prosperity has been underpinned for a very long time, by what is known as the rules-based international order in the institutions that were created to support that. What we have seen in the last 12 months, frankly, the impact of COVID around the world. We’ve seen what happens when those systems can click into gear. And can support the countries and the communities that need them. The international cooperation that we have through those UN agencies and organisations is very important to that management. COVID-19, as I was saying, has really exposed the magnitude of the consequences if those global institutions are not working as well as they should, that does not mean, and I think the prime minister and you, have probably engaged on this before. It does not mean, as the prime minister said in his Lowy speech last year. He said, ‘We can’t be an indifferent bystander to these events that impact our livelihoods, our safety and our sovereignty. We must, as we have done previously, cultivate, marshal and bring our influence to bear to protect and promote our national interests.’ So what we seek, is an international system that respects the unique characteristics of individual states within it. In our case, Australia. That still provides a framework for cooperation on security and prosperity. Mr. Lee, Dr. Lee has advanced international aviation I think, if I was, if I was hearing correctly as a, as an example of that, but there are countless others, Senator, where we understand that working cooperatively with others is an important part of our national interest. It’s in our national interest, it allows us to pursue shared regional and global objectives. And it is a centrepiece of our international engagement. Now, we did a lot of work on this last year, a lot of work. And that has crystallised and firmed the government’s views on these matters.

[Senator Roberts] Well, thank you and I respect your right to have an opinion. I also have a different opinion.

[Minister Payne] As I do yours, Senator.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you. I know you’ve shown that in the past.

[Minister Payne] We’re in a very good democracy. Sorry. I took some of those minutes. My apologies.

[Senator Roberts] I do acknowledge the prime minister said, I think these words, on the 3rd of October, 2019 when he addressed the Lowy Institute in Sydney, ‘Unaccountable’ he spoke of, ‘The unaccountable internationalist bureaucrats or bureaucracies.’ I think those were the words. And then promptly gave, advocated to give World Health Organisation more power. I would argue with you about the World Health Organization’s benefits, because I think it contributed to the rampant spread of COVID, but nonetheless. How many funding arrangements between Australia and the UN are open-ended?

[Justin Lee] I, I’m not…

[Senator Roberts] They get ratcheted up automatically, or they’re they haven’t got a closing date.

[Justin Lee] Yes. I, I’ll try to take that on notice. But my, my initial reaction would be that we would have no open-ended commitments, or any commitment that we make would be on the basis of an agreement or an understanding. But I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] I think there is some updates to our laws or our requirements, or our commitments that are made automatically if the UN document or protocol is, is changed. Are you aware of any of those?

[Justin Lee] You could be, I’m not sure Senator, you could be referring to what I mentioned earlier, which was our assessed contribution. And there is a committee that looks at our assessed contributions and adjusts that contribution according to changes and our national circumstances, our size of our economy, debt ratios and the like in comparison to other countries. That is still part of a committee which we participate in. But ultimately we would abide by the finding of that committee and at the end of that process. So there is that sort of process. And that was what I was referring to earlier about the calculation about assessing.

[Senator Roberts] It may be, I’ll finish up now, but it may be in the human rights area. Or the rights of the child area, where changes in the UN requirements are automatically fed through to us and we have to comply with them. So that may be something to consider, but I believe that’s the case.

[Justin Lee] I can take that on notice.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you, if you could. And, you know, from my, my questioning. I really question the need to stay in the UN and the advantage to this country because of the governance impact on our country, the sovereignty impact on a country and the economic impacts on a country. So, you know, I recognise and acknowledge that this country’s current government is not thinking about exiting the UN, but we certainly are. So a lot of our constituents want to.

[Minister Payne] Senator, can I also say, I understand the reform issues you’ve raised and we are strong supporters of the reform processes that have been underway in the UN and acknowledged, more to do. And I did raise that with the secretary general last week, in a conversation on a number of regional issues. But also in passing on the year-end reform questions.

[Senator Roberts] Thank you very much.

/3 Comments/by