uni-party Archives - Page 2 of 2

Posts

Digital ID, Independent Media and the Future of Conservatism in Australia

I recently joined Melinda Richards on TNT Radio to discuss pressing issues facing Australia today. I emphasised the importance of independent media.

Our conversation turned to the Digital ID bill, which echoes the Australia Card proposal from the 1980’s—a proposal Australians firmly rejected.

We also discussed the erosion of conservative values within the Liberal Party and the urgent need for strong leadership to uphold these conservative principles.

Transcript

Melinda Richards: I’m joined by Senator Malcolm Roberts, one of the few politicians in Australia standing up for Australians and puts Australians first and his country first. Thank you again, Senator Roberts for joining me today.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re welcome and thank you for doing what you do on TNT because we need an independent news media. Part of the problem is that the governments are owned by major corporations who are in the media and that the messaging is false.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, it’s interesting. I just spoke about that this week that the government has now invested nearly $33 million into Channel 10 and had a little bit of a rant about that. And having government owned media is the worst idea that could possibly be put forward to a supposed free society. Senator Roberts, I wanted to talk to you about also the Australia card. You’re of the age, and I’m of the age, where we can remember the Australia card being proposed by Bob Hawke back in 1985 and he was intent on doing what the digital ID is going to do now. Of course, the digital ID would be 1000 times worse because we have the technology now, but back in the 80s, Australians said a resounding no to the Australia card and then they talked about it again a couple more times and Australians said a resounding no each time it came up. So of course, Australians probably would say a very loud, resounding no to the digital ID. Should this have gone to a referendum to the people? Because of course, this is going to be the biggest change that society’s going to have in the next coming decades.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, that’s one way certainly of doing it. We’ve got a One Nation policy – Citizens Initiated Referendum, which means that the people – it operates in some countries, Switzerland for example, and it brings accountability to the federal parliament. That’s where a citizen can say I don’t like a bill, he or she can make a petition, get sufficient signatures. Then the bill is put to, even if it’s been passed by the parliament, is put to the people and the people can say go to hell, remove the bill.
They can also hold politicians accountable and say we don’t like what you’re doing, Melinda, you’re out. You know that’s what we need, accountability. So yes, it should be put to the people. But the Australia card is a really important lesson because I didn’t pay much attention to it at the time. But as I understand it, Melinda, that was about making sure that people receiving welfare payments from the government, which is really from the taxpayer, were accountable and there’d be no cheating. And we see a lot of cheating on welfare these days. So that’s the intent. But even with that intent, the taxpayers say no, I’d rather lose my money than have the government watching over us.

Melinda Richards: We’d rather have people cheat then have people track US, have people follow, follow the ID number, have our ID number continuing to go through different aspects and parts of our society. The people of Australia at the time understood the implications. Are we a little bit more apathetic now or is it just that we are not really understanding what is being passed through parliament because it’s not being talked about much in the mainstream media?

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve, you’ve nailed it. The mouthpiece media, the legacy media, the Big Brother media, whatever you want to call it, do not talk about it because their masters are wanting this Digital ID to go through because they’ll be part of the corporations that it’ll be widened up to in the future.

Melinda Richards: I mean, we’re still looking at the money train then. We’re still looking at the people that are going to profit from this by controlling us and then pushing through different things and different subsidies and different parts of bills and ideas and things that we won’t even have a say in either.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s correct. Remember the three words, two points – control and wealth transfer. This is what it’s about. We’ve got the identity verification, which is a bill that went through earlier, a couple of months before, or a few months before the digital ID bill – that was about enabling biometric data to be used. Digital ID bill came up. The Misinformation-Disinformation bill was introduced by the Morrison Government, and it has been retracted or withdrawn – paused in its process through this parliament. So that’s coming up as well. That’s where they will control what you say and what you then do. So, this is all heading for control and enabling wealth transfer. Because we also know, thanks to my questioning at Senate estimates, that the Reserve Bank of Australia has been working on a digital currency and has been tying that up to work overseas on a global digital currency. I mean the Reserve Bank admitted it. So, this is putting everything in place for social credit score. And there were several amendments considered in the – it wasn’t a debate – in the passage of the bill through – the hijacking of the bill through the parliament. And not one word of debate was allowed on any of those amendments.

Melinda Richards: That’s incredible.

Senator ROBERTS: Yeah. And then the media doesn’t even report this going on. But this is typical of what the UNI party is doing. It’s not just the Labour Party. All of these bills, including the Digital ID bill, were introduced by the LNP, the Liberal National Party government.

Melinda Richards: I mean, do you think this is a really big problem for the conservative movement in Australia? I just had Andrew Cooper on earlier today talking about CPAC, talking about where the conservative movements going in Australia, particularly in light of what’s just happened in the UK election. I mean, the digital ID has got to be something, hasn’t it, that that the politicians, the conservative politicians in Australia and the conservative citizens of Australia should now be rallying behind almost as strongly as they did with the Voice referendum. I mean we know with the positive outcome that happened there that when we do rally, when we do understand things, when we look a little deeper into what’s going on, we can actually get a great result.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re absolutely correct. And there are a few conservatives, true conservatives in the Liberal Party, but most of them are in One Nation and Libertarians these days.

Melinda Richards: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Alex Antic, for example, he drafted a bill that’s called, I think the Repeal Digital ID Bill. He invited genuine conservatives to cosign it and co-sponsor it. So, he invited me, Pauline Hanson, Ralph Babet, Gerard Rennick and Matt Canavan. And so, the six of us are all co-sponsors of the bill. And the bill’s very simple. It just says repeal the Digital ID bill – that’s it. And then there’s the consequential amendments, which is repealing any changes of the digital ID caused in other legislation. So, it can be done. You look at the Liberal National Party, Gerard Rennick is one of the best senators and he’s been put in an unwinnable position pre-selection. You look at the true conservatives, Kevin Andrews from Victoria – gone, not pre-selected. You look at the senators they’ve appointed recently, they’ve been from the left wing of the Liberal Party. You see Connie Fierravanti-Wells, Eric Abetz – genuine conservatives sidelined and taken out of federal politics. So, what we see now is a Liberal Party that is a clone of the worst parts of the Labor Party. You’ve got factions now within the Liberal Party, you’ve got very, very few Conservatives and so what we’ve got now is a Uni-Party and we know that every major energy bill, for example, climate and energy policy was introduced by the Liberal National Party, not the Labor Party. The Labor Party came in and ramped it up and that’s what they’ve done across the board.

Melinda Richards: Yeah, that’s right. And it’s been a shocking revelation for a lot of conservatives over the last probably 15 years or so that the conservative movement is not being represented by the Liberal Party, the Liberal National Party and this has been a bit of a wake up call for the conservative movement in Australia and certainly in the UK – they’ve woken up. It took them 3 elections. I think we need a strong conservative leader in this country to bring us back to some of our core values. And there are things that the conservative movement is going to have to, as I said earlier, grab a hold of and fight back pretty strongly. And the group of politicians you mentioned, Senator Roberts, you are the true heroes of our political movement at the moment in Australia because you are putting Australians first.

Thank you so much for joining me today, Senator Roberts. I certainly hope we can talk again very soon. You’re listening to Melinda Richards on TNT.

August 13, 2024/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

A Thorough Review of the Native Title System is Critical

National, Speeches

One Nation advocates for a thorough review of the entire native title system and proposes a sunset clause on native title claims. The current situation is out of hand and sidelines the most crucial stakeholders—the Australian people—from any meaningful consultation in these processes.

Currently, over half of Australia is subject to native title claims, yet less than three percent of Australians have had a voice in this matter. The vast majority of us are excluded from participating in the process.

While state governments, councils, and the Federal Court are involved, they rarely reflect community views because they do not seek our input. This pattern mirrors the lead-up to the Voice referendum, where extensive consultation, funded by taxpayers, occurred solely with Indigenous groups, neglecting the broader Australian population. It was this approach that contributed significantly to the Voice’s failure, costing taxpayers a staggering $450 million. Native title claims are similarly determined within a closed circle, deliberately excluding the majority of Australians, including those whom the native title system purportedly aims to benefit.

During my visits to remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, a consistent grievance I’ve heard from Aboriginal Australians across these regions is their inability to obtain land title, while unaccountable land councils operate like robber barons, establishing their own fiefdoms. This sentiment was reiterated by Aboriginal elders who sought me out during recent visits to Maryborough and Gympie.

There’s a hidden agenda at play here. The preamble of the Native Title Act is filled with references to United Nations policies and declarations. This raises questions about whether the Act is serving the UN agenda of undermining private land ownership and restricting land use. Unfortunately, local Aboriginals are denied the opportunity to own land outright under native title and hinders their ability to live on, invest in, develop, farm, or leverage it for business loans.

Native title prevents Aboriginals from enjoying the same land use rights as other Australians, prolonging inequality rather than closing the gap. Land ownership on mainland Australia did not exist when the British colonists arrived, nor was there recognition of individual land rights or inheritance. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to mainland Australia — incorrectly. This framework introduces race-based rights, perpetuating racial discrimination in Australia, which contradicts the principles of equality.

The lack of action by Labor, Liberals and Nationals to review and rectify these issues underscores a failure of democratic governance, which should prioritise serving and representing the people, not controlling them.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I move:

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:

The Native Title system in Australia is critically flawed and perpetuates discrimination. A new claim has been lodged by the Woppaburra people for exclusive use over an additional 2,249 acres of Great Keppel Island, despite a prior Federal Court ruling extinguishing Native Title over significant portions of the island, with the effect of potentially closing Great Keppel Island to non-Aboriginal Australians. This situation exemplifies why there is urgent need for a thorough overhaul of Native Title laws to prevent misuse and ensure equal treatment for all Australians regardless of race

I rise to speak about the racial divisions that continue to be perpetrated by the Liberal-Labor uniparty and their toxic native title system. One Nation ‘s candidate for the Queensland seat of Keppel, James Ashby, is doing a wonderful job holding the Miles Labor government accountable for its failure to meet $30 million worth of commitments to Great Keppel Island. Further, James Ashby deserves credit for exposing the latest native title claim on the island on the weekend. This claim, if successful, would mean that 84 per cent of Great Keppel Island would be excluded from non-indigenous Australians. One of the jewels of Central Queensland and an Australian tourism icon could effectively be closed off for all time from the Australian people, from local businesses and from international visitors.

This isn’t the first time an Indigenous group has tried to close off Great Keppel Island from the rest of us by using a divisive native title claim. In 2021 the Federal Court denied a native title claim over the Great Keppel Island leases held by Tower Holdings because of pre-existing infrastructure of commercial value. One Nation calls on this latest claim to be thrown out, too, and for the Miles Labor government to honour its $30 million promise to clean up and restore Great Keppel Island. Yet we must go much further than that. We’re calling for a comprehensive review of the entire native title system and a sunset clause on native title claims, because it’s getting out of hand and it’s excluding from any consultation on these processes the most important stakeholders of all: the Australian people.

More than 50 per cent of Australia is now under native title claim, yet fewer than three per cent of Australians have had any say in it. The rest of us are excluded from the process. While state governments, councils and the Federal Court get a say, they almost never represent community views, because they don’t ask us for our views. We’re not asked, because they don’t want to hear our views. This is what happened in the lead-up to the Voice referendum. There was a lot of consultation, costing a lot of taxpayer money, but only with Indigenous groups. There was none for the rest of Australia. It’s one of the main reasons it was such a spectacular $450 million failure, a flop. Consultation was undertaken in an echo chamber where dissent was absent, where dissent was chastised, where dissent was suppressed. Native title claims are resolved in this sort of bubble as well—a bubble from which most Australians are always excluded, deliberately. Even those people who are specifically intended to benefit from native title are excluded from those benefits.

I often visit remote communities in Cape York and the Northern Territory, and the No. 1 complaint from Aboriginal Australians right across Cape York and the communities I visited in the Northern Territory is the inability of Aboriginals to get land title while unaccountable land councils act as robber barons building fiefdoms. This was expressed to me again by Aboriginal elders who’d heard I was visiting Maryborough and Gympie last week and came to see me and attended a forum I hosted. There’s another agenda going on in the background. The Native Title Act’s preamble is littered with references to the United Nations policy and declarations. Why is this so? It fits with the UN agenda of attacking private land ownership and locking the land away from use. Unfortunately for local Aboriginals, they’re denied the opportunity of actually owning their piece of Australia by buying it to live on, to invest, to build, to develop, to farm or to use as collateral for a business loan to set up a business.

Native title holds Aboriginals back from doing what all other Australians can do with land. It works to maintain the gap, not close it. When British colonists arrived there was no form of landownership on the mainland. There was no recognition of individual landownership, security or passing the land onto heirs. Land title existed only in limited form, in some Torres Strait Islands. The Mabo decision was based on this distinction. It was the Labor native title legislation that extended this to the mainland of Australia—incorrectly. Native title perpetuates racial discrimination in Australia by creating rights based on race. This is wrong and must be reversed. The whole concept is consistent with Labor’s policy of waste and arrogance and disdain for Aboriginals and all Australians as part of a global agenda.

Labor is one part of the uniparty. The Liberals and Nationals have done nothing to review this act to fix things for all Australians. Democratic government is supposed to work for the people and serve the people. Instead, in recent decades the uniparty governments have worked to control the people. They push a global agenda to control people and steal property and transfer wealth to the party’s corporate globalist masters. We need a comprehensive review of native title urgently so that we can get back to helping Aboriginals get some land.

July 11, 2024/10 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Don’t be Fooled. The Liberals are Committed to Net Zero!

National

If you had any faith in the Liberal/Nationals, I’m sorry to disappoint you. Despite giving some people false hope, Dutton and his coalition have confirmed they are fully committed to economy-destroying net-zero that will send jobs to China.

Liberal and Labor are the uni-party. There’s no real difference between them.

Only One Nation will make decisions for Australians first.