Posts

Put Australians Ahead of UN Junkets

,

I questioned Minister Murray Watt and departmental officials to get straight answers on how much taxpayer money is being spent on United Nations climate events and whether the government’s policies are hurting economic growth.

I asked the department questions on taxpayer spending regarding Minister Chris Bowen’s role as president of negotiations for COP31 in Türkiye. They confirmed that $147.8 million over three years was allocated under a budget measure titled “Standing with our partners in the Pacific”.

While Dr Box explained this covers events, Pacific delegates, pavilions and staff travel, I asked what the real return on investment for everyday Australian taxpayers was. Furthermore, officials admitted that the total budget for attending COP31 itself and whether grants will again be handed out to climate activists as was done for COP30, has not yet been finalised.

I requested a complete breakdown of international travel costs within the climate change and energy portfolios for the 2026–27 financial year. The Department could not provide specific figures on wages, airfares, or days spent abroad, stating decisions are made on a “case-by-case basis.”

I asked Minister Watt why Australia should have international climate agreements imposed on us, pointing out that sovereign nations like the United States have withdrawn from these arrangements and that the UN cannot enforce anything unless Parliament legislates it.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Good morning, Minister.  

Senator Watt: Good to see you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re looking chirpy.  

Senator Watt: Always chirpy, just like yourself.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, is the president of negotiations for COP31—the Conference of the Parties—in Turkiye taking place in November this year. Has the department incurred any expense in respect of that role for travel, expense for extra staffing or expense in any other related purpose, and, if so, how much?  

Mr Kaiser: Yes. We covered some of that ground in answer to questions from Senator Henderson just moments ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: The specific amounts for staffing, travel and related weren’t covered, though, were they?  

Mr Kaiser: I think what we said was that a number of staff did travel with Minister Bowen, most recently, as part of his responsibilities but that those figures had not been reconciled yet because, I think, the staff literally arrived home on Saturday.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does he have any additional staff as a result of his duties, not just travel?  

Mr Kaiser: In terms of his ministerial staff?  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of his position as president of negotiations, does he have any additional staff in his—  

Mr Kaiser: In his ministerial office?  

Senator ROBERTS: Are the taxpayers paying for anything for the United Nations role?  

Mr Kaiser: There was a specific budget measure which provided funding to the department to assist him with that role.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is that amount?  

Mr Kaiser: My colleagues will be able to help you with that. 

Dr Box: I’ll take that, Senator. The amount allocated for the budget measure ‘Standing with our partners in the Pacific’ in the 2026-27 budget was $147.8 million over three years.  

Senator ROBERTS: $147 million over three years?  

Dr Box: That’s right.  

Senator Watt: Just to be clear—because what that money is for shouldn’t be misrepresented—it might be helpful to have Dr Box set out what that money is going to. It’s not to create an office, for example.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m all ears.  

Dr Box: The money is for a range of activities: the delivery of the pre-COP, the preparatory meeting in the Pacific, in Fiji, and with the leaders element in Tuvalu; things like sponsored travel for Pacific delegates; additional events in the Pacific; and to support a pavilion at COP31. It also includes some funding for the presidency youth champion and to support our Pacific climate envoys, and of course it also includes some funding for staff and travel.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Was there an amount—I may have missed it—for the cost of attending COP31 itself?  

Dr Box: For COP31? No.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that is yet to be added?  

Dr Box: That budget measure will support attendance at COP31, but the delegation for COP31 and associated costs hasn’t yet been determined.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are the Australian taxpayers, Minister, paying to raise Minister Bowen’s international profile? Where’s the benefit to taxpayers? Where’s the return on investment? What is the return?  

Senator Watt: Well, you won’t be surprised to hear me say that that funding is not about raising Minister Bowen’s profile. It’s about ensuring that Australia has a leading role in international negotiations regarding climate change and energy. I know you and I, Senator Roberts, have a pretty different view about whether climate change is real and what we should be doing about it, but the reality is that countries all around the world are negotiating and reaching agreements about this, and our government’s view is that it’s a very good idea and it’s in Australia’s national interests to be helping to lead those negotiations. We’ve got a view that you’d rather be involved in negotiations than have outcomes imposed on you by the rest of the world, and, through Minister Bowen, occupying that role gives Australia a front-row seat in those negotiations. The other reason for us doing this is that it’s an opportunity for greater partnership with our Pacific neighbours. I’m sure, Senator Roberts, one thing you and I could agree on is that the Pacific is a region where there are a lot of national security interests for the Australian people and there is an opportunity for Australia to work in partnership with the Pacific on an issue, being climate change, that they consider to be arguably the biggest challenge they’re facing. That is a good thing for Australia, and dealing with those national security interests as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think the better way to go about dealing with our neighbours, who are very important to us strategically, is to tell them the truth. That’s much more important for me. You said ‘costs imposed’ or ‘agreements imposed’. The UN cannot impose an agreement on us. The only way it can be imposed is if parliamentarians in this place legislate it.  

Senator Watt: Well, again, you and I might disagree on this, Senator Roberts, but our government, and I personally, believe that it is useful to Australia and the Australian people to be part of international agreements about how we manage a range of challenges facing the world. There are some governments around the world that have withdrawn from those sorts of agreements—  

Senator ROBERTS: The United States of America, for example.  

Senator Watt: For example.  

Senator ROBERTS: Keir Starmer calling it now the ending of climate catastrophes— Senator Watt: I don’t think the UK has withdrawn from those agreements, and we think it would be a negative for the Australian people if we were to withdraw from those agreements. I know One Nation’s got a different view. You’re entitled to your view, but we think it’s better to be at the table, in this case in a leadership role, leading the world to negotiate outcomes that are in Australia’s interests.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you aware that 65 per cent of the voters in the recent Farrer by-election voted for a party that wants to end net zero?  

Senator Watt: Are you adding the Liberal and National Party votes to your— 

Senator ROBERTS: No. We’re not.  

Senator Watt: I didn’t think you got 65 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, we didn’t. We got about 40 per cent.  

Senator Watt: That’s what I’m wondering—how you got from 40 to 65.  

Senator ROBERTS: The other minor parties. Have a look.  

Senator Watt: I recognise that there are different views about this in Australia. I think this government has been pretty clear, going into the last two elections, that we support action on climate change and that that is not only a good outcome for our environment but good for our economy and jobs as well. We’ve gone to the election with that policy. We’ve won the last two elections. We’re now implementing that policy. But you’re entitled to a different view.  

Senator ROBERTS: I may have missed something here, Mr Kaiser or Dr Box, but COP30 in Brazil was extremely expensive at $1.6 million in taxpayer money. What’s the budget for the actual attendance at COP31?  

Dr Box: We don’t have a specific budget for attendance at COP31 yet, because we haven’t determined how many people will go to COP31. The travel to COP31 will be taken from that $147 million that I mentioned that’s in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: In COP30 you gave away $395,612 in grants to bring along climate change activists and so-called stakeholders. Will you be doing that again in COP31? If yes, why? What is in it for the taxpayer? Mr Rudd took, as Prime Minister, to Copenhagen 114 people, including his hairdresser. Will that same graciousness be extended to Mr Bowen?  

Dr Box: You’re correct that we did have a grants program for COP30 that supported a range of organisations to attend COP30 in Belem in Brazil, including youth organisations, First Nations organisations and organisations from a range of sectors, including the agricultural sector. There is funding in the budget to support organisations to attend COP31 in Antalya in Turkiye, but the parameters of that haven’t yet been decided.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers. This next question comes up frequently, so I assume you have the data on hand. What is your budget for international travel within the climate change and energy portfolios—that’s wages, airfare and accommodation—in the 2026-27 financial year? Could you include a breakdown of how much over how many days for how many employees?  

Ms Munro: These decisions, in terms of what the required travel is, are always taken on a case-by-case basis. A lot of the work that we do is done virtually, and it’s really by exception that there will be that international travel, but it is necessary to build the relationships and to negotiate outcomes. That’s the responsibility that the government has given us. We don’t have the detail that you are asking for, given that we need to plan through what are going to be the priorities for this year, and, as I said, we make those decisions almost on a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me a broad idea of the categories of considerations that will go into that or could go into it.  

Ms Munro: Go into travel?  

Senator ROBERTS: Selecting travelling companions.  

Ms Munro: Yes, we’re happy to.  

Dr Box: There are a range of factors that we consider. Value for money is obviously a very big consideration. Another is whether the intended meeting outcomes are of significant benefit for Australia’s climate, energy, environment and water agenda. We also consider whether virtual or alternative representation options aren’t suitable, and, of course, all approved travel requests include a contingency. We look at the intended meeting outcomes and whether virtual participation is available and, of course, value for money as an overarching consideration in coordination with the PGPA Act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Value for money is a pretty subjective thing. It depends on the goals of your party going there. Coming back to the EPBC Act, your website page for the new national environmental standards under the EPBC Act does not appear to have been updated for some time. It still says that the circulation draft of the new standard would be made available in April, and it wasn’t. When will the new standard be made available to senators?  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure when that research was done, but, in the last month, we have begun a second round of consultation on two of those national environmental standards. In outcome 2, we’ll be able to talk to you at length about that. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. As things stand, the EPBC Act is, in our opinion—we differ on this, no doubt—a disaster for economic growth in Australia. The Minerals Council of Australia said, and I quote: Average decision times for resources projects have increased by 60 per cent, from 2.3 years in 2019 to 3.8 years in 2025 … What steps are you taking to increase your throughput?  

Senator Watt: Again, we could have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but that was exactly one of the key reasons for the reforms that we passed in the parliament last year. I know you voted against them, but one of the key objectives of those reforms was to speed up decision-making on projects after that blowout of timeframes that you referred to, and we’re confident that will happen.  

Senator ROBERTS: I note that the budget—and you’ve answered a related question from Senator Waters— includes a measure for introducing AI. Will that help in data collection and analysis or will that be actually making decisions?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about this in more detail in outcome 2, but the primary purpose of that AI pilot and tool is essentially to help proponents in preparing their applications. There are people who know a lot more about it than me who will be available to talk to you about it in outcome 2.  

Mr Kaiser: I’ll just add to the minister’s answer an important principle in the application of AI in the public sector generally, and including in this department, is that humans remain the decision-makers.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, are you using ludicrously long delays in approvals for minerals projects to discourage application for minerals projects?  

Senator Watt: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: On a $500 million project, the holding cost of the project across a 3.8-year development application cycle will cost the proponents $25 million per year—almost $100 million total across 3.8 years to four years. How is this not a financial penalty on applicants caused by a procedural failure in your department?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can have an extended conversation about this in outcome 2, but a key objective behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up assessments and approvals of projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s get a benchmark going. How many applications for resource projects with a project cost in excess of $50 million are you currently holding, and what is the average age of those projects?  

Senator Watt: There will be officials available to answer those sorts of questions in outcome 2.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is your expectation for reductions in this figure of 3.8 years? When will the EPBC laws stop getting in the way of economic growth and the breadwinner jobs that go with minerals projects?  

Senator Watt: Again, we can talk about that in more detail in outcome 2.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can we talk about mining being a driver of the economy, of standard of living, and the six-to-one jobs multiplier in coalmines?  

Senator Watt: In my opening statement, Senator Roberts—and I realise you weren’t here for that—I referred to the fact that, along with greater protections for the environment, one of the key objectives behind the EPBC reforms was to speed up decisions around housing, energy and critical minerals projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the things that’s become clear with new Labor is that it appeals to activists to get more votes.  

Senator Watt: That’s your view.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is the government aware, Minister, that obstructing resource projects stifles funds for social and welfare programs for caring for people?  

Senator Watt: I would agree with the general proposition that economic development delivers economic wealth for the country that can be used for those sorts of social services.  

Senator ROBERTS: And mining is a key to developing economic—  

Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. I recognise that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Number one exporter.  

Senator Watt: It’s a big industry. 

/0 Comments/by

Foreign Treaties Don’t Rule Australia

I questioned officials to clarify the implications of UN General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, which Australia supported on 20 May 2026, regarding the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) 2025 advisory opinion on state climate obligations.

I noted that the ICJ’s opinion is purely advisory and non-binding. Department official Mr McCarthy confirmed the court cannot take direct action against a nation on its own accord; any dispute must be brought by another state. I raised whether any nation has ever successfully sued another over greenhouse gas emissions due to the impossibility of proving direct economic harm, a point Mr McCarthy took on notice.

I expressed the point that international agreements like the Paris Agreement are not self-executing. Mr McCarthy confirmed that treaty commitments do not automatically take effect in Australia without parliament passing legislation, in other words meaning we retain the sovereign ability to repeal those laws or withdraw, just as the US has.

I questioned whether the resolution, which gained support from 141 of 193 UN member states, is simply a political attempt to maintain the narrative on man-made climate change, which I contend is driven by natural cycles and inherent natural variation.

Of course, Foreign Minister Penny Wong dismissed this, noting that 141 states represent an overwhelming majority and that my views on climate change are not shared by most of the world.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, good morning and thank you for appearing.  

Senator Wong: I have to be here, Senator Roberts, but thank you for thanking me.  

CHAIR: It’s a Senate order.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like clarity on the United Nations resolution from last week on climate change, which was General Assembly Resolution A/80/L.65, titled ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of states in respect of climate change’ and adopted 20 May 2026. Australia strongly supported the resolution. The resolution welcomes and gives political weight to the International Court of Justice opinion from 2025 affirming states’ obligations under international law to protect the climate system from greenhouse gases, prevent significant harm, cooperate globally and address consequences, including potential reparation. It emphasises following through on the Paris Agreement commitments. Is that correct so far? Thank you. The International Court of Justice ruling was an advisory, meaning it carried no compulsion. Is that correct? I can see your head nodding. That’s fine. Direct answers are appreciated. Isn’t it true that any action taken by the International Court of Justice against a nation like Australia must be brought by another country and only when that country can prove they have suffered economic harm caused by the respondent country they are seeking restitution from? Is that correct?  

Mr McCarthy: The International Court of Justice is a judicial body. As such, it doesn’t take action against a state. It makes judgements which—in this case, it was an advisory opinion, so it’s not binding—are statements of law. Whether there was an action to be taken would be a decision for one state against another state. It’s not a relevant prerogative of the court itself.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that no nation has ever sued another, and is it true that this is because proving greenhouse gas emissions are causing another country damage is not possible?  

Mr McCarthy: Apologies, the first part of your question was that no nation has ever—  

Senator ROBERTS: Sued another country on this topic, sorry.  

Mr McCarthy: You’re adding the qualifier ‘on this topic’. I’d have to take that on notice. I suspect the answer is no, but I’d have to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The International Court of Justice has never taken action against a country over their greenhouse gas emissions using a proxy such as access to the international settlement bank, which is controlled by the UN, because they are an advisory body only, which you’ve confirmed.  

Mr McCarthy: We’re conflating, I think, two concepts here. They’re a judicial body; they’re not an advisory body. In terms of the question of the international court taking action or not taking action, it’s not in its prerogative or its remit to take action or to not take action. It makes decisions. Sometimes they’re in the resolution of disputes between individual states, and sometimes it is in—as it was in this case—an advisory opinion.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for clarifying. Turning to the Paris Agreement itself, the reason for this resolution from the International Court of Justice—the Paris Agreement is only binding because we passed legislation to implement it, and that can be repealed. The agreement itself is not binding on Australia if we withdraw, as the USA has done. Is that correct?  

Mr McCarthy: Treaties are not—the term is ‘self-executing’ in Australian law. When Australia signs a treaty, it is a binding commitment under international law, but that commitment is only given effect through the passage of legislation through the Australian parliament. In other words, our treaty commitments don’t self-execute. They don’t take effect within Australia without the passage of Australian laws.  

Senator ROBERTS: I was correct—despite not being a diplomat or a lawyer.  

Senator Wong: The parliament has to approve through the JSCOT process, which occurred with the Paris Agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying it didn’t occur.  

Senator Wong: No, I wasn’t pushing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I conclude that UN resolution A/80/L.65 was only supported by 141 out of 193 member states to make it look like the world still believes man-made climate change is real, when it’s nothing more than natural cycles and inherent natural variation?  

Senator Wong: I think that’s a political statement. ‘Only’ meaning the overwhelming majority—that’s the first point I’d made. The second point I’d make is that your views about climate change are well known. They are not shared by most of the world.  

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules

,

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.

/0 Comments/by

Net Zero is Crippling Australia

,

The “global push” for Net Zero by 2050 is a myth. China’s target is 2060, India’s is 2070, and the US has pulled out. Australia is joining a minority club that only accounts for 30% of global “emissions”, in turn crippling our economy while the biggest polluters “keep on polluting.”

Of course, Matt Kean doesn’t agree with this, saying that over 80% of global GDP is committed to Net Zero. He said, if Australia doesn’t jump on the clean energy train, we get left behind by global markets and investors.

Wind and solar are driving power bills through the roof. We went from the cheapest electricity to the most expensive outside of Europe. Coal demand is actually increasing globally.

How does Matt Kean respond to this? He cites Bloomberg data that show new solar and wind are way cheaper than new coal and that renewables are driving prices down.

The climate agenda is built on “dodgy modelling.” Shutting down farmland for carbon credits is killing agriculture, and green jobs aren’t replacing real job losses.

The Labor government is destroying Australia’s industry for a “climate scam.”

A One Nation government will end UN Net Zero, exit the UN Paris Agreement and re-energise Australia with cheap, reliable electricity – putting more money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing.  

Mr Kean: Nice to see you, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Good to see you again. Mr Kean, last estimates you gave me an update on your statement last year which provided net zero metrics. They were your metrics—specifically, what percentage of the world was covered by net zero mandates. You might remember that.  

Mr Kean: Yes, we talked about it last time.  

Senator ROBERTS: These figures were 78 per cent of global emissions, you said, and 79 per cent of GDP and 87 per cent of the global population. These figures, we’ve found, are flawed. China’s target is not 2050; it’s 2060.  

Mr Kean: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: India’s is 2070. The United States has pulled out altogether. Our target is 2050, at which time Australia will share our misery with countries having just about 30 per cent of emissions, about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. Why pretend net zero by 2050 is the dominant position, when in fact we’re in a minority, based on your metrics?  

Mr Kean: That’s just not true, Senator. You’re obviously entitled to your opinions—  

Senator ROBERTS: They’re not opinions; they’re facts.  

Mr Kean: But you’re not entitled to your own facts. The reality is that 195 countries have signed up to the Paris Agreement. We’ll get you some figures shortly as to how many countries have signed up to net zero by 2050. But you make the point yourself. China and India have signed up to net zero. The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to this global effort to confront global warming. If you’re suggesting that Australia should be left behind from where markets are going, where capital is going, where investment and opportunity are going, then you’re arguing for a poorer country, and that’s not something I want to see.  

Senator ROBERTS: Rather than saying these are my opinions, these are based on hard facts. The facts I told you are truthful.  

Mr Kean: Sorry, what are the facts? A hundred and ninety-five countries have signed up under the Paris Agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll get to that later.  

Mr Kean: The majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero—  

Senator ROBERTS: China’s target is not 2050 but 2060. India’s is 2070. The US is out altogether—the second biggest economy in the world. Germany is making signs of reversing. Our target is 2050, at which time just about 30 per cent of emissions will come from net net-zero-by-2050 countries, which are about 40 per cent of GDP and just 20 per cent of the world’s population. If they’re wrong, show me where.  

Mr Kean: But the majority of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. The markets that underwrite—  

Senator ROBERTS: Not by 2050.  

Mr Kean: Committed to net zero emissions. The markets that have underwritten our prosperity for generations are changing the type of goods and services they’re looking for, and we’re very well placed to prosper in that low-carbon global economy. I’m not sure why you don’t want Australia to benefit from this global megatrend. Maybe you could explain.  

Senator ROBERTS: It is because I want the cheapest energy possible in Australia.  

Mr Kean: I’m trying to explain to you that the majority of the world’s GDP is heading in this direction. It’s something like 84 per cent. Over 80 per cent of the world’s GDP has committed to net zero emissions. That means they’re looking for low-carbon steel, cement, energy, transport—a whole range of things—and we’re really well placed to provide it, so we can do well by doing good. I don’t know why you’ve got a problem with that.  

Senator ROBERTS: The forecasts for coal consumption are increasing dramatically. It’s not decarbonisation.  

Mr Kean: The demand for energy use is increasing dramatically, and the proportion of renewables is increasing dramatically. I think you’ll find that there’s more investment going into renewables than there is any other form of technology. What that means is that Australians can benefit because we can produce renewable energy at a cheaper cost than most other countries. That means that, for energy-intensive industries, we’ll have a competitive advantage, and we should be grabbing that with both hands rather than people like you standing in the way of Australia’s biggest economic opportunity.  

Senator ROBERTS: The cheapest electricity user has a competitive advantage, and right now every country that has adopted a significant proportion of solar and wind has increased its costs and is not competitive. We used to have the cheapest electricity in the world. Now, outside of Europe, we’re the most expensive, and only three countries in Europe are more expensive than us. We’re on the road to bankruptcy.  

Mr Kean: That’s just wrong. You’ve got to be called out for that nonsense. It’s not true.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fact.  

Mr Kean: It’s not fact.  

Senator McDONALD: [Inaudible]  

Mr Kean: Can I address that? Today—  

Senator McDONALD: What about record coal demand—  

Mr Kean: renewable energy is putting downward—  

CHAIR: Let me just pause for a moment. I’m sorry to interrupt you, Mr Kean. Senator MacDonald—  

Senator McDONALD: Sorry. It’s not my questions. I’m sorry.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts has asked the questions. If you’ll address his question. Senator MacDonald, if you’ll allow him to do so, please.  

Senator ROBERTS: You said you were going to give me some figures?  

Senator Ayres: Well, I’m not sure there’s any value in trying to engage you on this question. You’ve been impervious to facts and argument and the Australian interest the whole time I’ve been engaging with you on this committee about these questions. It’s imported ideology from One Nation. Exporting jobs—that’s your approach. It’s the One Nation-National Party coalition here, and only one part of that is winning that argument. Senator Henderson interjecting— 

Senator Ayres: I can’t help you with this. There’s a set of facts. Mr Kean‘s doing his best to work through them. You’re shouting over the top of him. We’ll do our best.  

CHAIR: Alright, let’s get let’s get back to this because we are late in the evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’ll ask my second question.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2050, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada, some South American countries and the EU—basically the 2050 club—will in your world have zero greenhouse gas emissions. Australia’s emissions will be down because our economy will be decimated. China, India and the US will hoover up our industry and leave us with no emissions because we will have no industry. Your sessions often talk about modelling. Have you modelled what the Australian economy will look like in 2050 from the perspective of GDP per person and share of national income going to wage and salary earners? These are the key metrics for standard of living. Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: Well, I was trying to answer your question from earlier, though Senator Ayres took up the platform from me. Bloomberg New Energy Finance, which is a very recognised analyst of energy matters, looked at the cost of new-build energy. It quotes solar at about US$39 per megawatt-hour. Wind is a bit higher, at $40 to $55 per megawatt-hour. Battery prices fell eight per cent last year to about $108 per kilowatt-hour. Again, in January, Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimated that levellised cost of electricity for new coal was about A$297 per megawatt-hour without a carbon price. In Australia, new solar was $68 a megawatt-hour; wind, $115 a megawatthour; and then new coal without a carbon price, nearly $300 a megawatt-hour. So you’re arguing nonsense. Clearly, from an expert analyst— 

Senator ROBERTS: Bloomberg has also said we’re going to transition to perfectly good—  

Mr Kean: I’m just trying to say the facts are there, but you’re just quoting nonsense. I’m reading from Bloomberg New Energy Finance. I’m happy to table Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Please do.  

Mr Kean: Maybe you could table your report from the dark recesses of the web.  

Senator ROBERTS: Labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest, the desperate, the fearful. That’s what you two are doing.  

Mr Kean: Okay, but you can’t table that. I’m reading from—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t label me. Just use hard facts. I’ll happily table it.  

Mr Kean: I’m happy to table the Bloomberg New Energy Finance report.  

Senator Ayres: He just did, Senator Roberts—honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: To drill down on this: Australia’s system of carbon credit units encourages productive farmland to be shut down and local native vegetation replanted in return for carbon dioxide credits. This reduces agricultural and grazing land below critical mass for survival. Have you modelled the reduction in agricultural output—food, fibre and red meat—and the increased costs of agriculture?  

Mr Kean: This is a huge economic opportunity for Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various models done.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you modelled them?  

Mr Kean: There have been various—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re not answering my question.  

Mr Kean: But I’ve said there are various models that the Climate Change Authority relies on for this information.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you, on notice, give us the names of those?  

Mr Kean: We can provide you with the relevant documents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Ms Rowley: I just note that, in the authority’s advice to the government with respect to the 2035 target, one of the inputs to that, as mentioned earlier, was modelling by CSIRO. It looked at it looked at—  

Senator ROBERTS: The same people that did GenCost.  

Ms Rowley: If I could finish my answer—it looked at emissions reduction opportunities across the economy, including through land based sequestration and in agriculture. It showed what it would look like for the economy. To your point earlier about what it does for GDP and GDP per capita, the GDP growth was unaffected by the decarbonisation of the economy. From memory, the economy continued to grow at 2.7 per cent per annum whilst the economy decarbonised, including through enhanced sequestration across the landscape. CSIRO modelling, as well as other work that the authorities have drawn on and is published by agencies such as ABARES, Ernst & Young and other sources, shows that that can be done whilst agriculture sustains and, indeed, increases its production and increases its output.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide us with the title of that CSIRO study?  

Ms Rowley: The CSIRO report is directly quoted in the authority’s advice to the government on the 2035 target and it’s available on the CSIRO website. We’re very happy to table to table it as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Great. In December estimates, you pointed out that one of Australia’s largest exports, coal, was facing a future of reduced demand from overseas buyers. Korea was mentioned as an example. By 2050, we will have exited our own domestic use of coal for power. That means more reductions in our GDP, more jobs gone and more communities closed down. The future for our economy is bleak because of net zero measures, isn’t it?  

Mr Kean: It doesn’t mean those things at all, and I pointed out earlier why it doesn’t mean those things. As I said, Bloomberg New Energy Finance say that the cost of new coal is about $300 per megawatt hour, compared with the costs of wind and solar and batteries, which continue to fall; they’re much cheaper, and they continue to come down the cost curve. So actually what will see Australia become more prosperous is embracing those new technologies and helping let them use it to underwrite a new era of prosperity for our industry, for our manufacturing sector and for our community, and that’s something we should be grabbing with both hands. That’s something you and I can agree on: we want Australia to be more prosperous. And making decisions based on the facts and the evidence is exactly how we do that.  

Ms Rowley: And perhaps I could add, Senator, noting your interest in modelling—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m vary wary of modelling, believe me! The whole climate scam is based on dodgy modelling.  

Ms Rowley: But you were interested in looking at the sources. In terms of the economic growth opportunities that come with the transition to net zero for Australia, explored in Treasury’s modelling for the government’s net zero plan, it included analysis of the development of new industries, like green metals and other clean fuels—and there are figures in the report if you’d like to look—comparing that with the anticipated decline in Australia’s fossil fuel exports as the world decarbonises. We don’t control global demand for our fossil fuel exports but we do have opportunities to build and grow new clean industries, which, at least according to the Treasury analysis, could account for an even greater share of our economy by 2050.  

Senator ROBERTS: Kumbaya! What a wonderful world! You’re not saying these are net zero jobs, are you?  

Mr Kean: Could I just say, to reiterate what the CEO said, that the CSIRO modelling did show that the economy continues to grow under the decarbonisation pathways we’ve modelled.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of the GenCost modelling from CSIRO?  

Mr Kean: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. You’re aware of the flaws?  

Senator Ayres: Oh, honestly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question: employment in Australia went backward in April, didn’t it? The number of people in a job was less at the end of the month than at the start. Green jobs are doing a crap job of making up for job losses in the productive economy. Mr Kean, what will be the employment rate in 2050 under net zero? How many more people will lose their jobs?  

Mr Kean: Well, I must reject the premise of the way you framed that question, and I’ll cite the treasurer of New South Wales, the Hon. Daniel Mookhey, who this week said that New South Wales was projected to go into recession had it not been for the renewables investment that was being made into that state. The energy roadmap, of which I was the architect and which we legislated with multipartisan support, has kept the New South Wales economy afloat, and that’s something we should all be proud of, and we should be working to grow our economy and grow our prosperity, not standing in the way of doing so, as you’re trying to do, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The Crisafulli LNP government is doing the opposite.  

Mr Kean: Well, I’m talking about the renewables roadmap in New South Wales, which has kept the state out of recession. It’s not me as a Liberal saying that; it’s the new treasurer saying it, based on a Liberal policy. It’s something I’m very proud of, and we should be continuing to campaign on building a stronger, more prosperous nation. And let me tell you how to do that: it’s by building more renewables, not less.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.  

Senator Ayres: Senator, that was a sort of far-right Beat Poet! I’m not quite sure what you were doing over the dinner break. But it’s utter rubbish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Dishonest, incompetent, lazy, fearful—  

CHAIR: Senator Ayres and Senator Roberts. 

/3 Comments/by

Let the United Nations Collapse!

, , ,
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.

The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.

Apparently.

Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.

Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.

Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.

Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.

This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.

Why is the UN in trouble?

The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.

President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.

That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.

Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.

We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.

Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.

Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.

To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.

Let it die. Let it rot.

Allow global politics to heal.

Is the UN really going bust?

Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.

Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.

This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.

It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.

As reported by Fox News:

Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’

And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.

Do we need the UN?

If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.

Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.

Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.

Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.

UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.

And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.

The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.

China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.

For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.

Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?

Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?

It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.

Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.

When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.

Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.

And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.

As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.

It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.

You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.

Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.

It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.

‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’

Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.

Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:

‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’

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

The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.

Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.

Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.

They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.

What does the UN cost the nations of the world?

Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.

Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?

Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.

Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.

Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.

Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.

As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.

These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.

Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.

They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.

Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.

The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.

In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.

As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.

When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’

My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’

/4 Comments/by

Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth

,

While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.

Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:

✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide
farming.”

✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.

✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.

I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.

It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.

We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.

This is literally killing the environment to save it.

One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.

One Nation is the true party of the environment.

Transcript

One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production. 

Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion. 

For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines. 

Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines. 

One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.  

/3 Comments/by

Is the Refugee Program Changing Australia?

, ,

The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.

25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.

The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”

Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today. 

His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.  

Question agreed to. 

/1 Comment/by

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It does.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the Paris Agreement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An expensive bit of paper…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

57 Paris Agreement

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

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

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

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

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

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

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

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

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

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

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

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

/3 Comments/by

The UN’s Grip on Our Borders

,

The Albanese Labor government is accepting refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries while ignoring Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria and Syria. Why are we importing cultures of violence instead of offering protection to those being persecuted by them?

The regime of Abu Mohammad al-Julani is currently conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites to establish a caliphate. I asked whether the government would balance the intake to protect these groups before they are killed. 

Why is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees effectively “managing” our resettlement intake, a practice that risks the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Instead of addressing why Christian refugees are being excluded, Minister Watt resorted to the usual Labor tactics: personal attacks. He attempted to smear me and my party as “divisive” and falsely attributed comments to Senator Hanson to avoid answering for his government’s policies. 

I made it clear: our immigration program should be based on protecting our security and supporting those truly in need, rather than outsourcing our sovereignty to the UN or prioritising groups that do not share our values. The Minister’s refusal to provide a straight answer only proves that this government is more interested in virtue signalling than the safety of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. Last November, I asked you about the country of origin of refugees in your government’s refugee visa program. Your response on notice stated, ‘There were no visas granted to citizens of Nigeria or South Africa through the offshore refugee program.’ In my question, I pointed out the reason why we’re not taking in Christian refugees is that your government is taking refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries or communities. Minister, why is your government not offering refugee status to Christians currently being subject to persecution, violence and murder in Nigeria and South Africa rather than taking the people who are propagating the culture of violence? 

Senator WATT: I’m always careful, Senator Roberts, to not concede that what you put forward as facts are actually facts, particularly on matters relating to migration because we know that you and your party seek to divide Australians based on the issue of migration. If any evidence of that is needed, it’s the conclusion of your question which yet again seeks to tar all Muslim Australians and Muslim migrants with the action of a small minority who do the wrong thing. It wasn’t that long ago that your party leader, Senator Hanson, effectively said that there was no such thing as a good Muslim, a statement that we utterly reject and, in fact, Senator Whitten rejected, to his credit. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order. That’s not accurate; she did not say that. That was a media beat-up. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, thank you for sitting down when I requested it. Minister Watt, please continue. 

Senator WATT: Senator Hanson’s comments on Muslims were so outrageous that Barnaby Joyce distanced himself from them and Senator Whitten distanced himself from them. I don’t recall you distancing yourself from those comments, Senator Roberts, and it’s a matter for you to determine how you feel about those statements. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: I just did distance myself because the comments weren’t accurate. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order; it’s a debating point. Minister Watt, have you concluded your answer? 

Senator WATT: What I’ve said repeatedly in answer to questions from One Nation on the issue of migration in this chamber is that the Albanese government proudly has a policy of not discriminating against migrants based on their religion or other personal attributes. We will always consider the merits of every migration application. Each and every day, we reject applicants who are seeking to move to Australia and migrate to Australia on the basis of character checks and other reasons, but we don’t have a blanket rule of stopping all people from a certain faith in the way that One Nation seeks to do. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Syrian Islamic regime of President Abu Mohammad al-Julani is conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites in Syria to turn Syria into a caliphate. The videos are all over social media, and, yes, we have checked them, and they have been authenticated. Minister, will you reduce your Islamic refugee intake and at least balance it with Nigerian and Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite refugees before they too are killed at the hands of Islamists? 

Senator WATT: Again, Senator Roberts, to your deep shame, you are equating every Muslim who seeks to move to Australia with the actions of what sounds like a reprehensible organisation, and that is not a position that we accept. Our position is that anyone who seeks to get a visa to migrate to Australia should be assessed to ensure that they are of good character, that they don’t present 

a security risk to Australians wherever they’re from and whatever their faith is. Senator Roberts, I might need to remind you of the comments of your leader, Senator Hanson. She was asked whether there are good Muslims out there, and she said: ‘How can you tell me there are good Muslims?’ If that’s the kind of language and rhetoric that you think is going to help bring this country together, then that’s on you. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in your written reply dated 4 November, you twice refer to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and admit that it informs and ‘manages’ your resettlement intake. Why is your immigration program risking the safety and security of everyday Australians? 

Senator WATT: It’s not, and, Senator Roberts, I know you and your party have sought to profit politically from the awful tragedy we saw at Bondi just before Christmas. It’s worth remembering that one of the people involved in those attacks migrated to Australia during the Howard government’s period in office and the other of those people was born in Australia. But let’s just ignore the facts for a minute, Senator Roberts, hey? That’s the way you operate. The way this government operates is that we make decisions about individual applicants based on their character, based on whether they’re going to make a positive contribution to Australia and whether they represent a security risk to Australia. We do not have the kind of approach that you are encouraging us to take, and we will always, proudly, stand up for Australian values in terms of who is admitted to this country. 

/4 Comments/by

Private Jets & Amazon Destruction: The COP30 Circus

,

The latest globalist circus: UN COP30 in Belem, Brazil was a monumental failure and a masterclass in elite hypocrisy. While 55,000 “carpetbaggers” and technocrats gathered to lecture us on our carbon footprint, they were busy carving a highway through the heart of the Amazon rainforest just to improve access to their venue. 30,000 trees gone, destroying 10,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration, all while sipping champagne on luxury cruise ships floating in a harbor filled with raw sewage.

The hypocrisy is staggering. They parked 250 private jets at local airports and then had the gall to discuss taxing your airline flights.

The UN KNOWS the 1.5° target is a fantasy. The truth is coming out: most countries know that Net Zero will bring economic ruin and that carbon dioxide is essential for human prosperity.

Australia is already at “net zero”. Our forests absorb more CO2 than we produce. To chase “green” energy, the government is blowing up mountaintops for wind turbines and cutting through national parks for transmission lines.  And Ministers like Chris Bowen are being rewarded with UN roles for facilitating the transfer of Australian wealth into the pockets of billionaire crony capitalists and foreign interests.

This isn’t just about the weather; it’s about control. The “Globalist Uniparty” (Labor, Liberal, Greens, and Teals) is ushering in a future where you are herded into 38-storey “human filing cabinets” in 15-minute cities.

They want to track your spending and deny transactions for meat, travel, or air conditioning once you hit your “limit.” The push to eliminate cash is the final step in building this virtual prison. And under the guise of fighting “misinformation,” they are moving to criminalise dissent and “defossilise knowledge.”

When I warned about this nearly a decade ago, people laughed – yet nobody is laughing now. Everyday Australians are waking up to the fact that One Nation was right. We are the only party with the guts to stand up to this madness.

Our plan is simple: 1️ Withdraw from the United Nations and the World Health Organisation; 2️ Exit the UN Paris Agreement immediately; and 3️ Stop Net Zero to protect Australian living standards and sovereignty.

The UN is out of control, and this Labor government is their willing accomplice.

Put Australia first.

— Senate Speech | 25 November 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: This month, 55,000 carpetbaggers, technocrats and enablers gathered in the shadow of the Amazon rainforest to breathe life into the greatest climate change scam for one more year. The United Nations conference of the parties, COP, COP30, in Belem, Brazil, has ended in failure. In this speech, I’m not being critical of the good people of Brazil, for whom One Nation has tremendous respect; I am being critical of elitist politicians, bureaucrats, parasites and thieves sucking on energy subsidies who are blind to their own hypocrisy, incompetence and dishonesty—hypocrisy such as building a highway through the Amazon rainforest to improve access to the conference venue, which turned into another ‘look the other way’ moment for the world press, still using climate change as a boogieman to scare people into continuing to read their rubbish. This highway bisects an environmental protection area and cuts through wetlands and dense secondary Amazon rainforest. The highway allows easy access for illegal logging, disrupts water and food supply for native inhabitants and actually increases the flooding risk in Belem. In other words, it’s just another day at the office for the hypocritical, incompetent, dishonest climate change zealots. Actual environmental groups and satellite monitoring from Imazon have tracked secondary deforestation already sprouting along the new corridor, in the classic fishbone pattern that often follows Amazon road building. An accurate estimate for the number of trees felled is 30,000—gone! This eliminated 10,000 tonnes of national carbon dioxide sequestration necessary for oxygen production. 

This is something you’ve heard before from One Nation. Australia is already at net zero. Every year our extensive forests, natural and planted, absorb more carbon dioxide than Australia produces. Any talk of UN carbon dioxide reduction, as inhuman and nonsensical as that is, must acknowledge the essential role of planting and preserving trees and forests. Instead, in Australia we’re seeing large-scale deforestation, blowing the tops off entire mountains to locate massive wind turbines, and building access roads and easements for electricity transmission lines through the bush and national parks. 

The environmental damage of UN COP30 doesn’t stop at rainforests. Only four per cent of Belem’s sewage is treated, and the rest gets dumped into waterways and, from there, into the sea. Attendees at the conference were billeted on luxury cruise ships in the harbour in Belem. Attendees were able to look over the side and see raw sewage from the conference floating past. How fitting is that? What a perfect metaphor for the excretable, failed theory of climate change. 

I haven’t finished on the hypocrisy. Tarmac space limited the number of private planes arriving to 250, requiring the conversion of 14 local airports into parking lots for crony capitalists to park their jets whilst lecturing us on our carbon dioxide footprint. Domestic and international flights added another 50,000 seats, so I wonder how many people bothered to use the new highway through the Amazon. Perhaps the highway was for the workers, whilst the elites flew. I thought flying was a crime against mother earth, but the rules don’t apply to the people who make them. I was especially amused to see those same people who flew to Belem support an agenda item for a tax on airline flights to raise US$6 billion towards fighting themselves. 

The final communique was a complete failure, a collection of weasel words and platitudes. UN COP30 turned into a cop-out. UN climate chief Simon Stiell hailed the communique as proof that climate cooperation is ‘alive’, and that their goal of keeping warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius was still ‘within reach’—a furtive plea if ever I heard one! Former environment minister Tanya Plibersek, from the Labor government, emphasised new hope for the 1.5-degree Celsius alignment. New hope? No, Minister, there is no chance and no hope the world will ever meet the Paris targets. There’s no scientific reason why they should. A stronger initial communique was rejected, with only 30 of the 194 delegates in support. The final cop-out communique only recommitted to the Paris accord and a voluntary global plan for eventual phase-out of hydrocarbon fuels, coal, oil and natural gas. Spot the weasel words: ‘voluntary’ and ‘eventual’. UN COP30 said the quiet part out loud. This is not going to happen. 

The truth is that most countries have realised climate change science is wrong; net zero measures are ruinous; and hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and natural gas, are essential for maintaining living standards and for lifting underdeveloped nations out of poverty. This is about humanity. This is probably why Australia’s Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Chris Bowen, has accepted a thankyou job with the United Nations in acknowledgement of his service to the UN’s crooked cause. 

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Cox): Senator Roberts, just a reminder to refer to those from the other place by their correct titles. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Chris Bowen. That means using the pretence of global warming to facilitate the transfer of income, wealth and opportunity from everyday Australians into the pockets of the world’s richest crony capitalists and their communist Chinese allies. His appointment has been criticised, but, from my perspective, the less this bloke is in Australia the less damage and hurt he can inflict on Australians. 

Events like the conference of parties and Davos are not just talkfests, as one attendee told me. They have two purposes. One is to see what the billionaires that pull the world’s collective strings can get away with this year. The second is so that these predatory billionaires can steer world events to increase their own wealth and power. As an example, BlackRock Inc spent $10 million attending UN COP30 to advocate for a worldwide carbon dioxide tax and trading system so their executives can buy carbon dioxide credits and then live the same lives of plenty they live now. This isn’t speculation. They actually said that. The videos are online. 

On the other hand, working Australians are increasingly being herded into smaller and smaller homes, smaller lives and smaller families, centred around train stations, which will ultimately become 15-minute cities. It will be a world of people working from their tiny apartments, stacked up in human filing cabinets. The latest approvals are now for 38 storeys—hundreds of families in an area that used to house four families and their backyards. 

Do you remember backyards? There’s no place for personal space in this new globalist world of mass migration. You’ll be kept in this virtual prison by your personal carbon dioxide allowance, which will prevent car ownership, prevent travel, prevent meat—and no pets which eat meat. New clothes will be limited to three purchases a year, and there will be no air conditioning. There’s no provision for air conditioning in the platinum energy standard being advanced by the Greens and the teals. And that code includes sealing a home so tightly to reduce energy loss that air flow will be restricted and condensation will lead to an ongoing problem with mould. Try that one in Queensland!  

If you think, ‘I will not comply,’ you will have no choice. Your bank is already preparing to help you limit your daily carbon dioxide output and, in 2030, will start denying transactions above your allowance. It’s a system that works only if cash is eliminated, which the Treasurer, the Labor treasurer, is trying to do now with new anticash regulations. 

When I first talked about these things nine years ago, nearly a decade, the internet laughed. Well, the internet is laughing much less now, as this agenda starts to affect them personally. Everyday more and more Australians are realising One Nation was right about everything. This will be your future under the Liberal-Labor-Greens-teal globalist uniparty. In fact, this future is why the teals were invented: to take over from the Greens, who are moving into the lunatic fringe of politics, and to take over from the Liberals, who are starting to baulk at committing this crime against humanity. 

Recent Liberal Party leadership changes at state level installed leaders who have signed onto the UN nightmare agenda. These leadership changes were designed to ensure that, if the federal party does change direction, those pro-Australia policies will be blocked at state level. There’s really no hope for the Liberal Party while it’s under Michael Photios’s control. 

And don’t think you’ll be able to attend a protest rally or speak out in dissent. The Labor Party have colluded with the Greens and teal-like senators to hold a sham, show trial into freedom of speech, which they call ‘misinformation’. Not surprisingly, in this bias sham trial, freedom of speech is losing, as intended. The outcome will be misinformation laws that allow the government to suppress criticism and evidence of their failures, in the same way that the Keir Starmer’s regime has in the UK and Mark Carney in Canada. This trial, combined with schooling to year 12, university education for all high-school graduates and the under-16 social media and search ban, will ensure your children will not know what truth is. They will only know what the government wants them to know. 

In June, the UN special rapporteur on human rights and climate change, Elisa Morgera, called for states to ‘defossilise knowledge’ through the criminalisation of what she defines as misinformation as well as criminalising media that amplify it. Defossilising knowledge—knowledge!—that is terrifying. Morgera wants criminal sanctions for those deemed to have obstructed climate action. The United Nation is out of control and so is this Labor government, with its Greens allies. 

One Nation has all the answers to stop this. We will withdraw from the UN, the UN World Health Organization and the UN Paris Agreement and stop net zero. 

/1 Comment/by