Posts

Labor Abandons its Roots

,

The Labor Party’s famed light on the hill is now nothing more than the sun reflecting off solar panels, which we know are expensive, short lived and an environmental disaster – just like the Albanese Labour government. In a recent article in The Australian, Jenny George AO delivered a scathing assessment of the modern Labor Party, stating that “Labor today is not the party it once was. It has lost its moral direction.”Members of the Labor Party like Jenny George have not left the party – the party left them. Continuing in her own words – “The party that was formed to give political expression to the needs of working people has allowed the light on the hill to dim.” 

The duopoly of Labor and the Liberal-National Party, that Australians wearily switch between every few years, is no longer built on the foundations of what Labor and the LNP originally stood for. These establishment parties continue to take from working Australians to line the pockets of their billionaire mates at the World Economic Forum. 

One Nation is the only party that still stands for working Australians and will support all who’ve come to this country to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise.

Transcript

On the weekend, former ACTU president and former Labor member of parliament Jennie George AO published an article in the Australian newspaper. It’s compulsory reading. Jennie clearly holds Labor’s light on the hill in her heart, and her words echo the sadness and grief of many Labor true believers. She said: ‘The party that was formed to give political expression to the needs of working people has allowed the light on the hill to dim.’ In a recent speech I remarked that in 2024 Labor’s famed light on the hill is now nothing more than the sun reflecting off solar panels, which we know are expensive, short-lived and an environmental disaster—just like the Albanese Labor government. 

Jennie George’s judgement of the modern ALP is savage. She says: ‘Labor today is not the party it was; it has lost its moral compass.’ Ouch! Labor Party members like Jennie have not left the party; the party left them. The Overton window is a metaphor for the acceptable range of ideas and policies in which many politicians think they can act. Through it, such politicians see the middle ground of Australian politics. Under successive Labor-Greens and Liberals-Nationals governments, the Overton window has moved so far to the left and to the autocratic—that it no longer provides for everyday Australians. We’re losing wealth, spending power, access to housing, democracy and enjoyment of the riches our country has to offer. Establishment parties continue to take from working Australians to line the pockets of their millionaire and billionaire mates at the World Economic Forum. 

One Nation is the only party that still stands for working Australians and for all who have come here to lift themselves up through their own hard work and enterprise. Our One Nation policies will make the lives of working Australians easier. Jennie George’s words embolden old Labor to take back their party and excise from its ranks those who wear the mark of the World Economic Forum. Restore the ascendancy of our parliament, and return power to the people we are supposed to serve. 

/2 Comments/by

Luxury EVs for ASEAN-Australia Summit a PR Stunt

,

In yet more wasteful virtue signalling, Labor is laying on an extra fleet of luxury EVs for the ASEAN-Australia Special Summit from 4th-6th March 2024 to shuttle the hundreds of delegates around Melbourne at the taxpayers expense.

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting, like Davos, will get through copious amounts of meat and dairy. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media.

The insanity of the Net Zero dog and pony show gets worse. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, high end luxury European EVs from COMCAR services are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. COMCAR staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne.

Why is the PM again wasting tax dollars on tokenism? One Nation is keen to uncover just how much this stunt is costing Australian taxpayers.

Transcript

Next week the 11 leaders of countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations will arrive in Melbourne for the biannual ASEAN Summit. Hundreds of delegates will be shuttled around Melbourne at taxpayers’ expense. One Nation welcomes meetings like ASEAN that encourage countries to be good neighbours, and One Nation supports spending only what’s necessary to achieve a good outcome.  

As much as this government is advancing the World Economic Forum agenda promoting bug protein, limits on food consumption, and energy policies, I am sure the meeting will get through copious amounts of luxury food. Any photos of the food can be sent to my website or shared to my social media. What really got my attention is today’s Australian newspaper, with an article stating that the Prime Minister has required all vehicles provided to delegates to be electric. Because there are not enough electric cars in the Victorian fleet, electric Comcars are being sent to Melbourne from Canberra and Adelaide. Comcar staff are having to organising their route to Melbourne to include stopping at charging stations so they actually do make it to Melbourne. Why put on this tokenistic superficial show of fealty to the globalist electrification agenda at all?  

In the last few weeks, we’ve seen leading car makers do a U-turn on plans to sell only electric cars due to low demand, low profit and escalating scarcity of materials. In fact, despite heavy subsidies, last year in Europe EVs accounted for only 14 per cent of sales. Australia is half that. Insurance premiums are skyrocketing as damaged EVs prove very expensive to repair—one reason EVs lose value at twice the rate of cars with internal combustion engines. They’re lemons. The amount of minerals and energy needed to make, maintain and recycle electric vehicles is so high that EV stands for ‘environmental vandalism’.  

One Nation would like to know how much this exercise in virtue signalling is costing our Australian taxpayers. 

/3 Comments/by

Labor Proposes to Tax the Shirt off Your Back

,

During Question Time, Finance Minister Katy Gallagher twice failed to rule out adding a tax to clothing.

This tax will be passed on to you and I at the checkout, making clothing more expensive and adding to the cost of living. The excuse for this tax is to reduce climate change by reducing the amount of clothing being manufactured. The wealthy wont reduce their purchases for the sake of a tax, yet everyday Australians will have no choice.

This exchange shows the Albanese Government really is considering taxing the shirt on your back, so you buy fewer clothes. Welcome to life under a Labor/Greens/WEF government.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water, Senator Gallagher. Last week the Minister for the Environment and Water, Tania Plibersek MP, stated that Australians were throwing out too many items of clothing, and manufacturers should sign up to a government-backed scheme called Seamless to recycle and not dump used clothes. Clothing can and should be recycled into new clothing and other fibre products. One Australian company operates an upcycling scheme that has dozens of manufacturers, trade linen suppliers, recycling companies and retailers as members, and has taken 100 tonnes of clothing out of landfill. Minister, why is the government reinventing the wheel, creating its own favoured solution and imposing that instead of working with the industry to help them upscale their existing solution?

Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Finance, Minister for Women, Manager of Government Business in the Senate and Vice-President of the Executive Council): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. From what I’ve seen from the minister and the work that she has been doing in space, she has been working with industry and relevant businesses on the development of this policy. That has been critical to the work that she has been doing and it has certainly been under way for some time. I know there was talk before there was a summit and there was talk of a voluntary code, but it is an important part of ensuring that we are protecting the environment from the amount of waste that is going into landfill—and a big contributor of that is clothing. I don’t know, maybe I have misunderstood your question, Senator Roberts, but while there are manufacturers and industries in place that are already doing this, this is about building on that and making it more across-the-board, particularly for those that aren’t doing that, to make sure we are lifting our game in relation to recycling, and preventing the huge amount of clothing material going into landfill. If there are manufacturers or businesses that you think are feeling out of the loop of that consultation I’m sure the Minister for the Environment and Water would be happy to reach out.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary question?

Senator ROBERTS: Councils do not currently include clothing on the list of things people can put into a yellow bin. Most suggest giving used clothes to charity shops, very little of which can be resold. Most of that ends up in landfill at the charity shop’s expense. Isn’t the first step here sorting out the system for recycling and processing, then working with councils and retailers to encourage recycling through yellow bins? Is your government putting the cart before the horse?

Senator GALLAGHER: I don’t accept that, Senator Roberts. Where we can, we do work with councils and we work with businesses—we’ll work with anybody who wants to help protect the environment and reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. From my reading—and I was not here last week—of the work that Minister Plibersek was doing, it was about encouraging the voluntary cooperation or involvement of businesses in Seamless, in that program, to build it from there. So I would think, yes, you have to work with all of those people, including the councils that run the recycling facilities, whether it be the tips or whether it be what is called the Green Shed here. People donate to Vinnies. There are clothing bins. There are all of those options. Many of those are run by local government. But the Commonwealth government should provide a leadership role and provide that stewardship, where we can, and work together with everybody involved.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Plibersek threatened that if the industry did not accept the government’s superfluous Seamless then a 4 cent waste levy should be imposed on clothing manufacturers. This proposal will increase the cost of clothing at the checkouts. Minister, will you, right now, rule out taxing clothing? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Minister Plibersek has been working with the industry to reduce the amount of waste. Clothes are cheaper than they have ever been—this is part of the problem. Anyone with teenagers or anyone who goes on some of these websites knows that you can replace your whole wardrobe, very cost-efficiently, because of the nature of people’s buying habits and the ability to get clothes from overseas. We are seeing that the average Australian sends almost 10 kilos of clothing waste to landfill every year. So it is a big problem, and it’s a problem that we need to work across industry to fix. 

The PRESIDENT: Minister, please resume your seat. Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance: I asked, ‘Will the minister now rule out taxing clothing?’ 

The PRESIDENT: The minister is being relevant to your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator GALLAGHER: I am explaining what the government is doing. You might want to take it somewhere else, which we have no plans to do. We are talking about what we are doing now with Seamless, which is: working with industry to reduce the amount of clothing going to landfill. And we will work with anybody who wants to work with us on that.

Following Question Time, I moved to take note of the Minister’s response to my questions.

When did it become appropriate for the government to decide how much clothing you own? Minister Tania Plibersek is repeating World Economic Forum rhetoric designed to widen the gulf between the haves and the have nots. It’s terrifying that Minister Plibersek should recycle WEF talking points to the Australian public.

The real failure however is that many people aren’t aware that clothes can be recycled. Councils and retail stores don’t offer recycling options, and although the fashion industry has started recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, more is needed.

Instead of taxing clothing, how about working with the industry to expand capability and encourage the clothing industry to tag items for recycling instead of throwing them out. The government could do with ignoring the WEF and its CCP-style rules and instead think for itself on behalf of Australians not globalists. How about less stick and more common sense?

Transcript

I move: 

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Gallagher) to a question without notice I asked today relating to the government’s proposed tax on clothing. 

We are told the proposed tax on clothing is to encourage recycling. The proposal from the Minister for the Environment and Water was floated over the weekend. This was not some random thought bubble. The World Economic Forum and its acolytes have been saying for years that everyday citizens are buying too much clothing. Minister Plibersek repeated those World Economic Forum talking points in the same press conference. This begs the questions: What’s the correct amount of clothing a person can own? Who decides how much clothing we each get to own? Is the intent to remove colour and style options so that a few approved uniforms are all we need? Didn’t China try that already? 

This proposal sits alongside the World Economic Forum policy that I spoke to last sitting, calling on people to wear clothing for a week and jeans for a month before washing them. It’s true that laundering clothing does wear it out. To get by with fewer items of clothing, one has to wash them less often. At least they thought this through. 

It’s terrifying that a minister of the Crown would repeat World Economic Forum talking points designed to ensure that everyday Australians have less. The failure here, though, is this: the reason we throw out so much clothing is that Australians don’t know clothing can be recycled. Councils don’t have clothing on the lists of things you can put in a yellow bin. Retailers don’t have recycling bins in stores, and they don’t attach a tag to a garment saying, ‘You can recycle the product in a yellow bin.’ The industry already has recycling facilities in Sydney and Melbourne, which is a good start. 

Here’s an idea: instead of taxing clothing to create a new recycling system, as the Labor Party is considering, how about working with the industry to expand capability and then encourage the public to recycle clothing instead of throwing it out? This government needs to use less stick and more commonsense. It needs to use less control and do more listening and consulting. 

Question agreed to. 

/9 Comments/by

FSANZ Handling of Lab Grown Meat is a Concern

,

I asked questions about the progress of an application by Vow Food for lab-grown quail meat. This is a serious matter that will provide approval for an entirely new industry — an industry that is promoted as being environmentally friendly, while offering a high standard of food, when the truth is the complete opposite.

My questions were based on the timetable for approval published on Food Standards Australia New Zealand’s (FSANZ) own website for this application. A timetable that appears to be out of date. It’s not acceptable that FSANZ would not keep the index page for this most important of applications up to date. I trust the answers provided, which extend the timetable 8 months, are truthful.

While FSANZ are apparently calling for submissions, there has been no attempt to promote the ability of the public and interested groups to do so. This suggests the submission will be curated to provide support for the application. Lab grown meat is a massive threat to public health and safety.

The product is grown in a bioreactor and develops a nutrition profile which is directly related to the fertilizer solution added to the growing medium. Fatal bacteria such as e-coli and salmonella must be controlled. The name of the game here is profit, taking food production away from family farms that produce a healthy natural product and moving it to city-based intensive production facilities owned by foreign corporations operating for profit. I have no confidence under this model that the main input — the nutrition slurry, and the anti-bacterial protections — will not be dialled down so as to dial profits up. I will return to this topic in May.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I’ve got a document that I’m going to try to table later. My questions are about the progress of the Vow company’s lab-grown quail meat. It appears your organisation has recommended that your board approve the lab-grown meat at its next meeting later this month. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: No, that’s not correct. That process goes through two calls for submissions, so we’ve got two processes where we seek comments from any interested stakeholder.

Senator ROBERTS: Any Australian?

Dr Cuthbert: Any stakeholder. It just finished its first call for submissions on, I believe, 5 February. We received approximately 40 submissions on that first round. We’ll then be considering all of the submissions that we’ve received and go out for a second round of consultation once we’ve considered all of those submissions. There will be that second opportunity for people to comment. Only after that will we be putting it forward to the board for consideration.

CHAIR: I’m just going to provide advice on this document. I’m still seeking the source to table, but I’m happy for it to be distributed to witnesses to assist in answering questions. Then we’ll provide advice on tabling.

Senator ROBERTS: Why are there calls for comment?

Dr Cuthbert: Under the FSANZ Act there are models under which we can assess a product. The framework we utilise depends on the product’s complexity and other variables. For this one, because it’s a normal food and because of the complexity that was assessed, we determined that the process that it’s under will include two rounds of public consultation.

Senator ROBERTS: If the board approves a product, which—is that likely?

Dr Cuthbert: We’re still in the process of—

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s too early to say if it’s likely or not. When will you finish your process of consultation and listening, and make a recommendation to the board? When will the board sign off—if it signs off? I’m after rough timing.

Dr Cuthbert: I might seek input from Ms Jenny Hazelton, who’s managing the branch responsible for this piece of work.

Ms Hazelton: The normal process for applications—there are some statutory time frames for completion of that work. At this stage we’re anticipating it will be later this year when we will be putting this to the board. As Dr Cuthbert’s already indicated, we do have another round of public comment, and what comes forward in that second round of public comment will likely then determine when it will actually go to the board.

Senator ROBERTS: So it could go to the board sometime after July or maybe towards the end of the year?

Ms Hazelton: Closer to the end of the year, more likely.

Senator ROBERTS: How long will it take to be gazetted if the board approves it?

Ms Hazelton: The process from there would be that we would notify the Food Ministers Meeting of the outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s federal and state?

Dr Cuthbert: Yes. That’s the representation on the Food Ministers Meeting. They have 60 days to consider that and either ask for us to review that decision or accept, and it would then go on to a gazettal after that time.

Senator ROBERTS: So they’re part of the process of approving or rejecting?

Ms Hazelton: Correct.

Senator ROBERTS: How does that process work? Is it a unanimous vote, or is it just that each state signs up or doesn’t sign up?

Ms Hazelton: It operates through a consensus. Sorry—each state and territory and New Zealand has an opportunity to vote for whether they will accept the approval or whether they will ask for a review.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I referenced your document 273-23 ‘Consumer insights tracker’, which is one of these. There it is; 273-23. Are you familiar with that?

Dr Cuthbert: Our consumer insights tracker?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is a supporting document to consumer literature review application A1269.

Dr Cuthbert: Apologies. Yes; thank you very much.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s available on your website, which concludes, the best name to give this novel food is ‘cell cultured,’ which makes it sound better than ‘lab grown’ or ‘Frankenfood’. I note that your language on subsequent documents uses ‘cell cultured’ or ‘cultured’. Why are you using language that promotes adoption of this product?

Ms Hazelton: We did do a literature review in terms of looking at consumers understanding of what that type of language would be. We are only at the first stage of this process—we’ve just received submissions—so that’s what we have proposed to date. That may not necessarily be what is ultimately in the final approval.

Senator ROBERTS: Your document, which was in that pile there, A1269 hazard and risk assessment, that document references the food safety aspects of cell-based food from the United Nations and the World Health Organization—both organisations I have very little regard for, but nonetheless even they list 53 potential hazards from lab grown meat. That report concludes on page 118: ‘Risk assessment was only the first part of the process of approving lab grown meat for human consumption. What needs to follow are our regulatory authorities cooperating with each other to share information around these potential health risks, which can be pretty severe.’ Rather than doing that and asking for in-depth studies, is FSANZ intending on waving these products through?

Dr Cuthbert: We will continue to do our assessment, and that assessment is quite broad, to determine the safety that needs to be considered through the process.

Senator ROBERTS: Has Vow addressed all your concerns?

Ms Leemhuis: We have received a raft of information from the applicant, Vow, but in addition to that we do look globally at what other evidence is available to inform our assessment.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Could you take on notice—I won’t take up the committee’s time now because we’re behind schedule—the approval processes or the steps that you take to consider an application, please? Did you ask Vow for genotoxicity studies in rats, commonly used to ascertain the safety of the product on reproduction and on the growth of cancers or organ damage.

Ms Leemhuis: We regularly ask for toxicity studies for almost all applications that we receive. I’d have to take on notice the specific studies we received for this one, although they will be referenced in the A1269 report online.

Senator ROBERTS: Including genotoxicity?

Ms Leemhuis: Including genotoxicity, yes.

Senator ROBERTS: The approval process seems to be, ‘Well, we can’t find literature that says’—this is casting the net broadly about the approval process, not necessarily yours—’this novel food is dangerous, so we won’t do the work to fill that gap and make sure this product is safe.’ That sounds like malfeasance. Have you done much work with other agencies, including your own, on whether the process is rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: We work internationally with all of our regulatory partners in this area. We are not alone in looking at these new products coming to market, so, yes, we have regular conversations with a number of agencies globally around this, and the evidence required to assess the safety of these products.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to list those agencies for me, please?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: And would you characterise the exercise in some agencies overseas as just tick and flick, ‘Just approve it’, ‘Might as well do it’?

Ms Leemhuis: I’m not sure we could comment on other agencies processes, just our own.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How would you describe your process of assessment and approval? Rigorous?

Ms Leemhuis: Yes.

Dr Cuthbert: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: These products, these fake meats, are grown in a bioreactor that needs to force cell growth as fast as possible to make money in what is a chemical and energy intensive process. One outcome that many authors have warned about is how the forcing of cell division leads to cancerous cells growing and that people could, in fact, be eating a product that is cancer. I don’t even see that dealt with in your risk assessment. Why not?

Ms Leemhuis: We look at the toxicity of these products and all the evidence provided for that. So, not only do we look at the end product, but we also look at all the inputs into how that product is made. Our view is informed by that.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. These products have all the nutrition in them that is introduced into the bioreactor. You talk about nutritional value, but it appears no ongoing monitoring will be imposed on Vow to ensure they keep shovelling these nutrients in there at the same rate as the samples they send you. Is that correct? Is there any ongoing monitoring?

Ms Leemhuis: Again, I’d note we’re not finalised with our process yet. In terms of management, that will be in the next call for submission.

Senator ROBERTS: Forget about Vow for a minute. If you authorise or approve this fake meat from some company, then do you monitor the consequences of that in succeeding years?

Ms Leemhuis: FSANZ has an ongoing role in monitoring the food supplies, so, yes. But as part of our assessment process we can also impose conditions that do look to monitor these products if they are of concern or concerns are raised through the assessment that we want to continue to look at into the future.

Senator ROBERTS: I guess there’s a difference between monitoring something in closed conditions and letting it go through a manufacturing process that may or may not be sloppy—who knows what will happen in there? Listeria has been identified as a medium- to high-risk foodborne pathogen that can enter during the final stage of cell growth, meaning it gets into the bioreactor. You have identified potential risks from salmonella and E. coli. Vow have made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising their factory than natural meat. How accurate is that statement?

Ms Leemhuis: Sorry; I’m not quite sure what statement you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: Vow has made the claim that lab meats help antimicrobial resistance by using fewer antimicrobial products in production, cleaning and sanitising than is the case in natural meat. Is that correct?

Dr Cuthbert: I don’t know that it’s necessary for us to comment on the accuracy of a claim that a company is making. Our job is to ensure that we’re evaluating the safety of the product that’s before us to determine if it’s suitable and safe to be circulated for consumption. Whether it’s more or less than another process is not part of the process.

Senator ROBERTS: So I guess you’ll do that assessment as part of your approval process?

Mr Comley: What’s an absolute assessment?

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, Mr Comley?

Mr Comley: Sorry; I should leave it to the food authority. I was just saying I think what Dr Cuthbert was saying is it’s an absolute assessment rather than relative assessment against other products that are on the market at the moment.

Dr Cuthbert: Exactly.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. Your documentation, some could say, dresses up this decision as some kind of saviour for the environment. I have circulated an Oxford University article and a peer reviewed paper that finds that very energy intensive bioreactors could have worse long-term environmental consequences than livestock farming in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions—CO2e. Now I don’t think the carbon dioxide production is at all a threat to humanity but, for those who do, recent calculations show that if we wanted to meet the additional demand for meat by 2030 exclusively with cultured meat we would have to build 150,000 bioreactors, which would produce 352 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent as against 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent for natural livestock farming. Why shouldn’t people conclude that approving this lab meat is a terrible mistake?

Ms Leemhuis: Just in terms of our roles and responsibilities, it really is about the safety of this product. That’s the act. It says that our role is to assess the safety of the product for human consumption, which is the role we have taken in looking at this application—

Senator ROBERTS: And not just in the lab, but in practical terms.

Ms Leemhuis: rather than the carbon emissions. That’s not within our scope to consider; it’s the safety of the product.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you very much.

/by

Australia’s eSafety Commissioner Goes to Davos!

,

At this year’s Davos, less government officials were present than usual, yet Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant, was not only present, but she was also an agenda contributor, pushing for greater online safety.

I asked in what capacity Ms Julie Inman Grant was present at Davos for the World Economic Forum 2024 annual meeting, what was the cost to Australian taxpayers and whether staff travelled with her on this trip at public expense. As an independent statutory authority, Commissioner Inman Grant is planning to embrace global opportunities to help achieve the outcomes she perceives necessary for online safety. The Commissioner is seeking broader powers to achieve her agenda, for our own good of course, and once again this begs the question exactly who is deciding what is ‘good’?

Listening to her speak about online safety regulations, the one word conspicuous by its absence is censorship. The other missing words were freedom of expression.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here today. Did you attend the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos last month? If so, was that in your personal capacity or as the eSafety Commissioner?

Ms Inman Grant: I attended the world economic global summit as the eSafety Commissioner. I achieved more in four days than I could in four years because I was meeting with senior technology executives. I was talking directly to the people who are building AI and immersive technologies and asked directly the decision makers what they are doing to make their platforms safer. I was sharing really our leadership and our model in terms of how we’re tackling online safety.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I think we’re the ones who should be assessing whether or not you’re justified. How many staff accompanied you? What was the cost to taxpayers?

Ms Inman Grant: I will take that on notice. I had one staff member accompany me. I supplemented that with trips to Brussels, where I met with European Commission officials, and to Dublin to meet with my fellow regulators in Ireland and the UK. So it was a very productive trip.

Senator ROBERTS: Now can I have the justification, please? What did taxpayers get for their money? How did attending help in the discharge of your duties?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, I had access to the presidents of most of the major technology companies, including the CEO of OpenAI. I was able to ask him what they were planning to do to build safety into this. Any time that we can influence the decision-makers at this level to make technology safer is better.

Senator ROBERTS: You run an online agency, right?

Ms Inman Grant: I run—

Senator ROBERTS: Couldn’t you have done this online?

Ms Inman Grant: I run a real agency that has real people and capital equipment. I couldn’t engage in this forum online and not have those kinds of meetings to make a real difference for Australians in terms of getting real change happening.

Senator ROBERTS: You are referencing your panel session at Davos. Your office has just sent Twitter a notice regarding them allowing hate on the Twitter platform, including allowing previously suspended users back on the platform.

Ms Inman Grant: Yes.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back on that your office objects to?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the online hate notice looked at the range of trust and safety governance steps that they had taken, including firing 80 per cent of their safety engineers, more than half of their content moderators and 80 per cent of their public policy personnel—so the people who actually look after the safety. We did ask them. It was reported that there were 62,000 previously banned users. To be permanently banned on Twitter, you have to have violated the policies pretty egregiously a number of times. We asked them the question. They responded. We asked about the 62,000. They responded with 6,100. We assumed that meant they reinstated 6,100 previously banned Australian accounts, which wasn’t in the manner and form of the notice and the question that we asked them. They didn’t name what those specific ones were, but they did tell us that there are no additional safety provisions even though they have been permanently banned for online hate in some cases.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems to me, Ms Grant, that you’re assuming the previous bans were in order. Had you explored those previous bans before coming to that judgement?

Ms Inman Grant: Twitter, as the company, had a whole range of policies, including a hateful conduct policy. They remove or—

Senator ROBERTS: So you haven’t? What you’ve done is you’ve gone off their interpretation of their policy, even though we know they were biased.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s the only thing we can do, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you come back to my question—

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please allow Ms Inman Grant to answer.

Senator ROBERTS: and give me examples of Australian accounts?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I appreciate that you are somewhat agitated. Could you please respect the witnesses and allow them to answer the questions.

Senator ROBERTS: I would like the witness to give me examples of Australian accounts that X has allowed back that her office objects to. That’s my question and you haven’t answered it.

Ms Inman Grant: I didn’t ask them specific questions about which accounts they were. I asked for the quant the numbers.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Are you setting yourself up as an arbiter of what should and should not be seen online?

Ms Inman Grant: No. I am not. I have been designated by the government to serve as the eSafety Commissioner and to remediate harms of online individuals who have experienced online abuse and, in most cases, have reported that abuse to the platform. The platform hasn’t enforced their terms of policy, so we are there as a safety net or a backstop to help remediate that harm.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your remarks included this comment, and I quote: There are lots of different tools in the toolbox we’ll be using. What are those tools? Under what explicit power do you possess them? Who supervises how you use them?

Ms Inman Grant: All our powers are designated under the Online Safety Act. We have a range of complaints schemes that deal with youth based cyber bullying, image-based abuse, adult cyber abuse and the online content scheme. We have systems and process powers under the basic online safety expectations. We have now six codes registered and two standards that we’re working on. They are the primary tools.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Who supervises how you use them? Who assesses whether or not you’re being effective or overextending?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, we are held to account. We have lots of reporting and transparency and accountability measures ourselves. If there’s ever a question about any decision that is made, it can be challenged through internal review, the ombudsman, the AAT or the Federal Court. So we are accountable to the people and the government.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. At the World Economic Forum planning session in Davos, you said, and I quote: We have started something called the Global Online Safety Regulator.  Who is ‘we’? Did you receive ministerial permission to involve Australia in another globalist power sink hole?  You may laugh, but we are facing a big threat.

Ms Inman Grant: I am an independent statutory authority. The Internet is global. Most of our regulatory targets are based overseas. For more than seven years, we were the only online safety regulator in the world.  Now, we use the tools we have and we can be effective, but we know we’re going to go much further when we work together with other like-minded independent statutory authorities around the globe. So with the UK, with Ireland and with Fiji in November 2022, we launched the global online safety regulators network. That has now grown to seven independent regulators, including France, South Korea and South Africa. A number of countries are serving as observers. That is so we can achieve a degree of regulatory coherence for the technology industry and make sure that we’re working together to achieve better safety outcomes for all of our citizens.

Senator ROBERTS: Did you get ministerial approval for that?

Ms Inman Grant: I don’t think it was required. Certainly the minister was aware.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is a further remark you made—this is how it was reported:

We have reached a tipping point where technology is neither good nor bad. We need to be pushing towards the forces of good.  That comment seems steeped in hubris. Who decides what the forces of good are? You?

Ms Inman Grant: Well, the Online Safety Act does define thresholds for harm. Certainly our research looks at the benefits and the drawbacks in terms of how people experience technology and whether it helps them to create, to connect, to work and to communicate versus the harms that they experience, whether it’s—

Senator ROBERTS: How do you listen to people?

Ms Inman Grant: How do I listen to people?

Senator ROBERTS: You just said it’s the people who decide.

Ms Inman Grant: I listen to people in many different ways. We have citizen facing complaints schemes. We’re out in forums all the time. We correspond. We also have about two million people who visit our website every year so they can access resources or report forms of online abuse.

Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. Thank you for that. You state: Deepfakes are covered under our world leading image-based abuse scheme, which has close to a 90 per cent success rate. How do you measure 90 per cent objectively? This is your statement.

Ms Inman Grant: We look at the number of complaints that we receive. The 90 per cent success rate is because in the vast majority of cases people just want the intimate imagery and videos taken down, mostly through informal means. We measure the 90 per cent based on how many complaints we receive and how many we get down.

Senator ROBERTS: So the images reported and the images removed? Ninety per cent of them would be removed?

Mr Dagg: When we investigate a complaint about image-based abuse, for example, or any of the other harms set out in our complaint schemes, we measure the response to our requests for removal or our formal interventions. We find, as the commissioner said, requests to be far more efficient and produce a faster turnaround, so they constitute the bulk of our interventions. Ninety per cent of those in the case of image-based abuse succeed. That measure of success is whether or not the images are taken down.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

/6 Comments/by

The UN-WEF Menu Plan for the West

,

The UN-WEF menu plan for the West is about power over the necessities of life — food, energy and water. This unelected socialist bureaucracy, with their loyalty directed to foreign power centres, are busy punishing you and the Australian economy using this made-up concept of a carbon footprint.

The truth is, our agricultural footprint in Australia does not contribute to global “emissions” — not that this would be a problem anyway. Australia has so many trees, grass and crops that every atom of CO2 and methane we produce is re-absorbed into the environment, producing higher growth and heathier soils.

During question time, I asked Senator Wong to provide the figures used to justify the Albanese Government’s nation-killing environmental policies. No sensible answer was received. This debate must be about science and data, not scare campaigns and hubris.

The war on farming is not about the environment, it’s about control. It creates a false sense of food scarcity to make lab-grown, food-like substances a profitable industry for the predatory billionaires.

One Nation will always stand up for Australia’s farmers and rejects the UN-WEF goals of food supply control.

Transcripts

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Wong. Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator Gallagher: Could you repeat the question? We missed the last 15 seconds of it. 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, what percentage of Australian greenhouse gas emissions result from agriculture in Australia? 

Senator WONG (South Australia—Minister for Foreign Affairs and Leader of the Government in the Senate): Senator, I am awaiting statistics as we speak, but what I can say to you, and as someone who was the climate change minister, is that there is opportunity in agriculture to deal with climate change. As you know, for many years the National Farmers Federation had a much more forward-leaning policy than the coalition when it came to agriculture and climate change. I’m advised it’s in the order of 16 to 17 per cent. Thank you very much, Senator Watt. For the year to June 2023, the agriculture sector was responsible for 17.7 per cent of Australia’s total annual greenhouse gas emissions. 

Modelling by ABARES shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. I recall that one of the early reports I read which made me so much more acutely aware of the risk to agriculture of climate change was a report which CSIRO did many years ago, before we won government in 2007. It modelled that Goyder’s line would move south of Clare. For anybody from South Australia—and I know that would be very bad news for Senator Farrell in particular—who knows what the mid-north is like, that is a very frightening prospect. We do think it is important to look at how it is that our food and fibre producers can best adapt to a changing climate. Many are already doing so and are obviously involved in the discussions with government about climate policy. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, a first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: As the World Economic Forum were meeting in Davos last month, the United States Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, John Kerry, stated that agriculture accounts for between 26 and 33 per cent of world emissions and will account for half a degree of warming by 2050. He further stated that a warming planet will grow less food, not more, and so farming needs to be a major focus of reducing human carbon dioxide production. Minister, how do you reconcile the production of food accounting for between 26 and 33 per cent of emissions with your figure of 17.7? 

Senator WONG: There’s a different denominator, Senator. One is as a percentage of Australian emissions, and one is as a percentage of global emissions. I also am unclear from the context and detail of the quote you gave me whether or not Special Envoy Kerry was dealing with food production further downstream as well. I don’t know what he’s referring to. But I certainly agree with what he was saying about the implications for food security. 

What is also true is that not only is that a substantial issue for Australia, because it will affect our capacity to produce the levels of grain production we have, which is obviously very important for our economy, but also the nations on who this will fall most hard are those nations who have the least capacity to be resilient to this change. If you look at countries like Bangladesh— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: The methane cycle, soil carbon sequestration and forest carbon sequestration absorb all Australian agricultural emissions, meaning Australian agriculture contributes nothing to global emissions. Minister, is the war on farming not about the environment but rather about creating a false scarcity of food to force the adoption of laboratory-grown food-like substances that predatory billionaires own for their profit and control? 

Senator WONG: Senator, there’s a lot in that question, but I want to go back to the fundamental proposition: climate change is already affecting our agricultural production now. I read to you the figures earlier: ABARES modelling shows that climate change over the last 20 years has reduced the profitability of Australian farms by an average of 23 per cent, or around $29,200. No, you don’t like the facts, and we know— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick? 

Senator Rennick: A point of order, Madam President: models are not facts. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Rennick, that’s a debating point. Minister Wong, please continue. 

Senator WONG: Senator Roberts, I understand your views on this. I disagree with them. What I would say to you is this: if you go and talk to a lot of Australia’s primary producers, if you go and talk to primary producers in the Pacific— 

Senator Canavan interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Canavan. 

Senator WONG: or South-East Asia, the truth is that people are already experiencing the impact of climate change on agricultural production. We might want to wish it away for ideological reasons, as Senator Canavan does, but— (Time expired) 

Honourable senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to wait for silence. 

Opposition senators interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: Order! I’m going to call an opposition senator, so those senators interjecting are wasting her time. 

/11 Comments/by

It’ll All Come Out in the Wash

,

The World Economic Forum seeks control over the most mundane aspects of our lives, even how often you wash your jeans. While the temptation is to laugh at the hubris of these people, there is a genuinely evil agenda in place that theatre around frequency of washing is designed to distract us from.

Today I spoke about the interference of the globalist billionaires in our food production. This is disturbing. The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the mainstays of life. It is a campaign about control through a false scarcity of food.

The UN and the WEF seek control not only over food production, but energy and ultimately, global finance. It’s time the Australian parliament stands up for farmers and the rural communities. After all, no farmers no food. Only bugs and lab-grown ‘meat’.

Transcript

When the World Economic Forum launched their social media campaign in 2018 carrying the slogan, ‘You’ll own nothing and you’ll be happy,’ I thought that finally the predatory billionaires who try to run the world had shown their hand. The public could finally see their fate if the World Economic Forum are allowed to succeed. That didn’t happen. The media, who have the same owners as the World Economic Forum, persisted with calling the World Economic Forum’s evil agenda ‘a conspiracy theory’. Even in this place there are only a handful of senators with the courage to call out the agenda for what it is: economic exploitation and social control. 

Over the break, the World Economic Forum revealed another aspect of their plan and they launched a campaign against laundry. Yes, really—laundry! They said jeans should not be washed more than once a month and most other clothes washed once a week. You will wear dirty clothes and be smelly and happy, apparently.

The temptation is to laugh at their desire to control even mundane aspects of our lives, yet the truth is much more frightening than that. The World Economic Forum have now turned their evil agenda to food.

The campaign against farming is really a campaign against one of the necessities of life—food. Predatory, parasitic billionaires, owning near urban intensive production facilities, are producing food-like substances for the masses, forcing the public into acceptance of the World Economic Forum’s fake global warming scam. These are their own stated motives: control food and control people. Whoever controls the food supply controls the people. Whoever controls the energy can control whole continents. Whoever controls money can control the whole world. The World Economic Forum and the predatory billionaires they represent are currently trying to do all three.

The Greens, Labor and the globalist Liberals will, of course, support the World Economic Forum. It is time the Australian parliament stood up for farmers and rural communities and for all Australians. 

/5 Comments/by

WEF Control of Money — “The party seeks power purely for its own sake” (George Orwell, 1984)

,

The World Economic Forum is not just an economic ‘think tank’. It isn’t just some bizarre entity that tries to insert itself into our lives with rules about how often we wash our jeans, drive our car, or eat red meat.

It’s the mouthpiece of the unseen hands manipulating world events.

All WEF vassal states, including Australia, are working on central bank digital currencies (CBDC) while simultaneously closing bank branches, eliminating cash and negatively influencing independent crypto currencies. By manipulating the price of Bitcoin (pump, dump, repeat), the unseen hand destroys trust in the non-CBDC. Explicitly, these governments are doing to nothing to protect or regulate crypto because the want private crypto currencies to fail.

How does this affect you? CBDCs are the ultimate control tool for governments. Censorship of free speech using misinformation laws is even more easily achieved when people’s finances are tied to a digital currency controlled by the government. A government promoting a dystopian future.

One Nation stands strongly opposed to the Labor party, the globalist Liberals and Greens promoting this dystopian future and coveting the power that comes with it. The choice for voters is clear.

Transcript

A popular quote reads: ‘Who controls the food supply controls the people. Who controls the energy can control a whole continent. Who controls money can control the whole world.’ Only the ignorant could possibly look at the world as it is in 2024 and think, ‘Nothing to see here.’ Farmers who are having their land confiscated under net zero measures are spraying effluent at politicians. Immigrants complaining about their handouts are causing violence across the West, including in our own Queensland communities. Anyone who sees our stagnant national wealth growth being divided among 10 million more people over the last decade knows there is less for everybody. Apparently no-one, having done the sums [inaudible], can deny this. War has broken out in multiple locations, and the mainstream media are doing their best to fan those flames into a third world war. 

The unseen hands that guide these world events have shown themselves via their mouthpiece, the World Economic Forum. Yesterday, I spoke of how the World Economic Forum was trying to control the world’s food and energy supply. Today, it’s the third element of the doctrine of global control: money. At the recent World Economic Forum Davos meeting, Christine Lagarde, head of the European Central Bank, announced a digital currency for the European Central Bank to ensure they remain the anchor of the European financial system to protect their power and control over money. All World Economic Forum vassal states, including Australia, are producing a central bank digital currency while at the same time closing bank branches, eliminating cash and manipulating nongovernment crypto. By 2030, the only payment mechanism will be their own digital currency and digital ID. It’s control of money. 

Then there’s a final element: a set of misinformation and disinformation laws that will ensure any attempt to speak as I am speaking here today will result in having my digital ID and digital currency turned off for misinformation. The ALP, globalists, the Liberals and the Greens are promoting this dystopian future, coveting the power that comes with it. One Nation stands strongly opposed. The choice for voters is clear. 

/3 Comments/by

Hands Off Our Coffee!

The elitists at Davos love to chat about restricting travel while comparing the private jets they flew in on. They push EVs, yet the Davos limos are fuel powered. The forum sessions openly plot to reduce animal farming and fishing, yet they dine on the finest steak and seafood.

Where do we draw the line?

Over coffee, these Davos speakers discussed guilt-tripping the masses about coffee’s CO2 emissions.

Would you let the WEF take away your coffee? It’s all part of the plan to make you feel guilty for existing and change purchases to products owned by the WEF-connected billionaires.

Reject the CO2 Climate scam. One Nation is hugely pro-human and anti-WEF.

/7 Comments/by

World Economic Forum – Their Time is Up!

Kevin Roberts’ message to the self-appointed global elitists at Davos adds further emphasis to Javier Milei’s speech.

/3 Comments/by