JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Winning: Malcolm Roberts gets reelected to the Senate, Labor suffers record loss

Congratulations to Malcolm! It’s great news. Six more years for the die-hard skeptic in the senate.

I know Malcolm has some big plans.

MAlcolm Roberts, election campaign.One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts will rejoin the Senate, almost two years after he fell victim to the dual citizenship saga and was kicked out of parliament.

This time they can’t run the fake news line that “he only got 77 votes”.

Meanwhile: Worst result in 70 years: meet Nita Green, Labor’s sole new Qld senator

Labor has recorded its worst Senate result since 1949 in the battleground state of Queensland, securing just one seat after One Nation’s Malcolm Roberts and the Greens’ Larissa Waters managed to win the fourth and sixth spots.

Meanwhile prophetic words on Q&A on Monday night:

DAVID KAROLY: There are certainly some people in the governments that understand the science. There are also a range of different people, including, I guess, Malcolm Roberts, who had very different opinions when he came on Q&A and had discussions with Brian…

 TON Y JONES: But he’s not in the government.

 DAVID KAROLY :  He is not.

 TONY JONES: Yes.

 

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.8/10 (71 votes cast)
Winning: Malcolm Roberts gets reelected to the Senate, Labor suffers record loss, 9.8 out of 10 based on 71 ratings

107 comments to Winning: Malcolm Roberts gets reelected to the Senate, Labor suffers record loss

  • #
    AndyG55

    Well done Malcolm. :-)

    Now, make lots of noise.

    Bring it to them !

    452

    • #
      ghl

      Congratulations Malcolm.

      Speaking of Q&A. I paraphrase.

      One question was “Alan Jones says ” given that only 3% of CO2 is man made…….”"
      Karoly’s answer ” Alan Jones is wrong. Man made CO2 is 40%……”

      1/ The question was posed the way it was to allow David Karoly a free shot at Alan Jones.

      2/ Alan Jones was right that only 3% of the Earths annual emissions are man made. Karoly’s 40% figure would be right if it referred to annual atmospheric increase.

      I see what you did there David. You compared apples with oranges. You are an expert in this field. This was deliberate to mislead the audience.

      Later in the program there was much discussion of ” …for a car problem do not consult your butcher …. and …..Why do people not trust climate scientists? …”

      Exhibit 1, Dodgy Dave.

      The host and studio audience may be self selected for gullibility, but out beyond the camera there are millions of people who see you David, and are smarter than the average ABC leftard.

      Lift your game Dr Karoly, be a credit to your profession.

      400

      • #
        ian hilliar

        Many years ago, the last time I had a conversation (online) with David Karoly, he finished by blithely stating he was off to “recalibrate the Central England Temperature Record”. David and his climatescientology friends believe there is nothing wrong with homogenising data. And he still calls himself a scientist.

        310

      • #
        James in Melbourne

        Sorry, GHL, can you clarify what Karoly’s 40% refers to?

        30

        • #
          John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia

          Probably Karoly starts at 1850 when CO2 was about 280ppm (so they say). Today, it is measured at 400+ ppm. The extra 120 ppm is considered all due to man-made emissions. I don’t know why they don’t count the ocean degassing in the warming from the LIA. Alan Jones quotes 3% man-made emissions which some researchers believe is the correct figure. Isotope chemists divide up the different CO2 in the atmosphere and distinguish which isotope CO2 is from fossil fuels (inc forest fires. It is at this point I get lost.
          Maybe some reader can comment further with references.

          72

      • #
        Rob JM

        I love I how climate scientist know nothing of basic chemical principles like Henry’s Law (partial pressure equation) 98 % of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean at equilibrium. So that’s actually 40% of just 2% of the CO2 in the system.

        51

      • #
        Chad

        Karoly’s 40% figure would be right if it referred to annual atmospheric increase.

        No !..Karoly is still wrong since there is no scientific proof that the 120 ppm increase is solely due to human activity .

        71

      • #
        JB

        Alan Jones has just released the audio from an interview with Mr Karoly where Mr Karoly agrees with Alan Jones statistics on atmospheric CO2.Then in the latest Q % A Mr Karoly disputes those statistics. Maybe he was just singing from the ABC hymn book.

        90

        • #
          GD

          lan Jones has just released the audio from an interview with Mr. Karoly where Mr. Karoly agrees with Alan Jones statistics on atmospheric CO2.

          That was a brilliant stroke by Alan Jones, especially as he broadcast it on his Sky show with Peta Credlin and uploaded the podcast the next day. Well done, Alan. Stand your ground!

          10

  • #
    TdeF

    No one was a victim of the citizenship saga.

    This is a one page form which is very clear that you have to be an Australian citizen and only an Australian citizen and warns of the criminal penalty for lying on the form if you sign.

    It could not be clearer. Many of those who signed the form illegally were lawyers who can read and who charge to read such forms, but it is in plain English. The fact that so many signed illegally and tried to hang onto their valuable foreign nationality is reprehensible. No one was prosecuted or went to jail but it was a crime with severe penalties and it reflects badly on those who signed. These people are supposed to write our laws, not flaunt them.

    In creating our own parliament, we did not want people who had allegiances elsewhere and who could run away forever. This was and remains our right to demand if you want to join the Australian Government and a strict condition of joining.

    The whole saga of man made Global Warming has come from overseas. It is a political invention designed to ripoff countries like Australia. We do not need ignorant college footballers like Al Gore to tell use to hand over our cash, our parliament and make massive payments for a phony fabricated scare. We want politicians who are not dependent on overseas groups for their ideas, their ideologies, their prestige. The ABC/SBS, CSIRO, our Universities and our politicians and public servants need to represent Australians and not easily influenced by the UN, EU and their socialist bureaucrats.

    Good luck to Malcolm Roberts as a man who speaks for himself and from his own experience and knowledge, not the groupthink of any party. We need more such politicians and not opportunists in it for their own aggrandisement and profit.

    471

    • #
      Dennis

      At least MP completed and signed the form twice, to apply to become a candidate for election to Federal Parliament and in 2017 to reconfirm following the Section 44 investigations, leaving information about one parent and related right to birthright citizenship in Italy which he has publicly acknowledged via a book written about his background and on current affairs television discussing the contents of that book.

      But was not referred to the High Court.

      70

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      TDF, Lets put the sorry dual citizenship sage behind us.
      With the Wise Wizards of the High court changing the rules
      Every so often
      It all became a dopey lucky dip.
      I think those wise wizards should be billed
      For all the unneeded ‘ re-elections’

      61

      • #
        TdeF

        The rules are the rules and they were crystal clear at all times. The High Court did not change the rules. Perhaps I should have linked to the form.

        151

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          High Court Judges = lawyers = wise wizards = lucky dip law.

          I rest my case honourable TdF

          53

        • #
          sophocles

          You’re both right, so stop fighting! :-)

          73

        • #
          Analitik

          The rules are the rules and they were crystal clear at all times

          Sure, but they were inadequately enforced in the past and to apply the enforcement AFTER THE ELECTION was stupidly retrospective, highly disruptive and almost certainly immaterial to the actual vote.

          What should have been done was to pass a one term moratorium on the dual citizenship requirement to allow ongoing governance and for CANDIDATES to be vetted PRIOR to the next election so that all the dual citizen reps and senators could get things sorted in the meantime. Instead, we had a political football made out of the issue, due to some parties mistakenly thinking they would be unaffected, with all parties being affected and major costs and disruption incurred to resolve the letter of the law.

          This was a case where “common sense” (yes, that oxymoron) should have been applied.

          71

          • #
            John in Oz

            IIRC, the political parties did a retrospective investigation of the sitting members and declared them to be validly elected – no joint citizenship. Labor in particular were crowing about how careful they were to meet the law.

            Surprise, surprise. Not long after there were more dual-citizens (or persons with rights from another country) found after this exhaustive process.

            Checking CANDIDATES at the next election may not have fixed this issue.

            50

            • #
              Analitik

              Checking CANDIDATES at the next election may not have fixed this issue

              How so if all candidates (not just those initially found to have dual citizenship) had to proved they were not dual citizens prior to the next election?

              10

    • #
      a happy little debunker

      No one was a victim of the citizenship saga

      In fact, prior to 1920 Australia had no specific citizenship laws and until 1948 everyone in the British empire was considered a British subject.

      Specifically – In 1906 Australia’s High Court found that any separation from the notion of being a British subject to be a ‘novel idea’ – despite section 44 requirements of the Australian constitution.

      That it took just over another 110 years for Australia’s High Court to bring down a different ruling means that there were people who fell a foul of the ‘citizenship saga’.

      Victims included Larissa Waters (Canada), Jacqui Lambie (Scotland), Barnaby Joyce (New Zealand) and Malcolm Roberts (India).

      51

      • #
        TdeF

        They are not victims. They broke the law as was clear on the form they signed, regardless of the history of the rules. They lied.

        123

        • #
          TdeF

          You can download the Candidates Handbook. It is extremely clear. (Page 13 say) And in the guide .

          The specific form was clear. There was only one question. There was no excuse.

          111

          • #
            a happy little debunker

            In any event, their omission (to renounce a foreign citizenship) may have disqualified these candidates – but an act of omission is not evidence of any guilt.

            For example, were I to accidentally park my car’s tyre on a policeman’s foot and further omit to move my car – I have not broken any law in that ommision.

            23

            • #
              Kevin Lohse

              2 offences. Driving without due care and attention and obstructing the police in their duties.:))

              80

          • #
            Tel

            Page 13 in the handbook you linked to is NOT extremely clear, it literally tells each candidate to go get legal advice and figure it out for themselves.

            Recent decisions of the High Court sitting as the Court of Disputed Returns show how important it is that intending candidates have thoroughly researched their own personal and business circumstances and, if necessary, obtained their own legal advice on whether they may be disqualifed by the operation of section 44 of the Constitution.

            Also, I doubt that was the same handbook given to Malcolm in 2016 given that those High Court decisions happened in 2017.

            91

          • #
            John in Oz

            Whilst I agree with your position, if this is the section you are referring to:

            44 Disqualification
            Any person who:
            (i) is under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power; or

            then, should another country wish to destroy our parliament, they only have to announce that they will give rights to everyone in Australia. Don’t let N. Korea know of this wording.

            Isn’t this why so many got caught out? Rights allowed for by another country were deemed applicable to descendents of a previous citizen of that country. They were caught by this, not dual-citizenship.

            My citizenship ceremony (1980) included the words “renouncing all other allegiance” but the wording has been changed since then and no longer requires any renouncement.

            My 2 sons, born in Australia, have/had rights to a British passport (may have changed as I haven’t checked for many years) even though they are Australian born to a naturalised Aussie (me) and an Aussie whose family arrived in the 1850′s. How would they qualify as a parliamentarian (heaven forbid they were that stupid)?

            It seems to me that there needs to be several changes made to the requirements for election to parliament.

            81

            • #
              Bill in Oz

              Yes John..Agree completely.
              Our wise wizards stuffed up.
              Meanwhile roughly 60% of the Australian population
              Are directly descended from immigrants
              And thus potentially disqualified
              From seeking election to the HoR’s & Senate
              A law that has those consequences is a ‘stuffed’ law.
              Congratulations legal . experts !

              21

        • #
          a happy little debunker

          Laws are written by lawyers and are interpreted by Judges (more lawyers).

          How they were interpreted in the past (their history) is called a precedent and guides lawyers into the future as to how those laws will be applied.

          The law is far removed from your insistent black and white interpretation.

          On all matters of the Constitution, the precedent that guides us are the High Court judgements, rather than any ‘handbook’.

          40

      • #
        theRealUniverse

        With respect I find the law about dual citizen requirements totally ridiculous. Especially if applied to British commonwealth countries. Who the F…. is going to SPY or be disloyal if you end up in the Aus parliament from if also a citizen of NZ, Britain, Canada? Maybe some other non commonwealth country. Having 2 passports proves nothing.

        42

        • #
          AndyG55

          “Who the F… is going …… to be disloyal if you end up in the Aus parliament”

          Turnbull, any Green parliamentarian.. they HATE all things Australian.

          71

        • #
          MudCrab

          NZ? What sort of globalist open border commune do you live in? Having two passports proves everything.

          NZ is a dictatorship run by a tyrant.

          If it wasn’t for our join ANZAC military history and the associated warm fuzzy race memory we would be openly spying on New Zealand as we speak.

          The point of the law is that you are entirely one thing, or you are sitting on the fence, and as we all know siting on the fence only puts splinters in your bum. If the Australian government is ever forced to vote on full economical blockade of New Zealand for whatever reason – spite, terrorism, sheep/zombie/hobbit virus, losing the rugby and/or spite – we need to know absolutely that all elected members have no conflict of loyalty in debating the issue. Ethical and moral conflicts? Actively encouraged. Passport loyalty? NO.

          51

    • #
      Serp

      “flout” not “flaunt”

      40

  • #
    Mark Smith

    They are victims because another country can award you citizenship or stipend even though never applied for it or even know about it. No divided loyalty rather a simple impossible requirement- signong for something that you can’t guarantee.

    72

    • #
      TdeF

      That is common. Most countries have patriality. Britain. New Zealand. Most. Children of overseas born citizens are very aware of the fact that they enjoy privileges whether Britain, Italy, New Zealand. It is a gift from their parents but the form makes it clear that they must renounce this before they sign the form. Some waited until they were elected and some never bothered. That under our laws and Section 44 of the constitution is illegal.

      92

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    A former coal miner, born in India, and noted conspiracy theorist, who does Malcom Adani Roberts represent? Certainly not the state, as he is supposed to.

    160

    • #
      AndyG55

      He represents Qld, as an ELECTED member of the Senate.

      He is not a conspiracy theorist, that is YOUR meme. He is a climate realist.

      A coal miner.. you mean someone you actually WORKED for a living?

      Maybe you should try it some time !

      Your comment is EMPTY, yet again.

      381

    • #

      Peter, your arrogance knows no bounds.

      Who does he represent? The voters who choose him. Just like every other Senator.

      If the state doesn’t serve some voters well, who do they vote for?

      410

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        So, he represents 77 queenslanders.

        030

        • #
          AndyG55

          At the first count only three senators had achieved the required quota of 414,495 votes, 2 Libs and 1 Labor. Roberts was in 4th place with 296,114 votes.

          He represent ALL of Queensland.

          GET OVER IT, you poor deceitful and petulant sook !

          391

        • #

          77 Queenslanders eh! Peter Fitzroy.

          At the declaration of the result, Malcolm Roberts ended up with 297,994 primary votes. (looks to me to be a little more than 17) (One Nation 10.3% of the Queensland vote in all)

          The devout anti Adani candidate, Larissa Waters of the Greens Party received 288,320 primary votes, so Roberts got almost 10,000 votes more than she did. (Greens Party 9.9% of the vote in all)

          That of itself tells a story about what Queenslanders think eh!

          Tony.

          260

        • #
          Maptram

          According to the AEC website M. Roberts ON got 296114 first preference votes, L. Waters GRN got 284816 first preference votes

          80

        • #
          MudCrab

          Legally elected under the laws our political system of government is run by.

          Either deal with it or lobby your (legally elected) local member to push for voting reform for FUTURE elections. Those are your two adult options in your life.

          Crying about it like a five year old is only going to make the other kids no longer want to play with you, and playtime is harsh enough an experience without having that happen.

          100

        • #

          Dear Peter, some news for you — we have a preferential voting system.

          The 77 “first votes” thing was a petty fake attack from small minded hypocrites who never once said the same thing about other politicians elected the same way. How many first preferences did the second Labor senator get in Vic? Only 5,995. How about the second ALP in SA 1,124 votes, but they got elected.

          The people who voted for a small conservative party in 2016 sent their preferences to Roberts ahead of all your preferred candidates. You might have been unhappy about it, but they weren’t, or they wouldn’t have voted for him again.

          210

        • #

          The 77 votes below the line was in the 2016 election when he was elected with excess votes from above the line that went to ON and Pauline Hanson got in (I think fifth place out of 12) for a 6 year term
          This last 2019 election Malcolm Roberts I think got something like 29,000 votes below the line and then picked up the above line vote to get almost 300,000 first preference votes. He then had preference votes from eliminated candidates and finished 4th out of 6 senators. The Greens candidate (Waters) at the 2016 election finished in the bottom 6 of 12 and had a term only of three years. She then had to stand down because of section 44 but then was reappointed to the senate. In this election she finished in last place out of 6 and only just beat the second ALP candidate. I predict that Waters will not be returned in 6 years time. In 3 years time Pauline Hanson will be up for reelection and will win a seat by a big margin.

          60

        • #
          Michael262

          I’m looking forward to a similar Cox style outing of Mal’s tinfoil hat beliefs.

          10

    • #
      Vladimir

      You are correct, Peter.
      There is no global warming conspiracy, at least no more than a conspiracy by ants to amass around sugar spilled on my kitchen floor.

      130

    • #

      Coal miner AND a conspiracy theorist! Perfect to represent me…but for the Qld thing.

      120

    • #
      Ted O’BRIEN.

      Ha ha! He represents ME. I’ll claim him! Not my state, but his politics are sound.

      210

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      If you push that argument Peter Fitzroy, then neither is larissa Waters who I think was just re-elected as a senator as well..
      Or were you just trolling ?

      90

    • #
      John in Oz

      It’s a pity we do not require the voters to have high standards of education, honesty, considered thought and consideration for society above personal desires.

      If the majority of voters were conspiracy theorists (according to your definition) and/or worked in the coal industry, would you then accept Mr Roberts as a valid member?

      40

    • #
      peter

      Fitzy,
      Malcolm Roberts was a coal mine manager. My brother worked as a geologist at that same mine at the time under him. He reported that Malcolm Roberts was technically quite competent but tended to believe people would tell him the truth when asked. Unfortunately a number people including some total a/hole unionist miners would lie through their teeth to cover their arse or further their own agendas.

      100

    • #
      Carbon500

      Talking of those whom Peter Fitzroy doe not deem suitable for the job: let’s not forget Rajendra K. Pachauri – here are his credentials for his (former) chairmanship of the IPCC:
      Pachauri was born in Nainital, India. He was educated at La Martiniere College in Lucknow and at the Indian Railways Institute of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering in Jamalpur, Bihar. He belongs to the Special Class Railway Apprentices, 1958 Batch, an elite scheme which heralded the beginning of mechanical engineering education in India. He began his career with the Indian Railways at the Diesel Locomotive Works in Varanasi. He was admitted to North Carolina State University in Raleigh, United States, where he obtained an MS in Industrial Engineering in 1972, and a PhD with co-majors in Industrial Engineering and Economics in 1974. His doctoral thesis was titled ‘A dynamic model for forecasting of electrical energy demand in a specific region located in North and South Carolina.’ He is a strict vegetarian, largely because of “the environmental and climate change implications.
      Then of course we have our British Members of Parliament, few of whom have a scientific background, yet they voted in the laughable Climate Change Act, and now we have the ‘planetary emergency’ nonsense, and a vow to be ‘carbon neutral’ by 2050.
      As the saying goes, you couldn’t make it up – not even in your wildest dreams!

      21

    • #
      GD

      That’s the most red thumbs I’ve ever seen on this blog. Well done, Peter Fitz.

      00

  • #
    Graeme No.3

    Malcolm Roberts will be a welcome addition to the Senate, partly because he isn’t gullible about AGW.

    On the citizen thing, perhaps someone will force parliament to fix the problem, by arguing in court that at the time the first parliament sat a majority of the members would have classified themselves as British.

    241

    • #
      glen Michel

      I agree.This time I hope he takes it a bit more deliberately and avoid media traps.He appeared too much the zealot.I wish him all the best!

      10

  • #
    Hasbeen

    I think it is time to apply the same condition for anyone to be employed in national or state public service.

    110

  • #
    Maptram

    “DAVID KAROLY: There are certainly some people in the governments that understand the science. There are also a range of different people, including, I guess, Malcolm Roberts, who had very different opinions when he came on Q&A and had discussions with Brian…

    TON Y JONES: But he’s not in the government.

    DAVID KAROLY : He is not.

    TONY JONES: Yes.”

    He may not be in government but the way numbers are looking his vote in the Senate will count

    320

  • #
    John F. Hultquist

    Just a thought:
    If the head-person of some sh–hole country granted citizenship to a couple dozen of your elected folks and sent along $100, could they all be purged, so to speak?

    110

  • #
    a happy little debunker

    David Karoly stated that by as late as 1919 the Planet’s atmospheric CO2 concentration was 280 ppm – rather than 1879, out by only 40 years.

    An error margin of 40% that he should perhaps preface to all his other efforts.

    250

    • #
      Graeme#4

      Apparently Karoly has had a scientific paper withdrawn after publication due to problems with the data.

      210

      • #

        Yes, that is right he was supposed to do the statistics but got them wrong. I think Karoly was so confident about the AGW scam he was writing that he put up a draft of the paper and a clever lady saw the error within a few hours of it being posted on the web and Karoly was forced to withdraw it. Karoly previously had a paper on butterflies being less plentiful around Laverton Victoria blaming it on climate but forgot to put in the paper that there was an military airfield there plus land being clear for housing etc. Karoly has no qualifications to be able to make an assessment of climate. However, he does have a big month and a convincing way of talking (is that not typical of con men?)

        120

        • #
          Carbon500

          Cementafriend: ‘However, he does have a big mouth and a convincing way of talking (is that not typical of con men?)’ – a fairly typical CAGW alarmist’s job description, I’d say!

          00

  • #
    WXcycles

    “Labor suffers record loss”, but ABC and lefty-Lovies still can’t figure out that their pet religion has been deemed insufferable BS by Australia? When in a hole, first, stop digging.

    210

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      The result was due to low-information deplorables who didn’t know what they were voting for./sarc

      90

  • #
    A Crooks

    This is fabulous news! Note too, that SA came within an ace of of electing a One Nation Senator too.
    I met her – Jennifer Game – during the campaign and was very impressed. Keep your eye out for her and keep your mind open. I think One Nation may be attracting some interesting candidates.

    220

  • #
    TdeF

    The only comedy was Nick Xenophon. Son of a Cypriot and an experienced practicing lawyer, he knew he was in serious legal trouble and resigned.

    What he did not know was that his father’s partial British citizenship did not include British patriality, so he could have stayed. It is doubly ironic as his father hated the British and left at 18 in 1948 after the mass murder of British soldiers by Cypriots who hated the British.

    He need not have resigned.

    130

    • #
      Bill in Oz

      It was not a wise move I admit
      But at the time he said he resigned to lead the SA Best Campaign to get rid of the Labor state government.
      That was truly very needed.
      And the ( extremely ‘progressive’ ) Liberals are now in power here.
      Ummmmmm ?

      :-(

      60

      • #
        MudCrab

        Just like he lead the No Pokies Party to get rid of poker machines in South Australia.

        The man made a career about of finding and latching onto causes just high enough to gave media and popular support, but low enough that he would never actually have to take full ownership of them.

        To the media he may have still been a darling, but the voters didn’t think so.

        40

        • #
          Bill in Oz

          Actually he succeeded in getting rid of a lot of poker machines in SA.
          The newly elected Labor government back in 2004 put a cap on the number of poker machines in SA.
          And then reduced the cap by about 4-5,000 !
          But did he get them banned completely ?
          No.
          SA is too dependent on gaming revenue to do that.

          30

        • #
          Serp

          “led” not “lead”

          30

  • #
    beowulf

    The main thing is that the Occasional-Cortex of Australian politics — Sarah Hanson-Young — made it back into the senate to gift us with her intellect and astute insight into our many problems.

    On a serious note, I thought I understood roughly how our senate state quota system functioned, but now I have zero idea.

    In NSW Jim Molan got 137,325 votes — 0.2047 quotas; Mehreen Faruqi (GREENS) got 25,097 votes — 0.0374 quotas. Faruqi is our new senator and Molan is out in the cold. How the hell does that work?

    120

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      beowulf:

      The problem does from the preference vote being transferred at full value. If it was reduced to half in value then the value of “preference whistling” with a chain of parties accumulating the votes until, as in a tontine, the survivor gets the lot.

      60

    • #
      Peter C

      You can read the whole thing here;
      https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-24310-NSW.pdf

      At the first round Molan had 137,325 votes. Jim Molan was in 4th place on the Liberal ticket. That means that 137,325 people voted below the line and put him first, far above the No.2 Liberal who only got 2,533 primary votes.

      Faruqi was the No.1 Green and had 405,211 votes at the first round.

      100

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      It does raise concerns.

      Was that primary votes or after distribution.

      10

  • #
    Peter C

    This time they can’t run the fake news line that “he only got 77 votes”.

    Indeed they can not! It was fake news. Malcolm Roberts was No.2 on the PHON ticket at the last election. Only those who voted below the line and put M. Roberts as their first preference were recorded as voting for Malcolm. The remainder of his votes came from distribution of preferences, mainly excess votes from Pauline Hanson, after the party got more than enough to elect 2 candidates.

    I have just been reading through the way that the votes were cast this election on the AEC Tally Room site;
    https://tallyroom.aec.gov.au/External/SenateStateDop-24310-QLD.pdf

    At the first count only three senators had achieved the required quota of 414,495 votes, 2 Libs and 1 Labor. Roberts was in 4th place with 296,114 votes.

    Malcolm Roberts was the fourth senator elected, ahead of the 3rd Liberal and the Green (who was elected with less than a full quota ;397,065).

    It was interesting to follow the whole process through as the lower candidates were eliminated one by one. Roberts stayed just ahead of the Green all the way, in the end gaining 467,371 votes which was 52,876 more than the required quota.

    113,296 votes were declared exhausted. That means that the voter did not fill out all the boxes and their vote ended with a candidate that did not get elected.

    140

  • #
    Michael Spencer

    Could not be better news to see Malcolm back – Roberts, not Turnbull!

    And now for Malcolm to resume his good work of interrogating the ‘global warming/climate change’ fraudsters.

    Happy Day!

    300

  • #
    Elgorza Narce

    Congratulations to Malcolm. It is wonderful to have a sane voice amongst the largely “unrepresentative swill”

    I still remember Malcolm’s appearance on Q&A a few years ago.

    Pretty Boy, Professor Brian Cox was also on the panel that night and attempted to ridicule Malcolm by holding up a piece of paper with some IPCC chart, which was showing “beyond any question” that Global Warming was occurring and of course humans were responsible.
    As usual the unbiased (cough cough) host, Tony Jones, shut down any meaningful discussion on the subject and tried to make Malcolm look like a conspiracy theorist.

    Clearly the BBC is grooming Cox to be their climate poster boy, when Attenborough eventually departs this earth.

    I once had an enormous amount of respect for Attenborough…..But this has unfortunately disappeared since he began drinking the CAGW Kool Aid.

    311

  • #
    Geoff Williams

    The people of Queensland woke up to the climate change / warming hoax when they realised that Labour was planning to set in place laws that would destroy their jobs and their livelihoods. Well done to them !!
    GeoffW

    190

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    Hope he can show up the scam for what it is, good work!

    110

  • #
    Yonniestone

    The CAGW establishment are absolutely terrified of Malcolm Roberts as he’s one of the few Australian Politicians that knows the Climate Change industry’s history and isn’t afraid to talk about in public, the only thing hindering his scientific truths is the CAGW compliant MSM and their smear campaigns.

    In the immortal words of Teddy Whitten “Stick it up em, stick it right up em!”

    140

    • #
      beowulf

      He knows his stuff right enough, but his ability to debate and to present the facts forcefully is wanting. He needs to choose his venues and his words carefully or they will be used against him. For starters he should stay right away from Q & A and the ABC in general. He never should have gone there last time, and you can bet Tony Jones will be looking for a re-run now to discredit Roberts once more.

      100

  • #
    scaper...

    I’ve known Malcolm for a decade or so. I don’t believe he is a politician because he has too much conviction. I believe he went into politics to represent us…the sceptics.

    He spent years trying to talk sense into the Libs…on his dime. It was a tough road at times and he deserves the place he has earnt and we wish him the best.

    180

    • #
      Vladimir

      Can somebody think of the way we, sceptics, can meaningfully support him ?

      I respect PH a lot but do not think much of her as a political force, there would be plenty of people on this forum.

      50

      • #
        Vladimir

        Apologies – plenty of people like me.

        10

      • #
        Ted O'Brien.

        Vlad, Pauline Hanson has had a very substantial effect in Australian politics, and stands to get her recognition in the coming parliament.

        Three years from now she will be able to retire from politics, job done, and start work on the movie.

        10

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Congratulations Queensland on your election of Malcolm Roberts. He sounds like a man with his head screwed on facing straight down the road instead of off to one side distraction or another.

    50

  • #
    Simon

    Once again, racism and climate change denial go hand in hand. Both are strong indicators of intrinsic selfishness.

    219

    • #

      Don’t know much about Malcolm Roberts but it seems he makes the Holocene deniers nervous, which has to be a good thing. (Holocene denial is where centuries of geology, stratigraphy, speleology, glaciology, archaeology and history are repressed in favour of a creepy political agenda-cum-fad masquerading as a science.)

      And if you disagree with me I’ll yell…waaaacist!

      230

    • #
      AndyG55

      So Simon, you are a admitting to being racist, and you deny natural climate variability..

      .. is that what you are saying?

      How very selfish of you.. A Green’s voter, no doubt !

      151

    • #
      el gordo

      Simon I have it on good authority that the Denialati are not racist.

      The good news is that Cory Bernardi is rejoining the Coalition.

      60

    • #
      Cookster

      Simon:- In fact the majority of Greens voters live in the pampered inner city and don’t see first hand the results of their policies usually felt most in the mid / outer suburbs, middle Australia and regional Australia. Let’s not also forget the IPCC whose hymn book the Greens sing to say we should all stop eating meat to save the planet. Greens voters are the selfish ones.

      80

    • #
      Carbon500

      Simon: what on Earth are you talking about?

      10

  • #
    cedarhill

    Any Aussie Green that wants to leave for a better Green political area for the Green agenda can now move to either New York state of California. NY is about to pass a Green law to move NY back into the pre-Stone Age. Oh, and take along all you woolen clothes, etc. It’s much colder in winter in NY than what most Aussies experience in their native land.

    30

  • #
    Cookster

    I’m happy for Malcolm but Labor’s worst result is tempered by the fact the Marxist “Greens” still have 9 senators.

    60

    • #
      JB

      Labors’ worst result could still be the loss of the safe Labor seat of Hunter where the sitting Labor members vote count is still trailing the combined One Nation and National vote. Even if we combined the Labor, Green and Socialist Alliance vote in Hunter it is still not 50% of the total. If Labor wins Hunter it will be on a drift of One Nation or National preferences.

      40

  • #
    glen Michel

    10 % informal vote. Most view Hunter as a Labor hold.I wish otherwise.

    20