In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.
I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.
Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.
Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event?
Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.
Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?
Ms Spence: No, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?
Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.
Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.
Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?
Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?
Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.
Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.
Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—
Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—
ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?
Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.
Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?
Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.
Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?
Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?
Ms Spence: No.
Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?
Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.
Why are courts reducing sentences for child sex offenders based on cultural background? This deeply troubling question was one I raised during Estimates.
I cited a case where a convicted child sex offender had his sentence reduced because the judge believed his cultural upbringing made him think the crime wasn’t seriously wrong. Australians are rightly horrified. I asked whether such reasoning could ever apply to Commonwealth offences. Ms Sharp assured me that while courts consider personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence remains. Still, the fact this even happens is alarming.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?
Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.
Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?
Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.
Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?
Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.
Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed?
Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/GupVMa2vhzs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 11:46:112026-01-21 11:46:14Culture is No Excuse for Crime
I raised with the ACCC a disturbing new “emergency backstop” that allows energy providers to remotely control our homes and car batteries.
The government and energy giants call it “grid stability.” Let’s call it what it is: remote control over your private property. You paid for the battery, you generated the power, yet they want to flip a switch and stop you from exporting electricity whenever it suits them.
I asked the ACCC Chair if she’s worried about this overreach. While they claim “conditions and regulations” will protect competition, we’ve heard that story before. Australians shouldn’t have to ask for permission to use the energy they produce in their own homes.
We need answers, not just “monitoring.”
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I just want to ask this question about the 19 May media release, ‘ACCC proposes to allow collaboration between energy providers’. I have many questions here, but I’ll probably keep these over till next time. Are you aware that this public key infrastructure service—I’m talking about batteries and access to home batteries and car batteries—which consumers pay for, will enable distribution network service providers to remotely limit or prevent electricity export into the grid by consumer energy resources in times of significant excess production known as an emergency backstop mechanism? Are you worried about this remote control that will affect householders?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are aware of that purpose. It was put to us, particularly by the Australian Energy Market Operator, in terms of powers that are needed to ensure the stability of the grid. We also imposed conditions in terms of diversity of governance and other aspects to ensure that the ability to use that infrastructure would enable continued competition and continued access for the management, for example, of virtual power plants and home batteries so that it wouldn’t be restricted to only the distribution networks themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have confidence in those restrictions or regulations?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We carefully consulted on them. We put them in place because we were satisfied with them, but we will also monitor that.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768953018998-7d001544-5d54-4ca7-8181-6e977541c192.png6371135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 10:27:022026-01-21 10:27:08Remote Control Over Your Home
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
The “Australian Dream” hasn’t just faded—it’s been sold out.
Young Australians are being forced into a impossible choice: become a lifelong debt slave to the banks, or pay rent to a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock forever.
Here is the reality the major parties are trying to dodge: 👉 It now takes 30 years to save a deposit near the city – a national tragedy. 👉 The government is using insane mass migration to prop up GDP and hide the fact that we are in a per-capita recession. 👉 We’re giving tax breaks to foreign investment funds to “Build to Rent” while local families are priced out of auctions. 👉 Bureaucracy is stopping our tradies from actually building the homes we need.
We don’t need cringeworthy TikToks or “election bribes” disguised as subsidies. We need a government that isn’t afraid to speak the truth about the root causes.
While the “Uniparty” of Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens runs and hides from these facts, One Nation is the only party standing up for everyday Australians. We’re committed to putting your family’s future ahead of global corporate interests and fixing the migration numbers so the next generation can actually own a piece of Australia.
It’s time to put Australia first. It’s time for One Nation.
Transcript
I move:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.
The government has offered young Australians starting out in life two equally terrible options: either become a debt slave to the banks forever or rent from a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock and never actually own a home. Successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments—uniparty governments, that is—have failed to address the root cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration. Why would they do that? The answer is simple: necessity. After years of selling Australia out to their foreign masters, such as BlackRock Inc, Australia’s domestic economy was performing so badly that immigration became the government’s lifeline.
Australia has had negative per capita income for five successive quarters. What that means is that everyday Australians are going backwards. Their small pay rises do not compensate for inflation.
The reason the Australian economy as a whole is not in recession is the spending from new arrivals, as they furnish their homes and buy clothes, appliances and so on. This feeds on the GDP. But, per capita, we’re in recession. It’s economic sherbet. Once the sugar hit wears off, these new arrivals wind up in the same cost-of-living recession as Australians.
Instead of developing infrastructure, reducing red tape, reducing green tape, reducing blue UN tape and getting private employment going again, the government takes the easy way out: more migrants, and more, and more. Decades of mass immigration have led us to this place we are in today, where we have 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not citizens of Australia. We now have absolute confirmation that neither Labor nor the Greens, the Liberals or the Nationals are capable of solving, nor can they be trusted to solve, the real cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration.
And it’s a crisis. The latest CPI data shows that housing has now risen 5.9 per cent in the last year—an accelerating rate of increase. And electricity, by the way, went up 37 per cent, as those election bribes Labor gave you—sorry, electricity ‘subsidies’—started to expire. According to CoreLogic, it now takes someone on the average wage 12 years to save for a home deposit on the outskirts of Sydney and 30 years to save for the deposit on a home close to the city—30 years, for a deposit! Servicing a home loan now costs 42 per cent of income. The point at which a mortgage is considered to be impaired used to be 30 per cent. That’s insane! It’s a tragedy for young Australians.
The blame for this rests squarely with the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties. You have taken the option of homeownership away from young people with your insane mass immigration and your net zero agendas. You, and you, have allowed foreign multinational corporations and superannuation funds to bid up the price of Australian homes, and you’ve stood idly by while young people have walked away from auctions in tears. Instead, you make cringeworthy TikTok videos. You make promises that are not and cannot be kept, because you run and hide from the real reasons for the crisis: the Ponzi scheme that mass immigration has become. You run and hide.
Here’s what One Nation wanted this parliament to vote on today:
That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency:
The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more.
Yet the other parties want to remove the facts, the data, from One Nation’s motion. No-one wants to talk about the fact that there are 4.7 million visa holders—people who are not Australian citizens—in the country right now, all needing homes. No-one wants to talk about the tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords BlackRock Inc. No-one wants to talk about foreign ownership of Australian homes—no-one, except One Nation.
There is a reason why One Nation is the most trusted party in the country on the issue of migration—that’s what the polls are saying quite clearly. The reason is simple: we care; they don’t. One Nation will govern for everyday Australians. It’s time for a One Nation government now.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5A4xddamdpo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:50:092026-01-15 13:50:13The Great Australian Sell-Out
Let’s call “Net Zero” what it really is: a massive wealth transfer to parasitic billionaires – making you poorer, your bills higher, and our country weaker.
The reality is: ✔️ High electricity prices driving up the cost of food, groceries, and transport. ✔️ Record high closures and insolvencies of established businesses. ✔️ Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industries are struggling to stay afloat while the government chases “green” pipe dreams that don’t work. ✔️ BILLIONS in debt being dumped on our children’s shoulders.
Billions of dollars is being wasted on “carbon abatement” and “green hydrogen” schemes that physics and chemistry tell us are a sham. Meanwhile, mass immigration is being used to mask the true cost, forcing you to cut your standard of living just to meet their impossible targets.
A One Nation government will: ✅ Abolish Net Zero, terminating the net zero transition, scrapping carbon accounting for businesses, and shutting down any project where cutting losses is cheaper for the taxpayer, or environmental damage is too great—running existing assets only until they they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. ✅ Repeal fraudulent flood maps being used by mostly foreign owned insurance companies to price gouge consumers, raking in record profits. ✅ Stop the subsidy “gravy train.” ✅ Use our own affordable energy to keep the lights on and the prices down. ✅ And most importantly – stop the mass immigration that’s crushing our housing and infrastructure. Remigrate the hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing. REMIGRATE — SEND HOME – DEPORT!
Since 2005, Australia’s population has surged 40%, yet this government is demanding we slash total carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels by 2035 —meaning every single Australian is being forced to pay the price to accommodate mass migration. The more the population grows, the harder you are hit – and it will only get worse until we have the courage to say: enough is enough – not one cent more.
We must stop the madness before there’s nothing left to save.
Australia belongs to us, not the globalists.
Transcript
Let’s call net zero for what it really is: fraudulent, supposed science covering up income redistribution protected with big brother government measures—that’s it—making everyday Australians economically, environmentally and socially worse off. Net zero measures are driving up the price of electricity and increasing prices with flow-on effects throughout the economy—food, groceries, clothing, transport, travel and accommodation. Everything you buy goes up if electricity goes up. Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industry all use electricity and are struggling to stay in business.
In 2024, there were 5,136 closures of established businesses, meaning those in business for five years or more. In 2024, there were 10,497 business insolvencies—up almost 30 per cent on 2023. Has anyone on the Greens benches bothered to ask what these Australians who have lost everything think about what you and net zero have done to their businesses? Has anyone asked? We have. Some of these measures are idiocy—green hydrogen, green steel, green aluminium. This technology does not work. That is proven. It does not work, and it never will. Physics and chemistry tell us that. It’s nothing but a scheme to farm parasitic subsidies, without which the idea would not even be contemplated.
These appropriations bills channel billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into the pockets of crony capitalists, lining up by pigs in a trough, and there’s Minister Bowen, throwing more and more taxpayer money into the trough—wasted, but who pays? The people pay. Small businesses pay. These appropriation bills contain significant allocations for net zero measures.
Firstly, the department of climate change and energy—$1,234,567,890. There’s $1.2 billion for what? Support for net zero emissions by 2050 through renewable energy initiatives and emissions reduction programs. This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound ball. No. 2, $987,654,321—nearly $1 billion for what? Funding for decarbonisation projects and clean energy infrastructure to achieve low emissions targets. Carbon is in every living organism’s every cell. And then No. 3, $456,789,123 almost half a billion dollars. What have we racked up so far? $2.7 billion. For what? Investment in carbon abatement strategies and sustainable development to mitigate climate change impacts—carbon is in every cell of every living organism. This is just one appropriation bill. This gravy train for the government’s parasitic, big-business mates—collecting subsidies, feeding off subsidies—has been going on for years, encouraged by both major parties and the Greens. Yet the Albanese government is projecting deficits in every year of the 48th parliament totalling over $100 billion. That’s money that will be needed to be borrowed and debt that everyday Australians will have to repay—$3,700 for every man, woman, baby and child in this country plus interest, and we’re already paying interest in such a large quantity that it’s almost the single largest line item in the budget.
A One Nation government will abolish the net zero transition. Our policy includes terminating all projects and removing all carbon dioxide accounting requirements on businesses, repealing fraudulent flood maps being used by insurance companies to price gouge consumers and to generate record profits for mostly foreign-owned insurance companies. Think of BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Colonial First State et cetera, the global wealth funds. They own and control our insurance companies. We will terminate any existing project that’s at a stage where termination is cheaper for the taxpayer than the continuing or where the project is too damaging to the natural environment to continue operation. We will, of course, use the generation that has been put in place until they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. And, most importantly, our immigration policy will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, and we will limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing—remigrate, send home, deport.
Remember, net zero is not reducing carbon use per person. It’s supposedly reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels in total by 2035—supposedly. Think about this—Australia’s population has grown by 40 per cent since 2005. That means we all have to reduce our carbon dioxide production by an extra 40 per cent, and this figure goes up with every new migrant arrival. The pain is only just getting started unless the Senate has the courage to stop this madness and the integrity to stop this madness. Join One Nation in saying to this government, ‘Not one cent more—you’ve blown trillions.’ I foreshadow my amendment on sheet 3466 to remove net zero funding from this appropriation bill. Thank you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/VJTqSaHX5E4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:37:552026-01-15 13:37:59Australians Are Being Sold a Lie
Victoria has taken another step toward eroding democracy and destroying the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar project, completely ignoring objections from locals. Under new laws in Victoria, there’s no right to appeal this decision.
This is about appeasing wealthy urban voters under the guise of a false climate emergency—not saving the planet.
The project will turn 566 hectares of prime farmland into an industrial site, destroying property values, tourism, and jobs. Toxic runoff from degrading panels will flow into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton described the approval as “an autocratic imposition without regard for liberal democracy.” No wonder many Victorians are leaving Victoria-stan!
Labor’s climate crusade is a façade—behind it lies the destruction of our human and natural environment.
– Senate Speech | November 2025
Transcript
Last week, Victoria continued its incremental destruction of human rights and the natural environment. Premier Allan’s extremist government has approved the Meadow Creek industrial solar installation against the wishes of local residents. Five hundred submissions opposing the development were lodged by people who did not realise Victoria is no longer a democracy and the will of the people is a joke to Premier Allan. Under new laws in Victoria, there can’t be any appeal to this decision. Premier Allan will happily run roughshod over communities it doesn’t need votes from to pander to constituents it does. In this case, rich urban voters with an ability complex, happy to destroy the natural to assuage their guilt at living lives of plenty on the back of Australia’s coal power—all in the name of a fictitious, dishonest climate emergency. What they’re really doing is denying young Australians the same life they led—a life which included homeownership on a single wage, proper holidays, a decent education without a lifetime of debt, and a healthy natural environment.
RMIT planning professor Michael Buxton has described approval of Meadow Creek as ‘the autocratic imposition of a project without any regard for the principles of a liberal democracy’—a massive $750 million development turning 566 hectares of prime farmland into a toxic industrial site, destroying the value of neighbouring properties, destroying the natural environment, destroying tourism, destroying employment in agriculture and tourism and destroying the human environment. The toxic run-off from the solar panels, once they start to degrade, will go straight into the Ovens River water supply catchment and then into the Murray-Darling Basin. The Labor Party lies say they’re not running a war on the bush. No wonder so many Victorians are leaving and seeking political asylum anywhere other than Victoria-stan. Victoria is dishonestly pretending to save the planet while killing the human environment and natural environment. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/K3RMhnkka8U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-15 13:23:112026-01-15 13:23:15Killing the Bush to Please the Cities
The International and Foreign Investment Group is still trying to tell us that foreign ownership of Australian housing is less than 1%. They’re sticking to a figure of 0.8% and say they have “full confidence” in it.
I asked them a simple question: Does any real estate agent or any Australian actually believe that?
The truth is, they’ve never conducted market research to see if the public trusts their data. They track the “flow” of new sales while ignoring the massive amount of housing already in foreign hands.
Australians are being priced out of the housing market, while bureaucrats ignore what’s really happening in our suburbs and rely on data that just doesn’t pass the pub test.
I will continue to question these figures until we get answers that reflect reality.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I have the International and Foreign Investment Group, please. Do you still maintain the view that, in Australia, foreign ownership of housing is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Ms Di Marco: I’ll hand most of these questions to Mr Tinning and Ms Sloan, who I think have the statistics in front of them and can speak to any policies of the government. But I just want to caution at the beginning of the session that, if we start to get into questions of application of residential real estate, many of them may need to be taken on notice because that is the remit of the Australian Taxation Office. But I’ll hand over to Mr Tinning.
Senator ROBERTS: The chair will be happy with that.
CHAIR: I will be.
Mr Tinning: We don’t have figures for the total stock of housing, but we do have annual figures for purchases.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you still believe that they’re under one per cent?
Mr Tinning: We have figures for 2023-24, with the latest available figure being purchases at 0.8 per cent, so that is under one per cent.
Senator ROBERTS: You do. Do you honestly believe that any real estate agent in Australia accepts the claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent of the housing market?
Mr Tinning: These figures are from the ATO, and we have very strong faith in their ability to accurately monitor these figures. They have very strong systems, so we are confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’ve been on that merry-go-round, and I used to ask you questions. You told me to go to the ATO, so I went to the ATO. Do you honestly think any Australian believes that foreign ownership is less than one per cent?
Mr Tinning: I can’t comment on the views of the Australian populace, but we are very confident in those figures.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you for your views.
Mr Tinning: My views are that those figures from the ATO are accurate.
Ms Di Marco: I’m not sure that it’s for Mr Tinning to provide views on whether he thinks those figures are accurate; however, we do have those figures from the ATO. Also, just to reiterate his earlier point, the figures that we have from the ATO are about the flow, the investment number that’s been made as a proportion over the year and not the total ownership of foreign investment.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about both, but I understand that. He made that very clear. Have you ever conducted any market research or surveys around public confidence in your figures?
Ms Di Marco: No, we haven’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Ms Di Marco: In April or May 2025, the government made a range of announcements regarding strengthening controls around foreign investment in residential real estate. But I would argue that it’s not really for us to go out there and conduct market research on these sorts of matters. The government has made a range of policy decisions, and we’re looking to implement those as quickly as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: Lastly, how many forms have been lodged since the vacancy fee returns foreign owners have come into effect?
Ms Di Marco: I think we’d have to take that on notice. The ATO would hold those details.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s understandable. Could we have them on a yearly basis, please?
After raising concerns about the use of Pyriproxyfen in the fire ant prevention program, I was told by CEO Scott Hansen (APVMA) that it should not be used as a preventative measure—even after I pointed out that this is exactly what’s happening in South-East Queensland under the Queensland Fire Ant Eradication Program. I also presented evidence of widespread breaches of the permits governing the use of these chemical poisons.
In addition, I raised concerns about confusion in the permits regarding the use of chemicals near and in waterways, particularly given that S-Methoprene is highly toxic in marine environments.
Mr Hansen made it clear that treatment responsibilities fall under state jurisdiction and that the Commonwealth does not exercise oversight over how these chemicals were used. While there is a Commonwealth–State partnership, he explained that governments rely on international safety data rather than local studies. He confirmed that permit requirements are currently under review.
Mr Hansen also advised that complaints can be submitted through the Adverse Experience Reporting Program, and noted that there are currently 28 reports under consideration relating to fire ant concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. My questions are about red fire ants and about the chemical side of things. I note that the permit number PER87728, related to the permitted use of the chemical pyriproxyfen, says, ‘Do not apply as a preventative for red imported fire ant control.’ This being the case, why is it being spread widely by aerial and ground application to properties where no fire ant activity has ever been identified by people from the national fire ant eradication program, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That’s an issue I think we talked about last time. The prophylactic use of that chemical is not available under that permit and that needs to be referred to the control-of-use authority, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the effect of this chemical, pyriproxyfen, to persons who have respiratory or autoimmune diseases when applied in close proximity to them?
Mr Hansen: If applied as per the label it’s quite safe, but if applied in close proximity to them then there would obviously be concerns for them.
Senator ROBERTS: What Australian research has been done in relation to the effects that this chemical has on humans?
Mr Hansen: All of those products are either variations of existing registered products or under permit and have been assessed against the safety criteria for humans, but, again, all of those uses are as per the label requirements, in terms of our assessment for safety to people and safety to the environment.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve said that they’ve been assessed relative to Australian requirements, but that doesn’t mean that Australian research has been done, does it?
Mr Hansen: No. In some cases, we’ll use international benchmarks and international research—that’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: I note that the first Australian permit number, PER90213, related to the permitted use of the chemical S-methoprene, says: ‘Do not apply where fire ant populations are not evident or no longer evident.’ This being the case, why are people from the National Fire Ant Eradication Program insistent on applying the chemical on properties where no fire ant activity has ever been or is evident, in breach of the permit?
Mr Hansen: That sounds as though it’s in breach of the permit conditions and should be raised with the Queensland government with regard to control of use.
Senator ROBERTS: Why must baits be laid only where it is not possible for poultry to have direct access to the baits? Is it a poison to birdlife? What about our native birds?
Mr Hansen: I’m not able to answer that one.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the impact on birds?
Mr Hansen: Again, all of the assessments as to environmental impact will have been taken into account, with regard to controlling those risks, via the conditions on the permits. I don’t have that permit in front of me. There are 13 permits that we have issued, at the moment, with regard to chemicals for use in the red imported fire ants control program.
Senator ROBERTS: I have a lot of questions that might shock you if I raise them, but, in the interest of speed, I will continue. I’m confused by this permit because, on one hand, it says that treatment may be applied into waterways up to 1.5 metres from each bank, yet, in the same permit, it states that the chemical is very toxic—emphasis on ‘very toxic’—to aquatic life. How can both of these statements apply? Waterways in Samford Valley near Brisbane have already been contaminated and the aquatic life wiped out.
Mr Hansen: I’ll have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: It seems a contradiction: you can apply it close to waterways but you can’t apply it in waterways, and it’s very toxic.
Mr Hansen: It is, but there is a slight difference between ‘close to waterways’ and ‘in waterways’. But let me take that on notice and have a look at that permit for you.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. What action have you taken to prevent a repeat of the contamination of waterways?
Mr Hansen: Again, once we set the directions on the permit, it’s the state and territory governments whose responsibility it is to control and ensure that the permits are used in accordance with those instructions. If we receive information that that’s not the case, we forward it to the control-of-use authority—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What agency in Queensland would have responsibility and do you have direct oversight of them?
Mr Hansen: Not oversight. All states and territories are partners in the national registration authority scheme, and we supply that to Queensland DAFF biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Just for your information, it’s not working in Queensland, because only yesterday the program’s staff used a drone to dump poisons directly into a waterway.
Mr Hansen: I heard that evidence being given earlier.
Senator ROBERTS: Why has there been no Australian environmental impact study done in relation to the application of both of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Because if we can run off the back of good international data we will do so, if it makes sense to do so. If we need to tailor it to the Australian environment, then we do do so before we make a decision.
Senator ROBERTS: Why hasn’t it been done?
Mr Hansen: In that case, it would be either that we are confident in the ability to use the international data for our assessments or we’ve been able to tweak the international data to factor in Australia’s native wildlife and environment.
Senator ROBERTS: This is not being critical of you, because you have got limited authority in Queensland, but how do you know that Queenslanders are complying with it?
Mr Hansen: That’s something for the control of use, and, unfortunately, we don’t police the control of use; that’s for the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: So there’s no accountability? I’m not saying you’re—
Mr Hansen: There is, but it’s at the state and territory government level.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right. The federal government gives them money and the states use it without oversight.
Mr Hansen: I think that there is a shared oversight there. The use of chemicals under permits that we issue sits with the state and territory governments—in this case, the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that in 2001, when fire ants were discovered in Brisbane, a decision was made to attempt eradication based on a study and modelling predictions made by USA’s RIFA program which predicted that the ants could spread throughout the majority of Australia? An off-label permit may be applied for to use a chemical in a way that is contrary to the manufacturer’s instructions for minor use, for emergency use or for the purposes of research. Is that true?
Mr Hansen: The last piece, on the permits, I’m confident about. The first piece I’m not sure about.
Senator ROBERTS: What evidence was provided, do you know, to support the proposed limited permits? Was it data from the failed USA RIFA program?
Mr Hansen: I think it would have been environmental data and human toxicology data from around the globe with regard to those chemicals. Given the fact that the majority of those chemicals were registered products that are now being used in an alternative way, we would have looked at the original suite of data that was provided when they were registered as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I like your answers. They are direct. The chair will be very happy, I’m sure. In 2001, according to Mr Craig Jennings, the principal policy officer at the Fire Ant Control Centre, the total area to be baited during the eradication program was to be 71,000 hectares. Within the area, he said, 1,236 properties were found with infestations. By August 2004, over one million property treatments had occurred and the area had ballooned to 850,000 hectares. If the off-label permit allows for limited use, how did the APVMA consider this expansive area as limited?
Mr Hansen: There are two pieces on that. The first piece is that whenever permits expire they come back up for consideration and we look at the scope and scale of the program and how they’re going to be used. On that front, we are currently reviewing a suite of the key permits that we have in play at the moment because there’s obviously been an indication from across the program for a rapid ramp-up of both size and scale of response and we need to make sure those permits remain appropriate to that size and scale.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you do your due diligence to make sure Queensland is compliant, or how do you get the evidence to change the permit-use factors?
Mr Hansen: We look at what the proposed use pattern is. What kind of area are they talking about it being used for? How are they looking to apply it? How frequently are they looking to apply it? We factor all of that into our health assessment and environment assessment and work out if it is still appropriate for use.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you go on site up in Queensland?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t. We get the plans that they submit to us with regard to how they intend to use it and we run that against our assessment criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: In addition to pyriproxyfen and S-methoprene, permits for Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil were provided by the APVMA—two highly toxic chemicals. On 3 October 2024, the APVMA made a regulatory decision to remove the use of Chloypyrifos for most agriculture and pest use ‘due primarily to worker health and safety and environmental risk that the APVMA does not believe can be mitigated’. There was a 12-month phase out period for remaining products. Has this poison use now ceased?
Mr Hansen: The permit held for Chlorpyrifos expires in line with that phase-out date.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2000 a number of products for use around the home were cancelled. In 2019 all home, garden and domestic uses of Chlorpyrifos, as well as uses which could result in exposure to children, were cancelled. Why, if they knew of concerns, did the APVMA allow the use of these chemicals in treating homes, farms, parks, sporting fields and agricultural land?
Mr Hansen: Because the requirement for that treatment was people who were qualified and trained to carry out the treatments as opposed to allowing people to buy it off the shelves from their local retail stores and do it themselves.
Senator ROBERTS: The material safety data sheet for pyriproxyfen states that the chemical is for R&D use only. It has a rating of ‘H410 Very toxic to aquatic life with long lasting effects’ and ‘P273 Avoid release to the environment’. Section 13 says: ‘Do not contaminate water, food, or feed by storage or disposal and do not discharge to sewer system.’ The APVMA is most certainly aware of this, and so why, for 25 years, has it permitted these chemicals to be used?
Mr Hansen: Again, we would have conducted the assessments against the controlled use under the program and determined that they met the safety criteria.
Senator ROBERTS: Can we get, on notice, access to those records, please?
Mr Hansen: We can see what we can provide, definitely.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many people work within APVMA?
Mr Hansen: 226.
Senator ROBERTS: The APVMA has certain powers to manage and monitor compliance with the AGVET legislation and undertake enforcement activities when required. Is that correct?
Mr Hansen: Enforcement of the control of use in each state and territory is the responsibility of that state or territory.
Senator ROBERTS: So what I just said is not correct?
Mr Hansen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you monitor compliance at all?
Mr Hansen: No, we don’t monitor the compliance. We work in partnership with states and territories. We make the assessments as to what’s safe and how to manage the risks of chemicals that are required. We put those controls onto a label. We then work with the states and territories, and they ensure it’s being complied with and they monitor—in part with other, broader scale monitoring programs like the National Residue Survey—to ensure that we’re seeing compliance across the board.
Senator ROBERTS: So no powers have been used by the APVMA—you don’t have any powers to ensure compliance, even within the permits granted?
Mr Hansen: We have powers to ensure compliance with regard to people who are selling, distributing and using registered products. But, in terms of the control of use of a registered product or a product under permit, that role and responsibility sits with the state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is there no public register for people to report their experiences with baiting?
Mr Hansen: There is. It’s called the Adverse Experience Reporting Program. It’s on our website. We’ve received 28 reports over the past year. They range from concerns about the impact on pets to their own health to the environment. All of those have been assessed, documented and forwarded up to the Queensland government as the controlled use agency.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you name that program again, please?
Mr Hansen: The Adverse Experience Reporting Program.
Senator ROBERTS: Who specifically is responsible at the APVMA for the authorisation of these chemicals?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, the power in the legislation sits with me, and then I delegate it down to suitably qualified and technical people to make the assessments and make the judgements.
Senator ROBERTS: Who makes the final decision?
Mr Hansen: It’s whoever the delegate is on individual permits. It could be a range of people across the organisation.
Senator ROBERTS: Name the dangers of these chemicals. What has the APVMA done to monitor their impact on the environment and wildlife and the impact on the health of the communities affected?
Mr Hansen: Again, if we had evidence and data supplied to us that suggested—if they’ve been used in accordance with the permit conditions—that there were impacts, we’d reassess those conditions. If we’re getting evidence that it’s been used not in line with the permit conditions, then we raise it with the controlled use authority, that being the Queensland government.
Senator ROBERTS: What recourse have you got if you learn that they’ve done nothing about it?
Mr Hansen: Ultimately, we have to consider whether we renew the permit, and at that point in time we consider whether the instructions and the conditions on the permit are able to be followed by those that have sought the approval for use.
Senator ROBERTS: So you might either cancel the permit or not renew it—
Mr Hansen: Or not renew it—yes.
Senator ROBERTS: depending upon whether it’s deliberate noncompliance or whether it’s impossible to comply with.
Mr Hansen: That’s right.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question. Over a billion dollars of taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on a program that’s failing to eradicate fire ants. It has completely failed. They’re now into the Darling Downs and into the Murray-Darling Basin. They’re up in Central Queensland. They’re in northern New South Wales. It’s been a complete failure. The eradication has completely failed. Not only that but it’s done enormous damage environmentally and to the human community. When will the government stop wasting money and destroying the environment at the same time, and hurting people and hurting animals?
CHAIR: I don’t know that that’s a question for the officer. I’ll let the minister have a crack.
Senator Chisholm: We disagree with you, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: On the basis of what evidence?
Senator Chisholm: I know that there was evidence given earlier—and I wasn’t here for that; I apologise. But I know Minister McCarthy was. The reality is that the work is slowing the spread of fire ants, compared to what we’ve observed internationally. We think that work is important, and we’ll continue to work with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I challenge you on what you just said. You said that the work is slowing the spreading. By definition, that means eradication has failed—completely failed.
Senator Chisholm: We think the work that we’re doing is important and we don’t want to see the fire ants spread, so we’ll continue to invest with the Queensland government on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, how can you say that the work is important when it has failed? The eradication program has failed. It’s even failed as a containment program.
Senator Chisholm: We’ll continue to do our work with the Queensland government, because we think it is important.
Senator ROBERTS: But it’s failed. How can it be important when it’s failed?
Senator Chisholm: You might want to give up, but that’s not what we will do.
CHAIR: I’d say at this late hour, Senator Roberts, that I would say thank you very much. That conversation will go around in circles. Mr Hansen, arrivederci.
Mr Hansen: Thank you, Chair.
CHAIR: Thank you very much.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your concise and direct answers.
