The Cost of Looking the Other Way

,

The “she’ll be right, mate” attitude has failed us. From the Bali bombings to the Bondi massacre, the reality is clear: Radical Islam is a threat to our Western civilisation and the Albanese Labor government is too blinded by “tolerance” to see it.

While Labor and the Greens obsess over “right-wing strawmen,” they are ignoring the ecosystem of poison festering in our own backyard. Here is the truth they don’t want you to hear: ASIO is failing. They have a billion-dollar budget yet missed terrorists training in the Philippines and hate preachers holding gun licenses.

I am speaking out against this new firearm bill – the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 – because it is a blatant distraction from the government’s failure to curb extremist Islamist violence. Legal firearm owners are being used as scapegoats while radical ideologies are permitted to grow.

The “mollycoddling” has to stop. We don’t need “taxpayer-funded therapy” for extremists. One Nation’s version of deradicalisation is simple: a boarding pass and immediate deportation.

Australia doesn’t have a gun problem; we have a radical Islamic problem. This Bill is a $15 billion tax on law-abiding citizens. It does nothing to stop a terrorist with a knife or a truck. Our focus should be on removing spreaders of hate and deporting non-citizens who threaten Australian values, rather than restricting the rights of the innocent.

We must defend our Christian, Western heritage. Anyone who betrays our hospitality and wages war on Australians must be kicked out of the country.

Let’s be clear: Labor is rushing these “dog’s breakfast” bills before a Royal Commission has the chance to discover the truth.

Labor are choosing censorship and political correctness over your safety.

It’s time to stop shooting the messenger and start facing the message.

Transcript

Part of the Bondi massacre horror was the realisation that the great Australian ‘she’ll be right, mate’ has failed us. We’ve watched the growing pro-Gaza demonstrations openly calling for violence against Jews and anyone who supports them. We’ve watched Islamic clerics preach hate against Western civilisation and call for jihad—violence against unbelievers. Many Australians thought: ‘She’ll be right, mate! This is Australia. This will sort itself out.’ It did not. 

For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger, while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged. We were told that highlighting radicalisation, rather than the radicalisation itself, was the problem. Well, now look. Look! 

Australia will not be a safe and tolerant society again until the evil encouraged to fester in our beautiful country is cast out. It is an evil that has become an ‘ecosystem of poison’, as Labor’s Mike Kelly so aptly described it recently. The Bondi massacre was not Islamic-on-Jewish terror imported from the other side of the world. The gunmen did not stop to ask if the victims were Jewish before executing them. We must call Bondi what it is: a radical Islamist attack on all Australians. 

Why were the Labor Party, the Greens, the teals and the globalist Liberals so blind to the growing threat of Islamic terror in this country? As recently as 16 May 2023, Prime Minister Albanese denied the reality of Islamic terrorism when he said: … the strongest threat that has been identified for our security has been right-wing extremism. 

This statement from the Prime Minister and quisling bureaucrats is misdirection. Fascists and white supremacists are a strawman argument; their numbers are tiny and their influence non-existent, yet the Prime Minister knowingly and deliberately uses them to divert Australians’ attention away from radical Islam. 

The Greens are advocating an extension to the hate crimes legislation to cover hate against LGBQ+, transgenders and anyone else who does not worship their religion of the sky god of warming. Okay—I threw in the climate. But, once censorship laws such as those the Prime Minister is pushing are introduced, the inevitable outcome will be the deplatforming of political opponents. The Greens’ call to extend the hate crimes provisions are designed to confuse the issue, to create multiple moving targets and to allow the government to pretend it’s doing something without ever taking action against the real problem: Islamic terror. 

One only has to look at the history of Islamic terror attacks against Western civilisation to see strong measures are needed now. In the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, there were 12 dead. In the Bali bombings of 2002, there were 202 dead, including 88 Australians. In the second Bali bombings, 2005, there were 20 dead, including four Australians. In the London bombings, 2005, there were 52 dead. In the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, 2015, there were 12 dead. In the Brussels Airport bombings, 2016, there were 32 dead. In the Nice truck ramming, 2016, there were 86 dead—and no calls for a truck buyback. In the Berlin Christmas market truck ramming, 2016, there were 12 dead—no truck buyback. In the Pulse gay nightclub attack in Orlando, 2016, there were 49 dead. In the Manchester Arena bombing, 2017, there were 22 dead. In the Hamas attack in Israel on 7 October 2023, there were 1,180 dead. In Moscow’s Crocus City Hall bombing and stabbing attack in Russia in 2024, there were 145 dead. And now there’s Bondi, which was not the first Islamic terrorist attack in Australia. There was the Lindt Cafe siege in Sydney in 2014, with two dead; the car ramming in Bourke Street, Melbourne in 2017, with six dead—no car buyback; and the stabbing of Bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel in 2024. Islamic terror is here—right here—on Australian soil, and it’s been here for 25 years. All these terrorist attacks were predicated on a hatred of Western civilisation and a fundamental belief that Islam will rule the world and nonbelievers will convert or die. 

ASIO can’t warn against what it can’t see. ASIO’s budget is now over a billion dollars a year, double what it was five years ago, and it’s not enough. Australia must decide: does it further increase ASIO funding or does it start sending people home who have demonstrated hatred for Australians? 

At ASIO, there are 230 potential terrorists being monitored while they participate in deradicalisation therapy at the taxpayer’s expense. Here’s One Nation’s deradicalisation therapy: boarding passes, immediate deportation and remigration, never to return. While ASIO were busy mollycoddling violent extremists, they missed the Bondi shooters travelling to a known Philippines terrorist training ground for an extended stay before returning and committing their terror. ASIO missed that the father of a suspected terrorist purchased three guns on the same Thursday night in September 2023 from the same New South Wales firearms dealer. 

ASIO missed that hate preacher Wissam Haddad holds a current New South Wales firearms licence. Haddad led Sydney’s Al Madina Dawah Centre where Naveed Akram, one of the Bondi shooters, studied. Akram’s father had a gun licence for six guns in New South Wales. How did none of this trip a red flag for New South Wales police, Home Affairs or ASIO? A royal commission must determine if this was wilful ignorance to protect a demographic that’s much more likely to vote Labor than conservative. 

Australia is not the country it was when I was growing up. The destruction of social harmony started when successive governments let in people who came to live apart from us and not to assimilate with us. Those who betray the hospitality we show them must be required to leave. Those who wage war crimes against Australians should be charged. As an example, ISIS brides travelled overseas to conduct war against Australia and against our armed forces. 

ISIS bride Zehra Duman spoke on social media in 2015 and demanded that the faithful ‘attack the UK, Australia and the United States’. ‘Kill them, stab them, poison their food’—your food. This is who Minister Burke knowingly and secretly enabled and helped to be smuggled back into our country. They perpetrated criminal activities and should be prosecuted instead of making work for ASIO by needing to be followed around. 

Under our Westminster system of government, the buck for these failures stops with Prime Minister Albanese and Premier Minns. The terms of reference for the royal commission—if we ever see them—must allow scrutiny of how these failures occurred. This is no doubt why the Prime Minister refused for so long to call a royal commission: to protect himself and his ministers and to hide the truth. 

Today, the Senate is voting on legislation which could’ve been brought in on a regular sitting day later in the year. What we are not voting on is the enabling legislation for the royal commission, to first get the data and the facts. This is what royal commissions are for—to inform bills like this. The Albanese government is putting the cart before the horse and burying the facts. Prime Minister, Australia is watching this royal commission. Do not cover up anything. If the cards are not allowed to fall as they may then it’ll be your government that will fall. 

One Nation will oppose this rushed dog’s breakfast bill and the second bill coming after it later tonight. There are processes to produce good legislation. This government has made a mockery of them all. The atrocious, shoddy legislation reflects contempt for our democratic process and for the people of Australia. The hate provisions for the Commonwealth Criminal Code that Labor introduced in 2010 and subsequently amended to make prosecutions easier have never been used—not one prosecution. 

Australia does not need more laws which take away the right to free speech, freedom of association, freedom of movement and freedom of protest. We need the government to start policing the laws we already have. Whether people are Christian or another civilised religion, there can only be one set of laws, which are laws based on our Christian, Western heritage. There can only be one allegiance in our community and it’s to those laws. Tolerance has been weaponised. Labor, the Greens, the teals and now the Liberals have elevated tolerance to be the end itself. The thing being tolerated became irrelevant. 

Speaking about Islam has been made prima facie racism, yet criticism of Christianity and Judaism is encouraged as being the religions of white-skinned people and of colonisers. White-skinned people are being demonised by the left-wing lobby groups and by other white-skinned people, like Greens Senator McKim, who said yesterday that Australians will not be safe until we’ve eliminated Islamophobia. In ‘Greens-land’, apparently there’s no radical Islam and the terrorist attacks I listed earlier never happened. It’s this illogical, suicidal empathy that’s led us to this moment. 

The list of terror attacks I read out used guns, bombs, knives, cars and trucks. Guns are a straw-man argument. ‘Look over here at these evil guns and don’t look at the person wielding the gun.’ Failing to act against radical Islam will lead to more Australians losing their lives. Australia does not have a gun problem; we have a radical ideology problem. One Nation strongly supports the right to own and use firearms lawfully and responsibly. This Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 penalises legitimate, law-abiding gun owners. The poor wording shows a failure to understand how guns are used on farms and in sport. This is what happens when city based antigun groups are consulted and gun owner associations are not. 

The bill proposes limiting the use of carriage services. This is pitched at limiting the use of the internet to access blueprints and use 3D printers to print guns. This is already illegal under state law. This bill elevates the description of ‘illegal material’ to mean whatever the hell the government decides is illegal. It could include a legal owner downloading the manual for a gun or educational YouTube videos on how to pull down, clean and reassemble a gun or on the science of a gun, like how the striking pin works and how to detect change, damage or wear to machine parts which may render the gun unsafe. 

Merits review of a refusal to grant a gun licence under this bill is eliminated. Appeals would now have to be undertaken through the Federal Court, which is—what?—$20,000 minimum. The Administrative Review Tribunal system is working just fine, so now the government are fixing a problem that doesn’t exist so they can use a spurious argument to take guns off anyone they dislike. 

As Minister Watt raised gun numbers, let me assist him. There are more guns in Australia now than there were in 1996, before the Port Arthur buyback, because our population has increased. The number of guns per person today is lower now than in 1996—lower—and the number of guns owned per person is lower. Honesty is important, Senator Watt. 

One Nation supports the right of Australians to participate in sports involving firearms, to use firearms for hunting or recreational shooting, to collect antique and historically significant firearms and to use firearms in rural areas for pest and stock management. One Nation seeks to end discrimination against legitimate firearm owners and users, ensure all stakeholders are fairly consulted in the development of firearms laws and regulations and make existing laws fairer. We seek to improve community safety by cracking down on illegal firearm use with stronger penalties if firearms are used in committing crimes. The buyback scheme is a blank cheque, which industry sources we spoke to said could cost up to $15 billion. This is a tax on everyday Australians, because it must be paid for with a tax. One Nation supports castle law—the right to use force, fatal force if necessary, in proportion to defend one’s home and family from an intruder. Bring that legislation before parliament and One Nation will support it. 

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Criminal and Migration Laws) Bill 2026 has been so badly rushed that critical passages are inconsistent to the point that a court is likely to refuse prosecution based on these inconsistent provisions. The changes on which the government and the Liberal leader, Sussan Ley, surrendered do not justify Liberals supporting this bill. The government said that creating a new offence of racial vilification was removed from the hastily redrafted bill, yet some elements are hidden in the revised bill. The bill still includes supremacy. Anyone who says ‘Australian society is superior to Islamic Society’ is off to jail for five years, 12 if you are a priest or a lay preacher. Will the government start rounding up hate preachers in the electorates of senior Labor ministers like Messrs Burke, Butler and Bowen for declaring the superiority of Islam over Christianity? Of course not. 

Make no mistake, this bill continues the war on Christianity and the promotion of Islam that has been a feature of left-wing politics for a generation. I welcome the last-minute government amendment to include a clause attempting to guarantee freedom of political communication, even if that protection is already in the Constitution. It may make it less likely this bill would be used to ban political rivals, including One Nation. 

The bill still does not mention antisemitism, not once. It was never about protecting Jews; it was always about promoting Islam over Christianity. Liberal leader Sussan Ley has sided with the Labor Party to wave it through without due process and with onerous clauses that take away peoples freedoms, will cost all Australians more in taxes and will, in the end, fundamentally change the nature of Australian society without protecting against a recurrence. Australians, your choice is now One Nation or no nation. 

/0 Comments/by

Running on Empty

,

Successive Liberal and Labor governments have run Australia’s fuel reserves down to dangerously low levels. Both parties are following an agenda to promote electrification, pushing for the adoption of electric cars and trucks. The most effective way to achieve this is to force petrol shortages, thereby forcing the public to buy electric vehicles.

Over the last seven years, four reports have all called for Australia to restart domestic oil production, open more refineries, build more storage tanks and increase our domestic reserves. For four years, the “Uniparty” did nothing.

This week, as the war in Iran has frozen oil shipments, I asked Minister Ayres what his government was doing to keep the economy moving. His non-answers would be laughable if the subject weren’t so serious.

One Nation will increase domestic extraction, refining, and storage because, unlike this government, we aren’t stupid.

⭐ I also need to correct the record regarding a statement in this video. I asked what would happen in a few weeks when our largest refinery closes for maintenance for 10 days; the correct information is that the refinery will actually be closing for 10 WEEKS 😲

Transcript

Senator Roberts: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. Yesterday, I asked you to confirm that Australia was entering a period of oil supply disruption, with a mere 26 days of petrol in the system. Under International Energy Agency guidance, the minimum fuel reserve is 90 days, yet you responded that Australia has 150 per cent of its minimum requirement. Last year, the Albanese government quietly chose to ignore the International Energy Agency and instead decided to introduce its own minimum stockholding obligations, which it set at a mere 24 days—problem solved! Aside from 26 not being 150 per cent of 24, how can you justify ignoring International Energy Agency best practice and introducing a patently absurd and dangerous minimum stockholding obligation of only 24 days of petrol supply? Why are you entrenching energy insecurity and volatility for which Australians will pay? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:40): I’ll start at the end of that question, and then I’ll try to deal with some of the substance of it. Energy insecurity in Australia is a consequence of what happened over the Morrison-Abbott-Turnbull catastrophe where four out of our six oil refineries closed. Despite what Mr Hastie says, when he turns to you for work, these things are not straightforward to rebuild. Four out of six closed, so, if you want to ask questions about energy insecurity, ask them how it is that they sat on their hands for so long. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking the opposition; I’m asking the minister, and I want an answer. 

The PRESIDENT: I will direct the minister to your question. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: While I’m on the subject of the opposition and the current fuel security arrangements—we have larger reserves on hand today than there have been at any time over the last 15 years as a result of the action, not words, that this government has taken. When Mr Taylor was in charge of energy, sort of—it was unclear, as I think Mr Morrison was secretly also the minister at the same time—he was the worst energy minister in Australian history and did more to debauch and pull down our energy policy framework. His proposition was that Australia’s fuel reserves should be contained in Texas. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: In the next few weeks, Brisbane’s Lytton fuel refinery is scheduled to close for 10 days maintenance. Lytton produces the majority of Australia’s domestic petrol, diesel and industrial gas. Ten days production taken out of the system at a time of supply shortage is a recipe for disaster. Why didn’t the Albanese government secure additional supply prior to Lytton closing to ensure fuel security in Australia? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:43): In relation to the previous question, Texas in the United States—not Texas, Queensland—is where, supposedly, this character had our fuel. You say that there is a 10-day—I couldn’t be any more relevant. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: Point of order: I’m not asking about Texas. I’m asking about Lytton and securing additional fuel supplies to protect this country. 

The PRESIDENT: I was about to direct the minister to your question, but he went to the question himself. Minister Ayres? 

Senator AYRES: I did. Of course, these kinds of maintenance shutdowns occur from time to time. If there’s anything in relation to this particular shutdown that I can provide to you, I will. There are not six oil refineries. Four closed. Four closed when Senator Canavan, who’s very noisy about these issues in opposition, was as quiet as a mouse when the other side was in government. I think I’ve run out of time. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator Roberts: Of the 3,000 oil tankers that service Australia, we own just four, with a total capacity of approximately 1.8 million barrels every delivery cycle, which takes 30 days from Singapore and 40 days from South Korea, our major supply point. 1.8 million barrels is enough to last Australia six days. Minister, what’s your plan here? Will you beg other countries for some of their oil, force Australians to pay $3 a litre at the pumps, or use the petrol shortage to introduce more Labor communism control? 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science) (14:45): I’m not sure there’s an adjective big enough for that overreach in the English language. If you’re so critical of Mr Taylor’s performance as the Minister for Energy and the fact that our merchant fleet declined over that period, the fact that four out of our six oil refineries closed and the fact that 24 out of 28 coal-fired power stations announced their closure, why do you cuddle up to them so much? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I’m not asking about his uniparty mate, Mr Taylor. I’m asking about his own policy. What’s he going to do? 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you’ve made the point of order. I will draw the minister to your question. 

Senator AYRES: I’ve answered the question. I make the point that, if you and the Nationals and the Liberals really want to get behind Mr Taylor, who was the worst energy minister in our history, who did more damage than any other person to Australia’s energy security and who did more, along with Senator Hume, to trash the economic record of the Liberal Party at the last election, be our guest. 

/0 Comments/by

The 95% Mortgage Cliff

,

During this session with Housing Australia, I call out the lack of transparency and the questionable math behind the home deposit guarantee schemes.

I asked Mr Langford why it took nine weeks to get an answer to a simple question: how many borrowers have exited the scheme? They finally admitted that of the 185,000 guarantees issued since the scheme was launched, over 45,000 have already been discharged.

I’m highly sceptical of their reported “success” rates. They previously claimed that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000. The actual arrears rate on bank loans is around 1% – 227 times higher than the claimed arrears rate of 0.0044%. Therefore, it’s statistically impossible!

My point is simple: they don’t actually track people once they exit the scheme, so they’re essentially flying blind when it comes to the data.

Despite Minister Ayres’ attempts to paint every exit as a “success story,” the data proves it’s not that simple.

As at the end of December 2025: ❌ 0.3% or 336 of borrowers are 90+ days in arrears, ❌ 0 .8% or 1000 are currently under hardship arrangements and ❌ 347 are in early-stage arrears (30–90 days).

While they boast that many are ahead on payments, I’m concerned about the “cliff” ahead.

When I asked for modelling on what happens to these 95% mortgages if interest rates rise three more times this year, they admitted they have no modelling for that scenario.

Ms Jarman has committed to providing me with a copy of the information guide for first-home buyers. I want to see for myself if it properly warns Australians about the massive risks of a 95% mortgage in a rising-rate environment.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: I’m going to rotate the call. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you for appearing again today, Mr Langford. You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. That should be a number you have to hand very easily. You haven’t answered it in the nine weeks since the hearing. Why not?  

Mr Langford: I’ll ask my colleague Ms Jarman, who has just come to the table, if we have that information to hand. As to the delays, we apologise. There may have been some delay if we didn’t have that information to hand.  

Ms Jarman: Sorry, Senator—can you repeat exactly what information you’re after?  

Senator ROBERTS: You undertook at the last hearings to answer on notice how many borrowers under your two per cent and five per cent deposit guarantee scheme have exited since the program started. That was question on notice 458. I’d like the number, please.  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do have the number that have exited. Of the 185,000 guarantees that have been issued since the launch of the scheme, 45,837 of those have discharged.  

Senator ROBERTS: You told me at the last hearing that there were only 11 defaults out of 250,000 guarantees issued. The actual arrears rate on banks’ loan books is around one per cent. That’s 227 times higher than your claimed arrears rate of 0.0044 per cent. Do you accept that your number is almost statistically impossible and only appears good because you don’t actually track the people who exit the scheme? Once they’re gone, they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: Exiting is good.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t track them once they’re gone.  

Senator Ayres: These are people who have bought a home—  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t try and change the topic. I’m asking the question. I want to know—  

Senator Ayres: under the scheme, then sold their home and moved on to their next home. That is the foot on the ladder that the scheme is designed to provide.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister Ayres, at the last hearing, you said—  

Senator Ayres: That’s what it’s for.  

Senator ROBERTS: that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance. Do you know that that’s false?  

Senator Ayres: What do you mean?  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘People who are facing hardship can’t refinance,’ you said. That’s false.  

Senator Ayres: I said that people who are facing hardship can’t refinance?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what you said. 

Senator Ayres: I don’t know what context I said that in. You’re moving—  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on—  

Senator Ayres: from one proposition, demonstrably not the case—  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re changing my proposition. I’m trying to get on with it.  

Senator Ayres: which is that it’s a bad outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you running from this, Minister Ayres?  

Senator Ayres: No. I’m running to this. I’m running to this. This is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: You changed my first proposition.  

Senator Ayres: This is a good outcome. I’m sorry if you’re confused about it. This is a good outcome for young Australians. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re misleading.  

Senator Ayres: Buying a home, selling a home, buying a new one—this is a good outcome.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you update me on your latest percentages for in advance, on schedule, in arrears and hardship?  

Ms Jarman: I can do that. As at the end of December, 0.3 per cent of the portfolio were 90 days plus in arrears, 0.8 per cent were under hardship arrangements, 26 per cent of the portfolio were on schedule with payments and 73 per cent were in advance of their repayment schedule.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you also have the actual numbers each of these percentages represent?  

Ms Jarman: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them please?  

Ms Jarman: Sure. We had 33,134 on schedule, 93,104 in advance, 336 ninety days in arrears and 1,000 in hardship. There is another category, for completeness. If you’re adding up to the total number of guarantees, in arrears of 30 to 90 days—so early arrears—there are another 347 customers there.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many total guarantees are those percentages of—is it less than the 250,000?  

Ms Jarman: The 250,000 is the number of Australians supported under the scheme. We’ve only ever issued 185,000 guarantees, but only 127,000 of those are active in the book at the moment. The rest of those have already discharged out of the scheme.  

Mr Rimmer: I gave evidence earlier in the day that the 0.3 per cent 90-day arrears rate is better than the other relevant arrears.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I heard that.  

Senator Ayres: I also should have said, Senator, again for the sake of completeness, that people exit the scheme if they sell their home. They also exit the scheme when they hit the 80 per cent loan-to-value ratio. That is, they come in at five per cent and make repayments that pay the 15 per cent gap over time, and then they’re considered to have exited the scheme. That’s also a good thing.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many five per cent mortgages that you got first home buyers into do you expect a default if interest rates are raised three times this year?  

Senator Ayres: Your One Nation colleague asked the same questions about an hour and three-quarters ago.  

Senator ROBERTS: He actually said ‘if we are entering a cycle’. I want to know what would happen with three interest rate rises.  

Mr Langford: I don’t believe we have modelling for that proposition that you’re putting forward.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you, as the administrator of the five per cent deposit guarantee, provide first home buyers with any warnings about the risk of a 95 per cent mortgage?  

Ms Jarman: Yes, we do. As part of the application process, we’ve got an information guide. That guide clearly outlines what the guarantee is and how the guarantee is there to protect the lender and not the borrower. It also outlines the obligations of the borrower in terms of repayment of the mortgage and the circumstances in which the borrower is still liable.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have a copy of that on notice, please? 

/0 Comments/by

Elitism: The New Labor Way

,

Premier Malinauskas is campaigning in the South Australia state election with the lie that building submarines in SA will provide our young with “breadwinner” jobs — jobs that will allow them to own their own homes, start a family and generally live the life successive Liberal and Labor governments have actually taken from them.

The numbers don’t add up. The subs’ program will employ 4,500 people during fit-up and 4,500 during construction, out of a workforce in South Australia of 975,000. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 and many of these will move over to the subs.

Most likely, the subs will employ a few hundred of our young, a drop in the employment bucket in SA. Not only is the Premier lying about how many young people will be employed in subs’ construction, he’s wrapping the whole thing up in an elitist sales pitch. Your children, he says, will be so busy building subs and living the high life that they will not have time to look after their elderly parents; therefore, we need immigrants to, quote: “wipe their bums.”

This is offensive to South Australians who are looking after their parents and to aged care workers who do so much more than personal care.

The Premier’s elitist view of the world is not shared by One Nation.

Transcript

One Nation has long maintained that the immigration invasion is about politics, not economics. South Australian Premier Malinauskas waded into that debate last month, when he said:  

My message to One Nation voters is: ‘Who’s going to feed you and bathe you and wipe your bum when you’re 90?’ … Because it ain’t going to be your kids, because if I get my way, they’re going to be working on submarines, with high-paying jobs, so they can afford to own their home … 

And he said that, if we’re taking real people out of the housing construction industry to work on the submarines, we’re going to need people to do that work too—to work in aged care. What a socialist nirvana South Australia will be, with migrants, according to the Labor premier, acting as a servant class to their white masters and their children, who will have economic abundance and not have to wipe their own bums! 

Elitism and socialism go hand in hand. The Russians, during communism, called this elitist cabal the ‘nomenklatura’. In communist China, they’re called ‘princelings’ for their wealth and imperial manner. In Australia, we just call them the Labor Party. What an insult to the many migrants with real qualifications who have come to Australia to lift themselves up through their own hard work and endeavour and who, in so doing, have lifted up all who are here. 

A quick look at employment numbers gives the lie to the Premier’s grand vision of recreating the Raj in Adelaide. Total employment on the submarine program will be 4,500 during construction of the shipyard and then 4,500 to build the submarines. The 10,000 jobs are sequential, not all at the same time. The size of the South Australian labour market is 975,000 people. Shipbuilding already employs 14,000 people, some of whom will move over to the subs. All we need to fill the remaining places is for state and federal Labor to start planning now for the subs workforce through targeted vocational and university placements for Australian workers. The Premier’s big pitch to the electorate is elitist and dishonest. 

/0 Comments/by

Ending the Era of Mass Migration

,

For decades, the Liberal-Labor Uniparty has put the cart before the horse, bringing in record numbers of people before building the infrastructure needed to support them.

And what’s the result? Record homelessness, average house prices skyrocketing across Australia, and an entire generation of young Aussies giving up on the “Great Australian Dream”.

One Nation introduced the Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 to put the power back in YOUR hands.

We must: ✅ Build the homes before the people arrive. ✅ Prioritise Australians over globalist agendas. ✅ END mass migration.

The Division

How They Voted

Transcript

Firstly, I have some housekeeping. The Plebiscite (Future Migration Level) Bill 2018 has been amended to update the question to be proposed in the plebiscite. It was necessary to reintroduce this bill and then amend it to overcome drafting delays due to inappropriate staffing levels in parliamentary support services, thanks to the Labor government. It’s a constraint the government has not inflicted on itself, given the thousands of pages of legislation before the Senate this week alone. Some technical amendments have been circulated to update section references. 

The intent of the bill, though, is the same as on the previous occasions One Nation has brought this bill before the Senate. It’s time to ask the Australian people in a plebiscite: how much immigration is enough? That is a question for the people. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of a parliamentary representative is to listen to the MP’s masters—the people. I’ll say that again. After all, in a representative democracy, the first duty of every parliamentary representative is to listen to the members of parliament’s masters—the people. The remainder of the bill sets out the provisions necessary to conduct the plebiscite. That section of the bill closely follows the provisions of the gay marriage plebiscite. Just as One Nation respected the wishes of the Australian people in that outcome, we would expect all members of parliament and senators to respect the outcome of this plebiscite. 

This bill will pose the question, ‘Do you support a zero net migration policy for a period of five years?’ It’s a very simple, straightforward question. ‘Zero net’ simply means the number of new arrivals must equal the number of people who leave—zero net migration; net migration, zero. This brings to an end the era of massive population growth and mass migration started under John Howard’s prime ministership. That will ease the pressure on housing, medical services, education, transport and infrastructure and provide space for the assimilation for the massive number of people who have been brought to Australia under this Labor government. Five years is enough for that process to work through, especially the construction of housing and infrastructure. 

And One Nation would police existing immigration laws. There are an estimated 200,000 people here illegally, meaning people who have deliberately breached their visa conditions, which is illegal. These people should be deported—remigration back to where they came from. That provision is not in this bill. We should not need a bill to make the government police the laws it already has. One Nation does not oppose immigration. We oppose mass migration, which—for the deliberately ignorant or unaware, unconscious and uncaring left-wing commentariat—can be defined as new migration from all sources which exceeds the housing construction rate after accommodating natural population increase. Pretty simply, build the home before the person arrives. This is not rocket science—build the home before the person arrives. I speak as a migrant and as an Australian citizen. 

For a generation, the Liberal, Labor and Greens parties have had this simple concept backward—bring a migrant to Australia and, once they’re here, build them a home. In the meantime, they’re homeless. Eventually build them a home—no rush! This backwards approach to immigration has caused the worst housing crisis in Australian peacetime history—record homelessness and growing. New migrants coming in here are homeless. Australians are homeless. The elderly, unemployed and working poor are being priced out of the housing market as new arrivals increase demand. That drives up rents and home prices. 

The government has then stepped in and created schemes to make it easier to afford one’s home, supposedly, usually through low-deposit mortgages and first home buyer grants. All these do is drive up the price of the house, so the young person is back where they started, needing an unaffordable deposit and a higher income to cover repayments on a home that should, at their asking price, be made of gold. Other speakers, I’m sure, will point out how the Albanese government’s latest confidence trick on young home buyers, the low deposit housing scheme, has had exactly this effect—driving up prices so that young buyers are no better off. 

You will hear an opposing argument that the housing crisis is not about population growth; it’s about housing construction. In recent days, the Labor Party has once again stood in front of cameras in their high-vis gear, complete with hard hat, all borrowed from the wardrobe department, to announce more money is to be spent on housing. What comes of these announcements? Nothing. People cannot build with what we don’t have. There is a lack of approved land, equipment, materials and experienced construction labour. It’s an outrageous thing to say all we need to do is to bring in more tradies. To begin with, more new arrivals is the cause of the problem. I’m mindful that sitting right behind me is someone who’s in the construction industry from Western Australia, Senator Tyron Whitten, and he will be speaking later. Secondly, homes are not making it to the tradie stage fast enough to justify more tradies. 

This is all a smokescreen anyway. The reality is that the ALP doesn’t want more tradies, having only brought in 6,000 new tradies in their entire first term. That’s less than one per cent, a fraction of one per cent, of the government’s mass migration intake—less than one per cent building houses for the other more than 99 per cent, as well as the pent-up demand from the past. The government wants a labour shortage so their union boss mates can demand ludicrous wage rises. I’ve heard of stop/go attendants earning $140,000 per year and, in some areas, $200,000 a year. What does that do to the cost of houses? What does that do to the profit and viability of builders? Construction companies are going under. We can see that. 

What do material shortages do to their profit? This epidemic of mass migration is happening around the world, a global push from globalists setting the agenda in BlackRock Inc. and then moving into the housing market with benefits given to them by the Labor government only in recent weeks. In the absence of Australian production of building materials, Australia is a price taker. We are competing with literally the entire world to get building materials to Australia. Local councils are flat out processing development applications. Everyone in the housing chain is juggling red tape, green tape and blue UN tape to somehow manage to get homes built. More tradies won’t fix that problem; reduced housing demand and fewer new arrivals will fix that problem. 

Consider this question: more arrivals increase home prices and cause homelessness, so what does reducing new arrivals do? There’s no need to guess at the answer. Our friends across the ditch in New Zealand have answered the question for us. New Zealand has woken up. Immigration numbers were reduced from 70,000 in 2024 to just 13,000 in 2025. As a result, new home prices fell and rents stabilised after just one year of reduced migration. Look at Canada. The same has happened in Canada. In contrast, Australia keeps bringing in more new arrivals than we have houses. And guess what? House prices and rents keep going up and up and up. Go figure. It’s pretty simple. Australia is already building more new homes per capita than any other country in the world, yet record homelessness continues growing.  

An entire generation of young Australians is being disenfranchised. I talk to these fine young Australians every day. They tell me that they’re giving up on ever owning their own home—giving up! Giving up on their own country. Scott Challen, a builder in Brisbane, tells me that, daily, young people are being disenfranchised. That is dangerous for the future of our country. These young people speak of their frustration, of their betrayal, at the hands of the governing Liberal-Labor uniparty. These are children that have done everything society has asked of them. They’ve studied hard, stayed out of trouble and achieved a trade or university degree. They are working in a good job—or two jobs, or for some of them three jobs, to make ends meet—and they find that, despite this dedication and sacrifice, they’re struggling to pay rent, let alone save for a home deposit. Even if they can save a deposit, where can they afford to buy? Sydney? The average home price is above $1.5 million. No young person can afford that, yet Sydney is where the jobs are. Why is Sydney so dear? Well, new arrivals—that’s the answer. Analysis of average home prices, average rents and immigration numbers in Sydney in the last five years shows a simple fact: the higher the immigration intake, the larger the increase in rents and home prices—full stop, end of story. Conversely, the lower the intake, the lower the prices. 

How many people are currently in Australia who aren’t Australian citizens? Good question. After a bit of digging, I believe the answer is around 3.7 million people, made up of 2.5 million temporary visa holders and 1.2 million permanent residents, plus 380,000 tourists and short-stay crew. That makes four million people plus, when including tourists, here in this country who are not citizens. Migration statistics are opaque and confusing. They are deliberately opaque and confusing. There are lots of traps when adding different types of data together, and it’s an area where we’re prone to get fact-checked, misreported and misrepresented. This allows the champions of mass migration to understate the intake and then deflect away from migration to blame other factors, like a lack of tradies. Don’t fall for it. It’s rubbish. 

If you are in this country and not a citizen, you need to be on a visa. We know how many visa holders are in the country right now. As at July 2025 there were 2.5 million temporary visa holders, not including tourists. There were 1.5 million permanent visa holders, and four million noncitizens—four million non-Australians—all of whom need a home in which to live. The effect this is having on the housing market can be seen in a simple statistic: 43 per cent of the population of Greater Sydney and 41 per cent of the population of Greater Melbourne were born overseas. That isn’t migration; that’s mass migration. It’s invasion. It’s part of a globalist agenda across many woke Western nations, and Australians are shouting this in the streets now. 

In every nation, it is the government’s duty to design immigration policy for the benefit of citizens already in the country, not for the benefit of those outside wanting to come into the country. Immigration policy, just as a side point, has four broad aspects in my view. The first is numbers of people allowed—no, invited—into the country. The second is the quality of people allowed in, their skills, whether they will be put straight to work and contribute productively, safety and security, the quality of people and the culture. The third is: will the people coming in assimilate and integrate into the identity of the country? The fourth is: will Australia’s identity be preserved? Multiculturalism, introduced by Bob Hawke and reinforced by John Howard, undermines assimilation and integration and destroys Australian identity. 

Stop it and restore Australian identity. This bill, though, is only about numbers. The question of how much immigration is too much has never been put to the Australian people. It’s time. As a migrant and as a citizen, I value our country and say: it’s time. 

/0 Comments/by

Protecting our Coal Miners

,

During this session with the Fair Work Commission, I asked Mr Furlong if he agreed that you cannot use an enterprise agreement to strip away rights provided by the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. He agreed.

During our exchange, I highlighted several concerns:

I reminded Mr. Furlong that the High Court in Rossato was clear — contract terms must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. You can’t take away annual leave or award entitlements if the law says otherwise.

When I asked how losing annual leave and getting lower pay could possibly make a worker “better off,” the Commission hid behind “abstract” assessments. There is nothing abstract about a coal miner losing their leave and being underpaid compared to the Black Coal Award.

The Commission tried to tell me we’ve “traversed” this ground before. My response was simple: I will keep traversing it until these workers get what’s owed to them in full compliance with the law.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, you have previously agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove all applicable award entitlements. You have agreed that an enterprise agreement cannot remove entitlements provided under the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards. Both of them were in November 2022. Do you still hold the same views today?  

Mr Furlong: I do.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it true that these propositions were confirmed by the majority of the High Court in the Rossato decision?  

Mr Furlong: I can’t talk to the High Court decision, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: The court went on to say: …where there are express terms of the contract between the parties, they must be given effect unless they are contrary to statute. Are you aware of that?  

Mr Furlong: It has been a long time since I’ve looked at that decision. I can’t comment on it.  

Senator ROBERTS: I know what you mean. If an agreement includes terms that would remove statutory rights such as annual leave and other award entitlements, wouldn’t those terms be considered contrary to statute?  

Mr Furlong: It’s difficult to talk in the abstract about such matters. The terms and conditions in an enterprise agreement are that they need to be better off overall. It’s a global assessment in determining whether or not an enterprise agreement will satisfy a member of the commission and subsequently be approved by that member.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This issue was further considered in One Key Workforce v CFMEU. The full bench of the Federal Court held that: It is an error of law to fail to have regard to relevant material in a way that affects the exercise of power. An administrative decision-maker— the Fair Work Commissioner— who makes such an error exceeds his or her authority and acts without jurisdiction. Isn’t this exactly what the commissioner did when approving an enterprise agreement that ignored the Black Coal Award, which was relevant material? 

Mr Furlong: I think that the circumstance of One Key relate to the One Key enterprise agreement. Are we are talking about Chandler Macleod and other agreements about casual coalminers? Senator ROBERTS: If an enterprise agreement takes away annual leave by calling someone a casual, is that going against statute? Mr Furlong: It depends on whether the employee is a casual or a permanent employee. If they are a permanent employee, they would be entitled to annual leave and sick leave and all the other conditions that would be applicable to a permanent employee. There are casual conversion entitlements now for employees that they can exercise if they want to transition from casual employment to an ongoing role. Senator ROBERTS: How does it comply with the National Employment Standards and the Fair Work Act if someone loses annual leave, ends up on lower pay and doesn’t meet award provisions? It goes against statute.  

Mr Furlong: The Fair Work Act provides the framework that members of the commission have to observe before they can approve an enterprise agreement. If there is an aggrieved party to a decision made by a member of the commission, those decisions can be the subject of an appeal. If the agreement has reached its nominal expiry date, then a party to that agreement can make an application to have that agreement terminated.  

Senator ROBERTS: So the express terms of the contract or EA must be given effect unless they are contrary to this statute?  

Mr Furlong: No. What I’m saying is that for a member, in assessing whether or not to approve an enterprise agreement which has been lodged with the commission for approval, a number of statutory tests need to be satisfied. One of them is the better off overall test. Once a member of the commission who has been allocated that file is satisfied that each of those conditions has been met, they are required to approve the agreement.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you tell me how the loss of annual leave, a pay rate that is less and the loss of other award provisions complies with better off overall, because the award prevails? That’s the High Court.  

Mr Coyle: It’s very difficult to talk in the abstract here. It’s a case-by-case basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: The loss of annual leave, a lower pay rate and the loss of other award provisions—that’s not abstract.  

Mr Furlong: We’ve traversed this several times.  

Senator ROBERTS: I will keep traversing it until we get these people their fair due in compliance with statute. 

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucrats vs. Parents

,

I have used Estimates several times to draw attention to the filth being distributed in libraries, material that targets children and is available to them regardless of age. This includes graphic sex-instruction manuals that most adults would find excessive.

We urgently need an intermediate classification for graphic written publications. We have raised this issue for many years; and while the Classification Board seems to agree, there has been no action for almost two years.

During this estimates session, I questioned the Australian Communication and Media Authority (ACMA) on the bureaucrats currently running our classification system. We have three different bodies: ACMA, the Classification Board, and the Classification Review Board, all pointing fingers at each other while inappropriate material continues to be freely available to children.

ACMA admitted in their “Stage 2 reforms” submission that we need to rationalise this mess into one single national regulator. It’s common sense: one body, one set of standards, and actual accountability.

I also asked how these obscene publications could possibly meet “community standards.” The answer? They haven’t done any “community standards” research in years. How can they claim to represent the public if they aren’t even talking to them?

The government says they are “awaiting reports,” yet our children can’t wait.

We need a system that reflects your standards, not the standards of Canberra bureaucrats.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Australian Communication and Media Authority review of Australian classification regulation written form closed submissions in May 2025. What’s happened since and when will we
get an outcome?

Ms Field: I believe that is the work of the department, not the ACMA. We have not published a paper.

Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, then. ACMA made a submission titled Modernising Australia’s national classification scheme: stage 2 reforms. It was dated 6 June 2024. Your submission calls for a national
classification regulator to oversee a reformed classification scheme. Is this in addition to the ACMA, the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board?

Ms O’Loughlin: What we were reflecting on in our submission is that classification is undertaken by a range of different organisations and that there may potentially be benefits of rationalising that, because you have the national Classification Board doing publications and film, you have the Classification Review Board. You also have us who have responsibility for classification and broadcasting. What we were saying is: is there a way of looking at that? Is there any rationalisation that could happen?

Senator ROBERTS: My next question was: that’s a lot of bureaucracy, to have three agencies, which most likely will have the outcome of nobody being responsible. Are you talking about rationalising it from three to
one?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s our proposal.

Senator ROBERTS: One of the duties you suggest for the rationalised body is to conduct community standards research. Community standards are central to the existing Classification Board decision process. Do you
do community standards research at the moment?

Ms O’Loughlin: We do from time to time in the broadcasting space, but we were indicating that, if there was a combined organisation, if I can use that term, there would be a requirement to make sure there was community research done across all those different mediums—broadcasting, film, literature—to inform the decisions of that new rationalised body.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you currently doing that with broadcasting? You are saying that it needs to continue so that the new rationalised entity does not drop that community standards research?

Ms O’Loughlin: The body is actually testing what the community standards are rather than only relying on its own judgement.

Senator ROBERTS: Seeing as you do community standards research for broadcasting, can you provide on notice the most recent round of research and the cost to the taxpayers for that process?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly. We haven’t done some for some time, but I’m happy to take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Could give us the date of when it was done?

Ms O’Loughlin: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: I want to see how some obscene sex manuals for children could be considered as meeting community standards. I’m horrified/shocked at a publication called Let’s Talk About It. The title probably
should be This is How to Do It. It’s an instruction manual, not an information manual. It’s pornography. I’ve asked many questions in many estimates sessions regarding the failure of the rating system to offer a restricted
classification for printed material, something between the existing unclassified and R18-plus such as we have for violent teenage videogames. What’s ACMA’s position on a legally enforceable, mature-age, 15-plus or similar classification for these graphic sex instruction manuals targeted at children?

Ms O’Loughlin: That’s not part of our responsibilities currently; that is a matter for the Classification Board. I would expect that may be something that will be raised in the stage 2 classification review that’s being undertaken by the department. That would be the place for that to be considered.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the government’s opinion or view?

Senator Green: I’ll answer your question by saying that the chair is correct; we did have officials here who are working on a review. They were here a bit earlier. Unfortunately, they can’t answer those questions for you
now. Obviously, stage 1 was quite successful. We’re working on stage 2 reforms now. The department has engaged a social research centre and Mendelsons to undertake a functional update of the classification guidelines. The minister awaits the final report from this functional update. Unfortunately, I can’t give you any more information without officials here at the table. As the chair indicated to you as well, the Classification Board itself and the Classification Review Board will be appearing later this evening and can answer questions about specific classifications about which you might be concerned.

Senator ROBERTS: We have to get something done about this.

Senator Green: Of course.

/0 Comments/by

Whistleblowers Left Unprotected

,

In Senate Estimates, I questioned ASIC over the case of Roxanne Mysko, a whistleblower who spoke up about major safety failings in the trucking industry, only to be left unprotected.

Why hasn’t ASIC used the Corporations Act to protect her?

Why was the matter referred elsewhere when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?

Will ASIC reopen case CAS-94551 and prosecute for whistleblower retaliation?

ASIC couldn’t, or wouldn’t answer, taking every question on notice. It’s clear that right now, Australian whistleblowers are standing alone. I won’t stop pushing until that changes.

If our regulators won’t act, “protections” are just words on a page. We need real accountability for those who risk everything to keep us safe.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. I hope that this session is a bit longer than the previous one. Are you aware of Ms Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: I will try to be. The name is vaguely familiar but—  

Senator ROBERTS: Roxanne Mysko?  

Ms Court: Is there a company that Ms Mysko is associated with that you could help me with?  

Senator ROBERTS: I think she’s a whistleblower. Yes, she’s a whistleblower to you guys.  

Ms Court: If that’s the case, I won’t be able to speak about anything to do with that. But just let me check with Mr Savundra, just to make sure, to see if we have anything that we can assist you with here.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ll ask the question. You can decide. Ms Roxanne Mysko is an honest person who discovered that there were significant failings of safety in the trucking industry. She found that international corporations, including Santos and Ensign, had contracted ECS Project Logistics as freight logistics. ECS and approximately 70 contractors operated with zero safety audits, fatigue controls and licence and registration checks done from 2007 to 2020. Why did ASIC fail to enforce the Corporations Act whistleblower protections? 

Ms Court: I don’t have any information about that with me, I’m afraid.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice?  

Ms Court: Of course, I’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did ASIC refer whistleblower matters to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator when ASIC has direct responsibility under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’ll have to take that on notice as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIC reopen CAS-94551 and prosecute whistleblower retaliation, identified breaches and victimisation by Santos, Ensign and ECS under Part 9.4AAA?  

Ms Court: I’m not familiar with the document you’re referring to, but, again, I’m happy to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: These disclosures by Ms Mysko revealed grave safety failings in the heavy vehicle industry. These safety issues are of significant concern for all road users. Ms Mysko has suffered terribly at the hands of big corporations and those public servants who have not done their jobs. Minister, when will this government get serious about protecting genuine whistleblowers and stop them from being victimised by wrongdoers?  

Senator Ayres: I have no knowledge of the matters that you raise. I understand you’ve asked ASIC questions about how they may or may not have dealt with this, and they’ve taken it on notice. In terms of the extent to which—you could make an argument that their responsibilities touch on this matter. But I have no knowledge of this set of circumstances, and I can’t help you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Would it be possible for you to comment once we get the answers from ASIC?  

Senator Ayres: If there’s anything that we can help you with, we will.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know when this government will protect whistleblowers. That’s all.  

Senator Ayres: That’s a broader policy question. I’m not sure that ASIC’s in a position to respond to it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m asking you for that.  

Senator Ayres: The broad approach that the government’s taken in relation to whistleblower protections is probably a matter for the Attorney-General. I’m here representing the Treasurer, and I’m not sure that I’m in a position to provide you with much information at all about this issue, as important as it is, both broadly and in relation to the person who you’ve referred to.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t think that’ll give whistleblowers much confidence, but thank you for your answer.  

Senator Ayres: Then you should ask these questions in the Attorney-General’s section if you are genuinely looking for an answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Are There Really 200 Would-Be Terrorists in Australia?

,

During the recent Senate Estimates, I questioned Mr Burgess, Director-General of ASIO, about the scale and nature of extremist threats in Australia. I cited figures of 200 potential terrorists and 18,000 people on threat-related watchlists.

Mr Burgess clarified that while “tens of thousands” have been investigated since 2001, not all remain active threats. He stated that the vast majority of individuals investigated since 2001 fall under religiously motivated violent extremism. However, he noted growth in other sectors, specifically – nationalist and racist violent extremists; extreme left-wing groups (anarchists and revolutionists) and broad “issue-motivated” extremists.

Mr Burgess declined to say whether the majority of persons under investigation were Islamist extremists.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of root cause analysis, you’ve reassured me already. Thank you for your statement. I have a few questions. Is it true that there are approximately 200 would-be terrorists living in Australia? Is it true that there are over 18,000 people on the threat related watch list?  

Mr Burgess: What I can say publicly is we have a number of people we have subject to investigations, including a number of people in our priority counterterrorism caseload who obviously get the priority. There are tens of thousands of people who have come to our attention and are no longer being investigated by us. That does not mean tens of thousands of people are potential terrorists, but they’re people we have investigated.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it true that the majority of these are Islamic sympathisers?  

Mr Burgess: The vast majority of people we’ve investigated since 2001 have come from a religiously motivated violent extremism cohort. But of course we have seen growth in broader issue motivated violent extremists, including nationalists and racist violent extremists and people with a range of other grievances, including on the extreme left, anarchists and revolutionists, which is something recently that we’re getting involved in. The mix is spread.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will ASIO take direct action in the future on strong suspicion of threat even if the action runs the risk of being branded racist or the result of profiling religion or whatever? It seems to be a matter of life and death.  

Mr Burgess: If it’s a matter of life and death, we and the police will be on it. We’ll be doing that together with the police. If it’s an immediate threat to life, you need the police to go through the front door, not the security service. We always investigate threats to security, and that’s what we’re investigating. We’re not racially profiling or doing anything else. We’re looking at people who hold certain ideological views that think politically motivated violence or promotion of communal violence is something that supports them or in their remit. We will act accordingly with the full force of our law. Everything we do and everything we must do has to be legal and proportionate to the threat before us.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you label them at the risk of being called names?  

Mr Burgess: It depends what you mean by ‘label’. We assign ideology—  

Senator ROBERTS: Identify their background. 

Mr Burgess: Religiously motivated violent extremists, Sunni violent extremists, Neo-Nazis, nationalist and racist violent extremists—we call them what we need to to explain their ideology and motivation.  

Senator ROBERTS: One last challenge for you, and a very difficult one. Could you teach the minister about root cause analysis, please?  

Mr Burgess: That’s a matter for the minister, if he’s interested. He probably has a very busy day job. 

/0 Comments/by