Premier Malinauskas is wasting taxpayers’ money in the name of woke politics. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is now costing $3.2 billion, yet it has fewer services than the new Tweed Valley Hospital in NSW, which only cost $720 million — in part owing to its grandiose design over actual function.
More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen-powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind — with hydrogen as a backup — could provide baseload power. That is $580 million wasted.
More “woke” can be found in Premier Malinauskas’s decision to legislate an Aboriginal Voice to Parliament, despite South Australians voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters; in fact, he has treated them with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. The $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke virtue signaling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes.
For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, then switched back again. Now, voters finally have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger, and more professional than it has been in any previous election.
We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Vote One Nation.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: For too long, the only choice for Australian voters was to alternate their vote between the Labor Party and the Liberal and National parties. When one failed, voters selected the other, and then back again. Now, though, finally, voters have a real option besides the Liberal-Labor uniparty: a One Nation party that’s larger, stronger and more professional than it has been in any previous election. We are ready for government. One Nation is not splitting the conservative vote; we’re providing an alternative to the Liberal-Labor uniparty, which has treated South Australia as its personal property for 60 years. Supporting One Nation gives people a real choice. Supporting One Nation is not voting against two parties, Liberal and Labor; it’s voting against one—the uniparty.
Sixty years of their failure have decimated our standard of living and made all except the government class poorer, less happy and less healthy than they were even just 10 years ago—a loss of wealth that’s even worse for Australians under 35, who are the first generation that will have less than their parents. The median income in South Australia, inflation adjusted, has risen from $1,290 per week in 2022 to just $1,300 this year. In other words, wages have gone nowhere under the Malinauskas Labor government. In that same time, the median rental in South Australia has risen from $480 a week to $630 a week. That’s 10 bucks more a week coming in to pay 150 bucks extra in rent. South Australians are going backwards. Great job, Premier!
When I came to Canberra 10 years ago, I was told a joke that was more of an observation. The Liberal Party, I was told, run Canberra for the benefit of their wealthy owners. The Labor Party run government for the benefit of union bosses. The Nationals run government for the benefit of themselves, and the Greens can’t govern at all.
To be clear, there are good union officials and there are good unions that are run for the benefit of their members. The Red Union is a great example of an old-fashioned union that just gets on with the business of looking out for its members. One Nation will have to prise South Australia out of the hands of Labor’s union mafia and woke climate change agenda zealots.
To illustrate this point, let’s compare the new Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital with the recently completed Tweed Valley Hospital, in New South Wales. Tweed has 430 beds. Adelaide has 410 beds—almost the same. Emergency departments and operating theatres are the same. Maternity services are the same, although Adelaide has 70 parental units. Tweed has oncology, renal, mental health and outpatient physical therapy. Adelaide has none of these. Tweed was built in under five years. Adelaide is two years into a build scheduled to finish in 2031—seven years, hopefully. Tweed Valley Hospital cost $730 million. The Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is at $3.2 billion, and further increases are expected.
The Adelaide hospital is larger as a building and more grandiose, despite providing fewer services. At $3.2 billion, the Adelaide Women’s and Children’s Hospital is what happens when woke is combined with political ego. The Malinauskas government has wasted more than a billion dollars of taxpayer money, which keeps CFMEU union bosses happy—stealing from taxpayers.
More of the Premier’s woke agenda is on display with the hydrogen powered project designed to make Whyalla a centre of green hydrogen production. The project has now been shut down because green hydrogen is fairytale technology designed to offer the false hope that solar and wind with hydrogen as a backup could provide base-load power—$580 million wasted. Only coal, nuclear and hydro can provide cheap, stable base-load power, and that’s exactly what One Nation will build.
More woke can be found in the decision of Premier Malinauskas to legislate an Aboriginal voice to parliament despite South Australia voting against it in the Voice referendum. Premier Malinauskas has not listened to the voters in the Voice referendum. In fact, he’s treated voters with contempt and pushed ahead with his agenda anyway. That’s the difference between One Nation and the Labor Party. We listen to the people. Labor treats you with contempt. In reality, the $10 million cost of the South Australian Voice over forward estimates is equal parts woke, virtue signalling and a bribe for Aboriginal votes. The Premier has misread the room badly.
Far from bringing chaos to parliament, as Ashton Hurn and the Liberals said last night, One Nation, if elected in South Australia, will bring honesty and authenticity, just as we have at a federal level now for nine years—a decade—and just as Pauline Hanson has done for 30 years. We will decide policies through the consideration of facts, not feelings. We will be a woke-free government of real people dedicated to doing what’s right for South Australians. I ask South Australian voters to choose a new path this election. Choose One Nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/A2nhx_uQMiY/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-19 16:25:202026-03-19 16:25:30Beyond Labor and Liberal
During the February Senate Estimates, I asked questions of the ADF about the tragic case of LAC Andrew Armfield.
From what I’ve been told, the facts are damning:
Mandatory suicide management policies were ignored after his first attempt.
Evidence suggests FOI redactions were used to smear Andrew’s brother, a whistleblower, to protect the ADF’s reputation.
Senior leadership was briefed on “media risk” while claiming elsewhere they were unaware of the situation.
It’s the same old story: The top brass is more worried about bad PR than the lives of our sailors, soldiers, and aviators.
Mateship and trust are strategic assets, yet you can’t have either without the TRUTH.
The ADF leadership has taken my questions “on notice.” I’ll be holding them to it.
Our service members deserve justice, not excuses.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve heard today that people are important, and that’s reassuring. My understanding is that in the ADF mateship and trust are of strategic importance. They’re strategically significant. Going to safety and trust, I’d like to get to questions that relate to the way that the ADF has mismanaged the suicide of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield and failed to provide him with the support he needed after his first suicide attempt in June 2011. Are you aware that the royal commission transcripts dated 6 March 2024 and a ministerial background brief from the Deputy Chief of Navy, Commodore Ray Leggett, to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022, copied to Vice Chief of Defence Force David Johnson and Chief of Defence Force Angus Campbell, warned of negative media risk if Mr Armfield’s story became public?
Adm. Johnston: Of course it is very difficult for us to talk about the individual circumstances. As we have explained to you before, we can talk around the support that we are doing to improve suicide awareness, our proactive response to reducing the prevalence of it in the force. Mr Armfield’s circumstances were very much a part of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. For officials to talk on the particular nature of his circumstances, there is very limited that we can say without his authority to do so. If it is helpful for you to have officials come forward and just explain how we are responding to the types of circumstances that Mr Armfield experienced and what we are doing to improve our response to it, I would be very happy to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll point out that Mr John Armfield has been involved in developing these questions. We got the data from him. He’s happy for us to talk about it.
Adm. Johnston: That might be true of what he’s provided to you, but that’s not an authority that we have from him.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask again: are you aware that you were copied as Vice Chief of Defence Force on the royal commission transcripts?
Adm. Johnston: I am aware of Mr Armfield’s transcripts, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Given that ministerial brief, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by then Vice Chief of Defence Force, yourself, claiming you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation was incorrect as you had been copied in?
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? I’m just not clear on your question about which part you mean was incorrect.
Senator ROBERTS: The ministerial brief to Minister Matt Keogh in October 2022. Given that brief, which you said you got, do you accept that sworn royal commission evidence by yourself claiming that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation?
Adm. Johnston: My comment to you was that I’m aware of the transcript of Mr Armfield’s evidence after the royal commission had occurred. I would have to go back to my own testimony of the evidence to be able to answer that question for you.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s claimed that you were unaware of Mr Armfield’s situation, but you were aware.
Adm. Johnston: Mr Armfield appears directly prior to me appearing as a witness. I heard his evidence. I would have to check the circumstances of that question. I heard the evidence that Mr Armfield gave, because he appeared immediately prior to me on the morning that I appeared at the royal commission. If you could allow me to go back and clarify the question you’re asking to make sure I get the accurate response to it?
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fair enough. At the time of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s first suicide attempt in June 2011, was DIGPRS 1626 a mandatory policy requiring a risk management team? Is it accepted that no risk management team and no crisis management plan were ever established by Dr Suresh Babu or Wing Commander Peter Davies?
Adm. Johnston: You’re asking me particulars of details of that set of circumstances. We would take them on notice and do our best to answer them for you.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your desire for accuracy. Do you accept that, by failing to comply with that mandatory policy, Defence removed structured oversight of Leading Aircraftman Andrew Armfield’s care and therefore failed to discharge its duty of care regardless of treatment occurring in a civilian hospital?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I’m not in the position to answer the detail. I just don’t have sufficient knowledge of it. I would look at it, but I would restate the importance and the amount of work that we have done to address suicide within the Defence Force and that with veterans after. There are considerable initiatives, and we have learnt from each one of these tragic circumstances about how we need to change our policies, the awareness of our people and the proactive environment that we can provide in order to minimise the circumstances of suicide occurring. That was a tragic set of circumstances. We are doing our best to learn from them and to change the environment to prevent suicide occurring within the force.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s a nice broad fluffy statement, and it’s honourable, but I’d like a specific answer to that question, if you could give it to me. I accept that you’re putting yourself in a difficult position if you just answer off the cuff, so we’d appreciate the answer on notice.
Adm. Johnston: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did Defence redact freedom of information material under sections 47E and 47F relating to statements by Flight Lieutenant Carlisle Miles, Commodore Fiona Southwood and Colonel Matthew Freeman when an FOI review later revealed those redactions concealed false and subjective statements portraying Petty Officer Armfield—that’s the deceased’s brother, and he’s also the complainant—as dishonest or mentally unstable? Some of those statements were emailed 11 times to 14 commissioned officers, thereby damaging his professional reputation and shaping a false narrative to protect Defence.
Adm. Johnston: I’m sorry. I don’t have that knowledge, but we will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s the brother.
Adm. Johnston: Sorry? What is the question within what you’ve just presented?
Senator ROBERTS: Why did the Inspector-General of the ADF in his assessment report of 2022 identify that Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Freeman conducted a fact-finding investigation without the required investigator qualification, acted with bias and exceeded his terms of reference by commenting on Mr Armfield’s mental health? That’s Petty Officer Armfield.
Adm. Johnston: If your question is why did the Inspector-General of the ADF come to that conclusion, that is best, of course, presented to the inspector-general rather than to the department.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know if what he said was true and you’re aware of it?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: What authority or qualification did Commodore Bannister rely upon to decide that Mr Armfield’s allegations of criminal conduct, supported by ADF legal advice and reviewed by senior external lawyers, were not referred to police or prosecutors?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I will take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Petty Officer Armfield reported alleged breaches of Commonwealth law on the advice of an ADF lawyer to Commodore Fiona Southwood, Warrant Officer Navy Andrew Bertoncin, Captain Anne Andrews, Chief of Navy Mark Hammond, IGADF and the Defence Force Ombudsman. All were provided the evidence. Process and policy was followed. If each officer deflected or claimed it was not their remit, who exactly does an enlisted sailor, soldier or air crew report allegations of criminal conduct to within the ADF?
Adm. Johnston: That is one of the areas where we have extensively sought to enhance the options that are available to individuals of how they report. Some of them, as you were referring to, would be up through their leadership chain. We have ensured there are independent options that are outside of an individual’s unit or command structure so that in those circumstances where they feel more comfortable reporting externally they have multiple options, whether it is to military police or the inspector-general of the ADF. We now have a centralised reporting mechanism where reporting can be made that is separate to the command chains. We have ensured there are multiple pathways available to people when either they believe that reporting that they may have made to their leadership is not being acted on or where they are uncomfortable with reporting in that environment and they wish to be able to report externally to it.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m hearing—correct me if I’m wrong—is that mandatory defence suicide management policy was not followed, that oversight failed and you’ve made changes since. Serious concerns raised by Petty Officer John Armfield, the deceased’s brother, were known to senior Defence leadership and possibly yourself while being denied under oath elsewhere; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: That’s not what I said, with respect.
Senator ROBERTS: No, I wasn’t saying what you said—what I’ve heard, what I’ve interpreted.
Adm. Johnston: No, I didn’t comment on the individual circumstances of the case but did explain what we had done. If your question is around that set of circumstances, I will need to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could take it on notice, please. I accept your correction there. We’ve heard that reputationally damaging material was withheld under freedom of information, that flawed and unqualified investigations occurred and that allegations of possible criminal conduct were not referred despite legal advice; is that correct?
Adm. Johnston: Again, I do not have that detail. I would have to come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: Notably, the only person referred to law enforcement in this matter was the whistleblower himself, who was acting on the advice of an ADF lawyer, and none of the officers whose conduct is now in question. Could you confirm or correct that, please?
Adm. Johnston: I would have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t see this as support for a whistleblower. It’s avoidance. It goes to the heart of institutional integrity and accountability. I look forward to your answers to questions on notice, because the public deserve the truth. Your officers and your enlisted people deserve the truth—Army, Navy, Air Force—and they deserve justice. Anything less confirms that protecting the institution still matters more than protecting those who serve it. That’s what I’ve seen, being blunt, for the last few years in Senate estimates. The senior brass of the ADF is not standing up and providing leadership.
Adm. Johnston: I hope you have seen significant evidence that, as we have already canvassed this morning, people are critical to our capability, and that the work we are doing through implementing the royal commission recommendations within Defence is a significant priority for us. The structure of support and the environment and culture that we are seeking to build, both within the Defence Force and more broadly across Defence, is highly supportive of our people. There are circumstances—and the royal commission was clear—where we have let people down, and we have acknowledged that. We have put significant effort and priority around doing everything that we can to change those circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: I look at the report from the inquiry into honours and awards. There was a clear recommendation that Defence put in place a more objective process, and that was nixed by the government. I still don’t see that desire for accountability and truth at the top of the Australian Defence Force.
“First, they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
The author of this commentary on social change wasn’t Gandhi. Its 1918 author was unionist Nicholas Klein, on the successful struggle to establish fair working conditions in America’s textile industry.
I’m reminded of this aphorism daily by constituents who draw a parallel with One Nation’s recent progress. For One Nation, the ‘burn you’ part has started amongst the media, politicians, corrupted union bosses, and crony capitalists.
Well, good luck with that!
Last weekend drew a sellout crowd of 600 to the Albury Entertainment Centre for the preselection of our Farrer by-election candidate, David Farley. The people have decided that our Western heritage is worth fighting for, and so has One Nation. I ask you to look past the character assassinations, the lies, and spin trying to demonise One Nation and vote for the only party that has your back.
Together we can restore wealth, prosperity, and opportunity to all who are here, including our young, who have been penalised the worst by successive Liberal, National, and Labor party governments that work for the benefit of their financial backers rather than everyday Australians.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: One hundred and twenty-six years ago, history said:
“First, they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you.”
The author of this commentary on social change wasn’t Gandhi. Its 1918 author was unionist Nicholas Klein on the successful struggle to establish fair working conditions in America’s textile industry. I’m reminded of this aphorism daily by constituents who draw a parallel with One Nation’s recent progress. For One Nation, the ‘burn you’ part has started amongst the media, politics, corrupted union bosses and crony capitalists. Well, good luck with that!
Last weekend drew a sellout crowd of 600 to the Albury Entertainment Centre for the preselection of our Farrar by-election candidate, David Farley. The people have decided that our Western heritage is worth fighting for. Julius Caesar described our Celtic forebears as barbarians and noted their ferocity and individual courage that at times lacked discipline and order. How true are those words today, from the courage of our leader Pauline Hanson to the fierce determination that One Nation members show across our country? We do from time to time demonstrate a lack of discipline, which is a strength. It’s our certificate of authenticity from a party that puts Australia first.
As for barbarians at the gate, One Nation does not seek validation from people who turn their backs on everyday Australians and govern from feelings, not facts. Poor governance has resulted in our young being disenfranchised from housing, from breadwinner jobs and from children. Labor and the Greens have destroyed private jobs growth and small business, created ruinous inflation and made people’s lives far harder. A common Celtic battle cry translates to ‘fierce when roused’, perfectly describing everyday Australians of all nationalities now flocking to One Nation. (Time expired)
For decades, the Liberal-Labor uniparty has sold out Australians to a globalist agenda.
Sky-high electricity prices, crushed farmers and unaffordable housing aren’t accidents; they are the result of the UN’s Agenda 21 and the psychopathic UN criminal Maurice Strong and his plan to deindustrialise the West.
From the UN’s 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the current “Net Zero” madness, elected Liberal-National-Labor leaders have been blindly following a foreign script. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights, imposed renewable energy targets and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide TAX, an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.
The current approach to climate and energy policy is built on scientific uncertainty and economic risk. Minister Chris Bowen’s department lacks scientific proof of climate change and defers instead to the UN IPCC, an organisation that relies on “guesses” rather than empirical data.
We are being driven off a $1.9 trillion cliff for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for large solar and wind projects that lack cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, farmers’ rights have been stolen, affordable energy destroyed and $30 billion a year is being wasted on UN climate compliance.
One Nation is the only party with a plan to: ✅ Exit the UN Paris Agreement ✅ Abolish the Department of Climate Change, saving $30 billion/year in UN waste ✅ Restore affordable coal and gas ✅ Build dams and infrastructure ✅ Put AUSTRALIANS first, not globalist billionaires.
👉 Vote One Nation to secure a future for your children, your grandchildren – and every generation to follow.
Trancript
Senator Roberts: As people awaken to the Liberal-Labor uniparty facade, polls show the political status quo is changing and ending. The one thing I want everyone to remember is that Australia’s economic and environmental destruction is based on the psychopathic United Nations criminal Maurice Strong. It matters, because all Australians are suffering unaffordable energy prices, cruel cost of living and family-crushing house prices and rents. The Howard Liberal-National government started this dishonest madness. It stole farmers property rights to comply with the UN’s 1997 Kyoto protocol. It imposed its renewable energy target and proposed the first policy for a carbon dioxide tax—an emissions trading scheme to make Maurice Strong a billionaire.
Energy prices affect every aspect of our lives and lifestyles. It’s the foundation of modern civilisation and international competitiveness. In a recent Senate inquiry, Minister Chris Bowen’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water could not provide me with scientific proof climate is changing. They deferred to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is the UN body that Maurice Strong spawned. The UN IPCC provides no hard data as proof. It guesses likelihoods and confidence levels to fraudulently imply statistical rigour where there is none.
The department then revealed it has no specific, measured policy basis for transition to unaffordable solar, wind and batteries under Maurice Strong’s UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Goals. It has no specific impact of human carbon dioxide as basis for policy—confirming no cost-benefit analysis, no evaluation of policy options, no business case, no plan and no tracking implementation. We are not transitioning in this country. Minister Chris Bowen is blindly driving us off a cliff at a cost of $1.9 trillion for nothing. Australians now suffer the world’s most stupid and highest electricity prices. Meanwhile, President Trump in America uses real science to restore affordable hydrocarbon fuels—coal, oil and natural gas.
My team has 24,000 datasets from science agencies worldwide, including our own Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO. They show no change in climate—temperature; rainfall; storm frequency, severity or duration; drought, ocean temperature; or extreme weather—but just show ongoing inherent natural variation in cycles: warm/cool, warm/cool.
Maurice Strong was a Canadian oil magnate who, in 1972, started the UN environmental program UNEP. Six months later he manipulated and schemed his way to be its head. In 1976 UNEP fabricated science to ban the insecticide DDT that had eradicated malaria in the West. After 40- to 50 million needless deaths from malaria—Indians, Asians and Africans—the UN restored the use of DDT in 2006. The world’s list of mass killers is Chairman Mao, 60 million deaths; Maurice Strong, 40- to 50 million; Joseph Stalin, 40 million; and Adolph Hitler, 20 million.
In 1980 Maurice Strong started systematically entrenching bogus claims of future climate catastrophe due to carbon dioxide from human activity—power stations, industry, transport, travel and animal farming. In 1988 he formed the UN’s political climate body, the IPCC, and fraudulently proclaimed it ‘scientific’. His purpose was to corrupt climate science to mislead and scare people worldwide with unfounded fear. For example, in its second science report in 1995, scientists concluded they could find no evidence of human carbon dioxide affecting climate, yet the IPCC’s Ben Santer—he’s still in the IPCC—single-handedly reversed that to say they did. All six UN science reports rely on distortion and fraud. Why?
Maurice Strong was a founding director of the Chicago Climate Exchange, trading carbon dioxide credits—a corrupt global carbon dioxide tax—to make its directors billionaires, to provide the UN with ongoing revenue independent of member-nation grants and to guarantee revenue for his ambitions of global governance. Maurice Strong then built paths and systems for climate prostitutes stealing subsidies for solar and wind. When American law enforcement wanted Maurice Strong for illegal water trading and the UN’s oil-for-food scandal, he exiled himself to China, a major beneficiary of the West’s climate and energy insanity.
In his report for the UN, the Club of Rome’s Maurice Strong stated:
In searching for a new enemy to unite us—
being humans globally—
we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.
He was a lying scaremonger.
In 1992 UN Earth Summit Secretary-General Maurice Strong—there he is again—said:
It is clear that current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, consumption of large amounts of frozen and convenience foods, use of fossil fuels, ownership of motor vehicles, small electrical appliances, home and workplace air conditioning and suburban housing are not sustainable …
The reports said human activity caused these ‘dangers’ and needed a global response.
Maurice Strong stated his life’s aims as ‘deindustrialising Western civilisation’ and ‘putting in place an unelected socialist global governance’. In 1992 Paul Keating’s Labor government signed UN Agenda 21 that pushed 17 so-called sustainable development goals to control every aspect of every person’s life globally. John Howard’s Liberal-National government accelerated an entrenched implementation of UN Agenda 21, including its 2007 Water Act. Its energy transition is now destroying what had been the world’s best electricity supply grid, stealing farmers’ property rights and laying the foundation for pushing Maurice Strong’s policies across Australia. In 1996 one federal MP, Pauline Hanson, courageously exposed it all. In 2013 the South Australian MP Ann Bressington gave details of UN Agenda 21 fabricating bogus crises blamed on humans.
Maurice Strong said, ‘The enemy is humanity itself.’ They hate you and they want to control every aspect of our lives, lifestyles and society, transferring wealth from we the people to globalist climate prostitutes. An extraordinarily clever and scheming Maurice Strong manipulated national leaders to adopt his programs to save the planet and humanity from humans. In my first Senate speech, in 2016, I called out UN Agenda 21 and called for Australia to exit the UN. I’m pleased to say that’s now One Nation policy.
We want the people of Australia to regain control over their lives and over our nation. We want Australians to keep the billions of dollars currently being transferred to climate and energy whores, who are stealing your money through subsidies, grants and taxes, enabled by people in this Senate. As your financial position goes backwards, Labor, Greens and moderates in the Liberals drive social policies to attack and divide you as colonisers, degendered and disrespected.
Maurice Strong drove those attacks with policies to smash both foundations of human civilisation: the family and the nation-state. Maurice Strong died in 2015, one month before his UN Paris Agreement was signed and his legacy UN net zero program targets were set—targets to which Labor, Liberal, the teals and the Greens all remain committed. They silently and dishonestly impose UN restrictions, fraud and burdens on Australians to govern with invalid edicts from New York and Geneva.
One Nation will remove Maurice Strong’s psychopathic grip over Australia. Instead, One Nation will return you to affordable energy; affordable living; affordable housing; lifestyle choices, making families strong again; industry, with breadwinner jobs; and a future with abundance, built on realising Australia’s true potential. One Nation is changing Australia’s political status quo. One Nation will abolish the department of climate change, leave the UN Paris Agreement and the UN Kyoto protocol, and stop UN net zero and all associated regulations, schemes and spending to save more than $30 billion a year in duplication and waste. That $30 billion a year we will use to build infrastructure that benefits everyday Australians, starting with Queensland’s Urannah Dam irrigation project and a new greenfield hospital in Albury. A vote for One Nation will end Maurice Strong’s psychopathic, criminal control over our country and put Australia first.
The Albanese Government hid a provision in a Superannuation bill which gave charity status to a lobby group, Equality Australia. For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia, as well as almost 2,800 other faith-based schools.
Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws. These laws permit schools to fire, demote, or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity, or to expel or deny enrolment to students on those grounds, as being contrary to their religious teachings — although they only target certain religious groups.
Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasas on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools, despite both religions treating these issues the same way. It’s this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group, not a charity — and a gutless, dishonest one at that.
Equality Australia was refused charity status by the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and finally the full Federal Court, because they are a lobby group, not a charity.
The Government has legislated this approval because they are desperate to keep the transgender industry going to secure votes in crucial city electorates, which they are defending from the Greens.
I ask suburban, regional, and rural voters to reject the Government’s perverse agenda and vote One Nation to end the transgender madness and the Queer mafia attacks on Christianity.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Last year’s pre-election budget contained a hidden announcement indicating the federal government’s intention to award deductible gift recipient status to Equality Australia. Additionally, deductible gift recipient is called registered charity status. That allows donations to the organisation to be claimed as tax deductions. Reduced taxation from donors means taxpayers wind up paying more, so, if a body is getting charity status, they better deserve it. The innocuously named Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 makes that happen—granting charity status to a lobby group Equality Australia until 1 July 2030. In other words, taxpayers will pay for donations to Equality Australia.
For those who don’t know, Equality Australia is an LGBTQI+ organisation committed to destroying religious freedom in Australia. Their strategy is to force religious schools to teach the same perverted agenda taught in public schools, even to the point of forcing religious schools to hire trans teachers. For many years, Equality Australia has waged a campaign against Christian Schools Australia as well as other faith based schools, numbering almost 2,800 schools across Australia. It strongly advocates to strip protections that currently and tenuously allow Christian schools to operate in name and in nature—that is, as Christian schools.
Their method is to target exemptions under the Sex Discrimination Act and similar state laws which permit schools to fire, demote or refuse to hire teachers based on sexual orientation or gender identity or to expel or deny enrolment students on those grounds, as being contrary their religious teachings, although only certain religious groups. Equality Australia does not mention Islamic schools or madrasah on their website. They have taken Christian schools to court, yet never Islamic schools. Both religions treat these issues the same way. It is this double standard that defines Equality Australia as a lobby group not a charity and a gutless one at that—a dishonest lobby group.
The background to this issue is that Equality Australia has previously sought public benevolent institution status as a way to get tax deductibility for the donor, yet the government’s Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission rejected those attempts, and then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal rejected the same attempts, and then the full Federal Court rejected the same attempts. All decided that Equality Australia is not a charity. It’s a lobby group. They even say that in their strategic plan. While this was going on, media reports suggest Equality Australia has been rorting the system, channelling donations through another charity, Thorne Harbour Health, formerly the Victorian AIDS Council, and there you have it. What a pile. This arrangement may be allowing an entity which is not a charity but a lobby group to use, in whole or in part, tax deductions to an AIDS trust. This is a clearly non-conforming operation.
Complaints have been made to the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. The Prime Minister’s hand-picked governor-general is controversially the patron of Equality Australia, and the Australian newspaper has reported the Governor-General has declined to answer their questions on the appropriateness of this arrangement.
This bill was passed through the House of Representatives on 26 November 2025 and went to the Senate standing committee on economics for inquiry and report, and, of course, they rubberstamped it. One Nation calls for the granting of deductible gift status to Equality Australia to be put on hold until the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission completes investigations into these dodgy financial arrangements.
The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission grants charity status as a routine measure. It’s only when an organisation which does not deserve to be a charity applies that bills like this come before the Senate. You know it—bills that overrule the experts, overrule the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and override the full Federal Court. Does the minister know better than all of these bodies? Of course not. This decision has been taken because there are votes in the urban bubble in this war on Christianity and in Equality Australia, the Labor Party, the Greens and the teals pursuing gender.
And there’s more. The Productivity Commission is reviewing the whole system for granting charity status. Their final report on philanthropy within Australia proposed a wholesale upheaval of the deductible gift recipient system. Why don’t we do that—suspend more of these legislated overrules of the system until these matters can be settled? It would be terrifying to open the door to Equality Australia’s having more money to conduct its war on Christianity and on religious schools—sorry, its war on Christian schools. It’s not a war on Islamic schools but on Christian schools—not all religious schools, just Christian schools. With stronger campaign finance behind the lobby group, our schools are in danger of coming under attack once more.
In February’s Senate estimates hearings, I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral and to not take political positions. This leads to many questions for the government. Firstly, how is it that the Governor-General can be patron of a political activist group like Equality Australia, which actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children? Secondly, why did Assistant Minister for Productivity, Competition, Charities and Treasury, Dr Andrew Leigh, intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when, on three occasions, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings held that Equality Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status? Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia such a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the full bench of the Federal Court? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group, the lobby group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirement of neutrality of the Governor-General?
Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law, does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group, the activist group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government—on your behalf? Is this lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex, to change gender? One Nation will propose an amendment to the bill as follows: delete clause 4 of schedule 5 of the bill in its entirety and, consequently, delete chapter 5.18 of the bill’s explanatory memorandum.
Turning to the bill as a whole, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 amends the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 to streamline the choice of superannuation fund made during the onboarding of new employees and ban the advertising of certain superannuation products—fair enough. Additionally, it amends the income tax assessment acts to provide income tax and withholding-tax exemptions for World Rugby and its wholly owned subsidiaries. The bill amends the International Tax Agreements Act 1953 to give legislative authority to the Convention between Australia and the Portuguese Republic for the Elimination of Double Taxation with respect to Taxes on Income and the Prevention of Tax Evasion and Avoidance. It amends the A New Tax System (Wine Equalisation Tax) Act 1999 to increase the maximum amount of wine equalisation tax producer rebate that eligible wine producers can claim to $400,000 each financial year.
I now address comments made by Senators McKim and Dolega in their second reading speeches earlier today. By the way, One Nation has members of the LGBTIQ community in its membership and in its voter base. In response to Senator McKim’s comments about LGBTQI+, I note that many lesbians, gays and bisexuals oppose gender affirmation as a treatment for gender dysphoria in children. They oppose it, and they oppose it very strongly—I’ve spoken to them. Like One Nation, they know that surgery to chop body parts off children and the hormone and chemical treatment of adolescents alters brain function and puberty and neuter the victims’ ability to have children later. One Nation clearly opposes gender affirmation of children as a way of treating gender dysphoria, a known mental health condition that children pass through. One Nation points to the lack of peer reviewed, double-blind, scientific and medical studies that support gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of studies and experts in the field now discrediting gender affirmation. One Nation points to the growing number of children and parents using legal action, court action, to sue those now known to harm children through surgical, hormonal and/or chemical means implementing gender affirmation.
In response to Senator Dolega’s use of labels—through you, Chair—including ‘cookers’ and ‘homophobes’, against us, I note that labels are the refuge of those incapable of responding with a rational, fact based argument, whether their claim is ignorant, incompetent, dishonest, desperate, stupid, weak, lazy or fearful. When people resort to using labels, they confirm they have neither the data nor the logical argument to counter their opponent’s position. In that way, those who resort to labels admit they lack a counter argument. They’re admitting they have lost. It’s also not possible to give offence—only to take offence. Calling me a cooker or a homophobe—whatever—has no impact on me. It won’t stop me telling the truth. I do not take offence. Until the recipient takes offence, labels are mere words that tell everyone about the labeller, not the labelled.
In conclusion, as I foreshadowed earlier, One Nation will move an amendment to this bill in committee stage. If the amendment is not carried, One Nation will oppose this bill; if the amendment is carried, One Nation will support the bill.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Sharma): Senator Roberts, before you conclude, I want to draw your attention to standing order 193(2) of the Senate, which directs:
A senator shall not refer to the King, the Governor-General or the Governor of a state disrespectfully in debate …
I would ask you to reflect on your comments with regard to the Governor-General and consider whether you wish to withdraw them.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Acting Deputy President. I was referring to the Governor-General’s actions and whether or not the government condone them.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. I might refer this matter to the President to look at what you said a bit more closely, but my recollection, Senator Roberts, was that you called into question the partiality or otherwise of the Governor-General. Is that not your recollection?
Senator ROBERTS: That is correct.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Then I would ask you to withdraw, because that is a—
Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw.
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts.
In this session, I question the Aged Care Safety & Quality Commissioner on why some Commonwealth-funded aged-care facilities are banning family visitors without a legal or public health mandate. Many constituents are raising this issue, and I wanted to find out what was the lawful basis for these “operational discretions.”
I was pleased to get a direct admission from Ms. Metz that there is no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a provider to unilaterally ban a visitor. In fact, the Act explicitly protects the resident’s right to have visitors.
The ACQSC confirmed that they view an unjustified visitor ban as a serious breach of residents’ rights.
I questioned why funding continues to flow to these providers while they are under investigation for unlawful bans. Ms. Hefren-Webb clarified that while they don’t control the “funding lever” (which sits with the Department), they do have the authority to pursue civil penalties and compliance notices.
It was concerning to hear from Mr. Day that the Department hasn’t issued explicit guidance to providers telling them they can’t use visitor bans as a lazy substitute for proper staff discipline or complaints management.
The Commission could not provide immediate data on visitor ban complaints or subsequent enforcement actions, and took these questions on notice.
We must ensure that our elderly are not isolated from their loved ones just because a provider finds a family member “difficult.”
– Senate Estimates | February 2026
Transcript
Ms Hefren-Webb: Hi, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I think my questions are fairly straightforward, so we should be able to move through them pretty quickly. On what lawful basis does the ACQSC permit Commonwealth funded aged-care facilities to impose visitor bans where there is no public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Can you just repeat that last bit of your question? Where do we allow them to impose visitor bans where there is no—
Senator ROBERTS: No public health order, no tribunal decision or no resident request.
Ms Hefren-Webb: I’ll have to take that question on notice. I think. Is there a specific circumstance you’re referring to?
Senator ROBERTS: No—I don’t want to bring it up now but constituents are asking us. Does the ACQSC accept that a provider may unilaterally ban a family member as a matter of operational discretion? If so, where is that power derived from in law or regulation?
Ms Hefren-Webb: I might ask Ms Metz to come forward who heads up our Sector Capability and Regulatory Strategy area. I am aware that there are cases where family members are alleged to have caused issues or disruption, and that’s been the subject of the service, maybe, seeking that they don’t attend, but I’m not aware of a ban per se. I’ll just see if Ms Metz has anything to contribute.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’d like to know is where their power is derived from in law and legislation.
Mr Metz: Under the Aged Care Act, residents have a right to visitors and people who are important to them. There’s no legal basis under the Aged Care Act for a visitor to be banned. In fact, it’s the opposite, that people have the right to have visitors. We often, through our complaints process, will work through some of those difficult issues that Ms Hefren-Webb mentioned, where providers have difficult situations with certain family members. We do work through those, with both the providers and the families, to resolve those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: How many complaints has ACQSC received, since 1 January, relating to family or visitor bans in residential aged-care facilities?
Ms Hefren-Webb: We would have to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s fine. Of those complaints, how many resulted in enforcement action, compliance notices or findings of noncompliance with the aged-care quality standards?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Again, we’ll have to take that one on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. Does ACQSC consider the imposition of an unjustified visitor ban to be a serious breach of residents’ rights and if not, why not? I think you’ve already answered that.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, we would consider it to be a serious breach of rights.
Senator ROBERTS: Is Commonwealth funding continued to providers while they are subject to unresolved complaints regarding unlawful visitor bans?
Ms Hefren-Webb: We have complaints that cover a wide range of matters. Our focus is on working with the provider and the complainant and their family and carers to resolve those matters as quickly as possible, to make necessary restoration, if needed, to undertake mediation or other activities. We have no responsibility for the funding of the facilities. That’s the department. Our enforcement activities go to things like enforceable undertaking, civil penalties et cetera. There’s no direct link between if we consider that a provider has failed to respect someone’s rights and a funding lever. We would be taking action through other means.
Senator ROBERTS: You have the authority to do that.
Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the department of health issued any guidance to providers clarifying that visitor bans cannot be used as a substitute for proper complaints management or staff discipline processes?
Ms Hefren-Webb: I’m not aware whether or not there’s been direct guidance on that matter. We can follow that up for you though.
Mr Day: We haven’t provided explicit guidance on that specific issue. We have provided guidance on the impact of the statements of rights that came into effect with the new act, including, as Ms Metz indicated, the right to have access to individuals that are important to an aged-care resident.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my last question, Chair. In the context of the new Aged Care Act and rights based reforms, what steps are being taken to ensure residents are not isolated from family due to provider convenience, disputes or risk aversion?
Ms Hefren-Webb: We have a number of mechanisms by which we are assessing the extent to which providers are respecting the rights of residents. Obviously, complaints are one source of information that we can follow up on. We also receive reports—
Senator ROBERTS: Those are complaints direct to you?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Yes, that’s correct, as well as serious incident reports that come through to us. We also, as I mentioned before, undertake audits of all residential care facilities every three years. In that, we will be interviewing a number of residents, family members and staff to make sure that residents’ rights are being upheld and respected. We also receive anonymous complaints, tip-offs and whistleblowing. So there are a range of ways that those matters can come to our attention. If we were made aware that someone’s right to have family or friends or loved ones visit them was being impeded, we would take that extremely seriously.
Senator ROBERTS: Where do you have offices around the country? If someone in Central Queensland made a complaint, how would you address it? Through the phone?
Ms Hefren-Webb: Initially, we do address matters over the phone. But, if the matter raises significant safety concerns for us, we will send a team, and we can do an unannounced visit of a facility. We have staff who are trained to go and assess what’s happening, find out, investigate. Our staff are based in all the capitals around Australia. In that case, if it were Central Queensland, we’d send a team probably from our Brisbane based staff.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, I want to put on the record that I rushed my questions because of another deadline, but I want to acknowledge the three respondents. They’ve been very prompt and concise with their answers. Thank you very much.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for using your eight minutes very efficiently for us. That’s very generous of you today.
How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.
We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.
As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.
‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.
‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.
Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.
Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.
It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.
To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.
Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.
Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.
Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.
At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.
This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.
We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.
It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.
A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.
In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.
…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.
As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:
‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.
When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’
It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.
These are things we need to know.
And what did Labor and the Greens do?
They voted it down.
They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.
Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.
While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.
The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.
Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.
The outrageous propaganda is already starting.
News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.
It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.
If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.
The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?
AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.
Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.
Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.
Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.
Strategically, it’s madness.
In reality – it’s impossible.
Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.
The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.
Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.
And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.
One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.
We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.
One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.
We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.
This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.
‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RPfUPBEka8U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-05 13:19:462026-03-05 13:19:49The Cost of Looking the Other Way
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.
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Hbn6VZxm_CQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-03 14:33:062026-03-03 14:33:09Elitism: The New Labor Way
