May 2026 - Malcolm Roberts

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.

Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.

This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.

Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.

On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.

‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’

When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:

‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’

Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:

‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’

Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…

There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:

Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.

It does.

According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.

This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.

As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’

If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.

And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.

Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.

Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.

The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.

What is the Paris Agreement?

It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.

Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…

The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.

And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.

A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.

And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.

As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.

This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.

‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan

The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.

There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.

The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.

An expensive bit of paper…

This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.

And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.

Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.

These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…

This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.

And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.

It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?

Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.

‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump

Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.

At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.

This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?

On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:

57 Paris Agreement

That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.

Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.

In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.

In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’

Is it a piece of paper or a scam?

‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’

Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.

‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’

Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.

It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.

We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)

However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.

May 22, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation

Media, National

One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.

By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.

Transcript

Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.

Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.

Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.

Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.

One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.

We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.

The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.

A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.

They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.

They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.

However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.

It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.

Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.

One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.

The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.

ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.

Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.

ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.

This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.

Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.

Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.

When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.

To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.

One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.

It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.

At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.

Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.

We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.

It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.

This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.

This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.

May 22, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Budget Reply: One Nation’s Blueprint to Put Australians First

National, Speeches

In our Budget Reply, we had so much to say about saving this country that Senator Hanson ran out of time to deliver it all.

One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction for Australia — one rooted in proven, common-sense economic principles.

➡️ Cheap, Reliable Energy: Ditching the “green” agenda to invest in coal and nuclear.

➡️ Real Wealth: Backing the local industries that actually build this nation.

➡️ Lower Taxes: Putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Australian families.

➡️Less Bureaucracy: Listening to engineers and physicists, not climate bureaucrats.

Transcript

For all the talk about this budget, many issues are all too familiar. Revenue is up from $773 billion to $815 billion. Expenses are up from $812 billion to $833 billion. Gross interest payments are at $27 billion, rising to $40 billion over the forward estimates. Budget deficits are forecast to balloon by another $100 billion over the next four years. Interest-bearing debt will climb another $300 billion to $1.3 trillion. Businesses are collapsing at record rates—almost 50,000 insolvencies since Labor took office. Productivity is stuck at six-decade lows. Eight out of 10 new jobs are now created by government because the private sector has become so disillusioned. Business confidence and domestic investment have fallen to 1990s recession lows. Our inflation remains the highest in the developed world.

Australian families have endured 15 interest rate hikes, pushing more than one million households into extreme mortgage stress. GDP per capita has fallen in 10 of the last 13 quarters, and 337,000 households can no longer pay their energy bills—double the level of five years ago—as power prices continue to surge.

Labor will introduce the working Australians tax offset. It’s less than $5 a week in relief and doesn’t kick in until next year, an election year. The government wants you to be grateful for 68c a day off your tax. That tax offset will be completely rubbed out by bracket creep. Bracket creep means working Australians will pay more in tax because of inflation. The government profits from higher inflation. It’s a stealth tax, a trap for the next election and an advertising slogan for 2028. They used the same trap in their election advertising in 2022. If anyone dares to refuse passing a useless, less than $5 tax cut, they will be accused of not supporting tax cuts. While Australians will receive just $2.6 billion back in the one-off WATO, they’ll pay tens of billions more in taxes because of bracket creep.

One Nation tried to end bracket creep by indexing income tax thresholds to inflation, ending the stealthy tax increases. Labor, the Liberals, the Nationals and the Greens refused to support it. Instead of the measly $250, ending bracket creep would put thousands of dollars a year back in working Australians’ pockets. We don’t need Labor to protect Australians; we need to protect Australians from Labor.

The tax changes in this budget, including on discretionary trusts, will suppress investor appetite and speculative capital, forcing these businesses to set up in jurisdictions with no impediments. Capital will always, always follow to where it is most loved.

This budget reveals a political culture that relies evermore heavily on centralised bureaucracy, dependency on the state and short-term intervention. That is the Labor way. Forget the spin about intergenerational equity; it’s being used as an excuse to break election promises. True equity does not punish those who worked hard, took risks, built businesses and paid their taxes. It does not resent aspiration or success. Real intergenerational equity means giving young Australians the same opportunities their parents had—the chance to own a home, raise a family, start a business and get ahead through hard work. Young people are not struggling because older generations succeeded. They are falling behind because governments have chosen subsidies and wealth redistribution over allowing free enterprise to flourish.

On the forward estimates, our total liabilities will exceed $1.9 trillion—a burden to be repaid by our children and grandchildren. That is not equity. That is hypocrisy. Changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax will further dampen economic activity, push rents higher and reduce housing supply. As a self-proclaimed scholar of Paul Keating, the Treasurer might have reflected on what happened in 1985 when these same policies were tried and had to be reversed two years later.

Housing is a national crisis only since Labor took office, and I say ‘crisis’. More than 40 per cent of the cost of building a new home is government taxes and unnecessary compliance costs. One Nation will take a different approach. We will slash the GST to zero on building materials for homes up to a value of $1 million for the next five years. Rapid population growth without matching supply is a recipe for declining living standards. This is not about blaming migrants. It’s about recognising limits. But this government has no interest in reducing migration, for all the talk. It expects to increase visa application fees from $4.7 billion today to $7.1 billion by 2029-30. Elevated migration is a money spinner. Canada cut migration sharply from 2024 and has now enjoyed 18 straight months of falling rents and easing house prices, something we have strongly advocated for.

We will introduce income splitting for every family with at least one dependent child. A single earner on $120,000 with a stay-at-home partner would be around $9½ thousand a year better off. We will exempt insurance from the GST, and we urge the states to drop stamp duty on it as well. Affordable insurance ultimately reduces burdens on taxpayers. We will allow aged pensioners and veterans to work as much as they want without losing any of their pensions or health card benefits.

For more than a decade, One Nation has consistently argued that Australia must strengthen domestic resilience, including strategic fuel reserves, reliable energy systems, food and water security, and sovereign industrial capabilities supported by true nation-building infrastructure. The current liquid fuel crisis has not only exposed our domestic unpreparedness but signalled to adversaries how vulnerable we would be in a conflict. Building a strategic reserve is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to build resilience and liquid fuel independence. The total cost of not having sufficient supplies will always outweigh the net cost of having them in a crisis.

One Nation will cut the red, green and black tape that is strangling projects and fast-track major approvals, especially energy, to a maximum of six months. We will ditch net zero, exit the Paris Agreement and axe the climate change department, saving $30 billion in the process. We will back coal and gas and support bringing nuclear power to bring down prices, restore reliability and guarantee national energy security. Next week, I will introduce a bold new gas policy that underwrites our vast sovereign resource assets for decades to come. It will provide real equity investment and genuine skin in the game, where our healthy dividend will help pay down the debt racked up by successive governments.

We have listened extensively, and we will work with industry, not against it, in genuine partnership. We will bring back our mining and resources industries, the bedrock that funds schools, hospitals, roads and defence. A strong nation leverages its natural advantages. It does not demonise them. One Nation will swiftly move to get rid of impediments in an increasingly competitive global environment and restore our status as a nation that rolls out the red carpet in resources rather than roll it up. We are backing the Capricorn steel project, to connect coal in Queensland’s Bowen Basin to iron ore in Western Australia’s Pilbara region with a rail line that will open northern Australia to development. The project is strongly backed by Australian investors and is aimed at making Australia a major global supplier of high-quality steel. It will require the Inland Rail project, now abandoned by Labor, to be completed and extended to the more suitable Port of Gladstone, in Queensland. It will be the foundation for a national rail circuit that effectively circumnavigates the Australian continent, providing freight efficiencies and improved defence logistics. These are no longer abstract debates. They are national security imperatives.

In agriculture, we will ban the further sale of controlling interests in freehold farmland to foreign investors and limit the sale of leasehold farmland to a maximum of 25 years. We will ban foreign ownership of water and return balance to the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. One Nation strongly supports the modern hybrid Bradfield scheme to improve water security, open new areas to farming and improve food security and exports. We will build new dams and water infrastructure, reintroduce drought payments and re-establish a federal government backed rural lending fund to protect farmers through other natural disasters.

Importantly, we will restore accountability. Australians work hard for their money, and they deserve a government that shows the same discipline. Successive governments have failed to tackle a culture where people in charge of creating multiple white elephants pay no price for their commercial illiteracy. Snowy 2.0, which has blown out 21 times—to $42 billion—is but one egregious example. One Nation will ensure past, present and emerging failures will no longer be transaction free for those responsible.

We will abolish divisive cultural departments and race based programs that divide Australians by skin colour or ancestry. Every Australian will be treated as equal under one flag and one culture. Help will be given on the basis of genuine need, not race. No more special privileges—equal rights for all, and special rights for none. There will be no more taxpayer-funded welcome to country rituals. Unity builds strength; division destroys it.

Our Defence Force must focus on operational readiness, capability and deterrence, not morale-sapping identity politics. One Nation will restore pride in wearing the uniform and give them the latest equipment to carry out their duties. We won’t sell off our historic sites of symbolic significance to cover irresponsible spending.

Australians are not asking for miracles. They are simply asking for a country that works again. One Nation continues to attract practical Australians with real world experience—people from finance, investment, trade, engineering, farming, small business, building, energy, manufacturing and defence. These are men and women who have built things, employed people and delivered results outside the Canberra bubble. Australia does not need more career politicians serving vested interests. One Nation believes the government is there to serve you. This budget only goes to prove yet again that this government believes you are there to serve it.

In closing, Australia stands at a crossroads. For too long, Labor’s failed experiment of reckless spending, crippling regulation, net zero ideology and wealth redistribution has driven businesses to the wall. It’s crushed living standards, saddled our children with debt and stolen the Australian dream from an entire generation. A nation loses hope when it loses vision. Australia now has near a trillion dollars in debt and nothing to show for it. One Nation will break the green, red and black tape that has tied us down. We will work with the natural strengths of the assets on our balance sheet. We have iron ore, coal, gas, cattle, rain, cotton, gold, copper, oil and so much more. Australia should be a powerhouse, but the major parties lack the management skills for us reach our potential. It is perverse that a government and an opposition believe they can change the weather, and are prepared to waste ultimately hundreds of billions to do it, while they mock the idea of a version of the Bradfield scheme that would open the massive potential for irrigation of the rich but dry soils of the western districts. It is perverse that a government and an opposition that came up with the biggest construction fiasco on earth, the $42 billion Snowy Hydro 2.0, cannot complete the Inland Rail from Melbourne to Brisbane, which would open up the intermodal efficiencies and commercial potential of the inland corridor.

We are covering the land with windmills and solar panels and, in turn, delivering— (Time expired)

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Hanson, are you seeking the call?

Senator Hanson: I seek leave to finish my speech.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is leave granted? Leave has not been granted, Senator Hanson.

Senator Hanson: I seek leave to table my speech.

Leave granted.

“We are covering our land with windmills and solar panels and in turn delivering the dearest and most precarious electricity grid our nation has ever had, when we had the cheapest coal fired power and sitting on one of the greatest coal resources in the globe.

One Nation does not care about major party sneers. We care about handing our children a better opportunity than was handed to us by our parents, currently it is the other way around.

One Nation will reallocate the resources from the fool’s errand of Australia changing the weather to invest in coal fired power, nuclear, irrigation, freight, rail, ports and roads. We will work with businesses as partners in these projects.

One Nation will listen to civil engineers, nuclear physicists, and research scientists in medicine instead of climate change bureaucrats. These assets on our nations balance sheet allows us to pay for expenses on the Profit and Loss. These assets build a nation that can repay its debts. One Nation is offering a fundamentally different direction -one rooted in proven, common sense economic principles. We’ll lower taxes on working families, slash regulation that strangles enterprise, deliver abundant and affordable energy, and back the industries that actually create real wealth and opportunity.

We will never pretend we know better than you how to run your own lives. That is why we are determined to hand power back to the Australian people where it belongs.

We will reward hard work and aspiration, restore fiscal discipline, and put Australian families and businesses first once again.

One Nation’s word is our bond – and we have three decades of unwavering policy consistency to prove it.

We hope to earn your trust to implement the bold change Australia desperately needs.

Thank you.”

May 22, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Forgotten Australians

National, Speeches

Labor and the Liberals have abandoned their founding visions.

Today’s modern Labor Party has traded its commitment to the working class and the family for radical gender ideology, social engineering and control over children, undermining parental rights and effectively claiming ownership of our children.

And the Liberal Party has abandoned the middle class to serve wealthy corporate “puppet-masters” and big-money interests.

There is a stark divide between corporate success and the struggle of everyday Australians.

Data shows corporate profits have soared while the share of GDP going to wages has plummeted.

Real wages have stagnated since 1980, while the costs of education, healthcare, and housing have increased by 300% to 400%.

The “net zero” transition is causing skyrocketing power bills and economic suicide.

One Nation is the only party capable of restoring Australia’s prosperity.

Our plan includes: ▶️ Slashing government spending by at least $90 billion a year. ▶️ Putting $30 billion back into the pockets of Australians. ▶️ Investing $20 billion annually in wealth-growing projects.

One Nation calls for a return to patriotism, family values and economic fairness for the often “forgotten” middle and working class Aussies.

Transcript

Tonight I deliver One Nation’s eulogy for the status quo that had dominated Australian politics since 1949 and that passed away during the break. 1949 was the year Labor prime minister Ben Chifley delivered the famous ‘Light on the hill’ speech and Robert Menzies was elected as the first Liberal Party prime minister. Both were men of vision, both had the courage of their convictions and both were driven by a deep love for our beautiful country. This may cause offence amongst the 2026 rabble pretending to still be Labor, yet I must point out the ‘light on the hill’ metaphor Ben Chifley used as a regular churchgoer is almost a direct quote from the Gospel of Matthew 5:13-16. This is the famous ‘salt and light’ passage from Jesus’s ‘Sermon on the mount’, where he said inter alia: ‘You are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden. Men do not light a candle and put it under a bushel but on a candlestick, and it gives light to all that are in the house.’ And it’s true that Chifley’s speech was rooted in the trauma of the Great Depression, with this line: If the movement can make someone more comfortable, give to some father or mother a greater feeling of security for their children, a feeling that if a depression comes there will be work, that the government is striving its hardest to do its best, then the Labor movement will be completely justified.

How times have changed. The Labor Party now refuses to even say ‘mother’ or ‘father’, let alone build them into their policies. Indeed, Labor ministers refuse to define what a woman is. Today’s Labor Party uses gender ideology to subvert the concept of man and woman. It refuses to back families as the fundamental building block of society. It undermines family. To those on the government benches, ‘uterus owners’ and ‘prostate owners’ now stand as references to women and men, with ‘birthing parents’ and ‘ejaculators’ serving as references to mothers and fathers.

The Labor Party has used transgenderism to establish the principle that the state owns your child, and refusing the state’s instruction to transition your child will result in the termination of parental rights. Parents should understand that children are no longer, as Ben Chifley said, theirs; rather, they are the state’s. Last week Jacinta Allan, the Premier of Victoria, confirmed this new Labor principle in the extraordinary defence of child castration, which she still insists on calling ‘gender-affirming care’.

Mass immigration eliminated job security for most unionists and forced unions to become more and more militant in response to the cost of economic growth. We stopped building wealth. Instead, the fight is over a greater share of the same pie, an inevitably futile task. It’s a game the wealthy have won and the working class have lost, because the Labor Party falsely pretends that it’s in the worker’s corner when it’s not. Corporate profits as a share of gross domestic product have risen from 17 per cent in 1975 to 65 per cent in 2020. The share of gross domestic product for wages and salaries has fallen from 25 per cent in 1975 to 17 per cent today. Corporate profits keep going up. The income share of the middle class, who are still paying everyone’s social security, just keeps going down.

It’s impossible to look at this data and see a pattern which apportions blame only to the Liberal Party’s periods in office. Both parties are to blame and equally so. The status quo has done over Australian workers, and the polling for One Nation clearly shows workers, tradies and small business are sick of it. Ben Chifley spoke of comfort as a core Labor Party value, and I ask Australia’s working class: where’s your comfort? You’re not only being attacked as colonisers and being degendered and disrespected in Labor’s social policy; your financial position has gone backwards.

The cronyism and corruption inherent in the net zero transition—the lie—designed as it is to subvert energy generation to the weather, has run riot and rampant through the economy. Business insolvencies are at a record high. Householders are terrified of opening their power bills, and bills are set to rise at five times the inflation rate this financial year, as the cynical energy subsidies the Albanese Labor Government uses to bribe voters and cover up the problem are removed to reduce Labor’s growing budget deficit. Inflation is out of control because of that deficit. And yet you’re responsible for the deficit and the inflation which has resulted from your bribes, dishonesty and pathetic financial mismanagement. It’s taken 75 years for the inspirational vision reflected in the ‘Light on the hill’—a vision of family, comfort and, yes, happiness—to degenerate into an imbroglio of self-interest, moral degeneracy, cronyism, cynicism and, in places, outright corruption. The status quo died because it failed Australia’s working class. It’s no accident that, in the latest polls, people earning over $100,000 a year still support Labor ahead of anyone else. Labor’s new culture of social engineering and division on ethnic grounds has support from those whose incomes insulate them from the damage these policies are doing. Indeed, this moral virtue signalling has replaced the light on the hill. Sit tibi terra levis: may the earth be light to you.

The Liberal Party is as culpable in this attack on the middle class. In Menzies’s speech—which, to give it its correct title, was the ‘Forgotten people’ speech—he spoke of ‘salary earners, shopkeepers, skilled artisans, professional men and women, farmers and so on’. He said: These are, in the political and economic sense, the middle class. They are for the most part unorganized and unselfconscious. They are envied by those whose social benefits are largely obtained by taxing them. They are not rich enough to have individual power. They are taken for granted by each political party in turn. Menzies’s success was to put the middle class at the fore, recognising that a strong middle class would power the economy and provide a tax base for those who were not able to provide for themselves. His words in 1944 took him into government in 1949, and he went on to become Australia’s longest-serving prime minister for 18 years.

That was then. The year is not 1949; it’s now 2026, and the modern Liberals no longer owe their allegiance to the middle class. Instead, they owe their allegiance to the wealthy interests who pay the bills and set the agenda. Those rivers of gold have enabled the Liberals to outspend the Labor Party during every election cycle since 2007. The Liberal Party puppetmasters are prepared to surrender the country to the Labor Party rather than see opposition leader Peter Dutton—someone who was asking for a modicum of independence and was eliminated. Those same forces are now defending their latest marionette, an opposition leader who’s so weak that one has to ask: just how much are these people paying?

One Nation has no puppetmasters. We offer government decision-making based on facts and data, applying principles of fairness and patriotism. I will return to One Nation’s plan for the post-status quo Australia in a moment. Menzies was again correct when he said: The communist has always hated what he calls the “bourgeoisie”, because he sees clearly the existence of one has kept British countries from revolution, while the substantial absence of one in feudal France at the end of the eighteenth century and in Tsarist Russia at the end of the last war made revolution easy and indeed inevitable. What he did not realise is that the modern Liberal Party and the modern Labor Party are acting in unison to destroy the middle class, albeit for different reasons.

The Liberals want more money for their corporate owners, who do not understand the meaning of a fair share for all. Labor wants to bring about a revolution in society to mirror their Prime Minister’s communist ideology, which is destroying the pillars of Australian society: family and the middle class. Not surprisingly, then, the middle class is shrinking, even as the overall share of wages and salaries in the economy is shrinking. Australia’s median wage has gone backwards by eight per cent under this Labor government, although this is not just on them. Since 1980, the median Australian wage in real terms, adjusted for inflation, has not increased. Nothing. Zero. In that same time, education expenses have gone up 300 per cent, health care up 300 per cent and housing up 400 per cent. If it feels like you’re working harder and going backwards, it’s because you are. The Liberal-Labor status quo has screwed Australia rotten.

One Nation support has grown rapidly in the last eight months, which is proof that courage is contagious. For 30 years, One Nation has been confined to a cage built to contain our threat to the status quo, a cage that was plastered with a huge sign falsely declaring the contents racist. And, for 30 years, the narrative was successfully maintained because a host of dishonest, self-interested politicians, media and talking heads all benefited financially from maintaining the status quo.

One Nation will return $30 billion a year into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will shrink the government to fit the Constitution, reducing government spending by $90 billion a year and putting the budget into surplus in our first year. We will invest $20 billion a year in infrastructure, which the private sector will legally match, to build projects that grow wealth for everyday Australians, not foreign corporate profits. We’ve showcased these. These fully costed plans were taken to the electorate last May. We have the details. We know how we will do this, and we know that it can be done. The Australian people have clearly decided it’s time to ignore the insults and instead vote with their heads and with their hearts. Australians want our country back. One Nation is the only party that can achieve that and, indeed, the only party that wants to achieve that.

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Systemic Failure Killing Our Soldiers

National, Speeches

Beyond simple funding gaps, the medical, psychiatric, and legal challenges confronting veterans reflect deep-seated systemic failures.

The government and “top brass” of Defence are failing to manage and “mend” those who have served.

Standards are ignored. The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter crash is a primary example where warnings were reportedly ignored, leading to fatalities.

There is a disconnect between the “top brass” and rank-and-file members. The government overriding the findings of the Senate inquiry into Defence honours and awards is evidence that the concerns of service members are being ignored.

The veteran community is feeling “lost and broken,” struggling with loneliness, anger, and vulnerability. The Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide provides a backdrop to this desperation.

The “shambles” within the ADF leadership threatens the security of all 27 million Australians. By betraying the “heart” of the ADF, the effectiveness of the entire force is compromised.

Reform is needed and includes: ➡️ Enforcing honesty and “fair dinkum” treatment of veterans. ➡️ Holding senior ADF personnel, government ministers, and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. ➡️ Restoring the standards and values that protect the lives of service members.

These failings are killing people.

Senior levels of the Australian Defence Force must be held accountable.

And until this is addressed, this issue will never be fixed.

Transcript

I support Senator Lambie’s motion and thank her for it. This is urgent. This is a crisis. This is growing. I want to talk more broadly about how to properly fix the system, and I commend Senator Lambie and the others who’ve talked about the system. The government is not managing vets, and this has led me to support Senator Lambie. The situation is critical. It needs action, because the neglect is piling issues on issues on issues for ADF members and veterans, and for Australia. This reflects on Australia. The Romans said, ‘We send them, we bend them, but we don’t mend them!’ That could be said of the ADF. Men and women are getting desperate. They’re feeling pain, hurt, loneliness, anger, desperation and vulnerability. They’re feeling lost and broken. They’re very concerned about their mates. We have people coming to us almost daily with legal problems caused by Defence, with medical problems or with psychiatric health problems. These are serious issues. They simply need honesty, mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum.

These men and women have served our nation here and overseas. They deserve our support. What will it take? The government hasn’t cared. Although I commend Senator Chisholm for what he just read out, it needs to go far deeper. The government has made this an urgent issue. The findings of the recent Senate inquiry into the Defence honours and awards system were clear. The government came out and just did what the top brass wanted it to do— overrode the whole lot. It listened to people and then ignored them.

There were the Taipan deaths. After our warnings, after Senator Shoebridge’s warnings, after the previous crash— in which, fortunately, no-one died—the chopper was faulty. The chopper model was faulty. The heads-up display was faulty. ADF top brass ignored the standards and now they’re trying to hide it. I once listened to a very experienced senior ADF member who had top service in Vietnam and had risen to a very senior rank. He said that 70 per cent of the deaths of Australian soldiers in Vietnam were due to breaches of standards, which shows that Defence measures breaches of standards. Now, here we are with the Taipan chopper fatality, ignoring standards. The ADF senior brass is ignoring standards.

We’ve had a royal commission into veteran suicide. We’ve got the ABC, funded by taxpayers, defaming Heston Russell, who did a marvellous job in Afghanistan. When they were found guilty of defaming him, there was no apology. This man serves and then is targeted at home. Defence equipment purchases are hopeless, and people know it. What I’m saying is that this is systemic. It’s not just about dollars, Senator Chisholm—through you, Madam Acting Deputy President Hodgins-May. It’s about accountability at the senior levels of the Australian Defence Force. Until that’s fixed, this will never be fixed.

This shambles is killing people. Vets simply want to be heard. They want their issues addressed, and they want senior ADF responsibilities to be fulfilled. There are 27 million Australians whose security depends on senior ADF personnel. That security is at risk because the key to our Australian Defence Force—the heart, the mateship, the truth—is being attacked and betrayed. Costs are going up; results are coming down. This needs to incorporate a systems approach including senior ADF personnel, who set the tone, and including government ministers and bureaucrats. It’s an enormous problem, with the security of 27 million Australians at risk.

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The One Nation Wave

National, Speeches

The Senate’s decision to suspend Senator Hanson last year backfired.

And during that suspension, One Nation welcomed former Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, achieving official party status.

There has been a huge rise in support, with One Nation’s primary vote jumping from 6% a year ago to now around 26% plus depending on the polls. This shifted the public conversation toward how many lower house seats the party might win in 2028.

One Nation rejects identity politics and will:

* Remove DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) initiatives and gender quotas.

* End the “gravy train of victimhood.”

One Nation considers ALL Australians equal, regardless of race, religion, or gender.

Note: Senator Hanson’s Bill to ban the burqa was the product of extensive constitutional and parliamentary drafting, intended to ensure the legislation was “conforming” and “within the Senate’s purview.”

Transcript

On the day before One Nation leader Senator Pauline Hanson returns to the Senate, I’d like to reflect on just how Australia has changed during her absence. If a week is a long time in politics, seven sitting days was a generation, sufficient to span the most fundamental realignment of Australian politics in 80 years—which Senator Hanson was free to facilitate, thanks to the Senate suspending her for those seven sitting days. The ALP-LNP uniparty still doesn’t understand the concept of unintended consequences. Everyday Australians were outraged at the suspension, and their actions inspired many to speak out in her place.

Senator Hanson left with the LNP coalition intact, and she led a party of four senators. She now returns, seven sitting days later, with five members of parliament and party status, and riding a tidal wave of success. Meanwhile, the opposition is in tatters, and the National Party’s conscience and engine room, former deputy prime minister Barnaby Joyce, has brought his impressive policy and political skills to One Nation.

In May last year, One Nation received the first preference of six per cent of Australian voters. In November last year, that was 15 per cent. Today, polls show it sitting at 26 per cent, and the pundits have stopped asking if One Nation can win lower house seats and instead are trying to work out how many we’ll win.

Those seven sitting days saw an Islamic terrorist attack on Australian soil in Bondi and the abject failure of this Prime Minister to show compassion towards the victims, or accountability, or justice against the perpetrators. We’ve seen rushed legislation that ostensibly protected the public, yet, in reality, took away freedoms we all used to enjoy. One Nation would have taken away the perpetrators, and those who incited their terror, and would have left Australians alone to enjoy their lives in peace, freedom and prosperity—concepts which seem foreign to the uniparty.

The bill that Senator Hanson presented last November was designed to ban face-coverings on Commonwealth property and has proven prescient—the right measure at the right time. It would have not only unmasked Islamists; it would have unmasked Nazis—a point the internet failed to grasp, because nobody bothered to read the bill. This was not an anti-Islamic measure; it was a measure against those on both sides of the political spectrum who would seek to harm Australians. It’s a fundamental belief of One Nation that all Australians should stand equal before the law. No religion should be untouchable. No race or gender should be favoured over another. A One Nation government would sweep away DEI, gender quotas and the gravy train of victimhood. We have one law which should apply equally to all. This is why Senator Pauline Hanson made her stand—all the work that went into that bill in One Nation’s office, all the to-and-fro which went on with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and the hardworking staff of the drafting office—to produce a bill that was conforming, constitutional and within the Senate’s accepted purview. (Time expired)

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Radical Threat They Won’t Name

National, Speeches

The Albanese Labor government is failing to address the primary threat to national security: radical Islamic terrorism.

Political correctness and left-wing politics have allowed radicalisation to fester. The Bondi massacre (and other historical attacks) should be labelled exactly as they are – radical Islamic terrorism.

The Prime Minister and ASIO have been more focused on right-wing extremism while missing red flags regarding Islamic radicalisation and the firearms the Islamic killers were able to access.

One Nation rejects the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026, which is nothing but a “dog’s breakfast.”

This Bill will:

Target law-abiding firearm owners instead of criminals.

Threaten free speech.

Lead to the deplatforming of political opponents.

This Bill is “anti-Christian” and will protect Islam while ignoring antisemitism. Instead of legislating new laws, we should:

Enforce existing laws.

Immediately deport and “remigrate” radicals.

Protect the rights of lawful gun owners.

Implement “castle law” (self-defense in the home).

One Nation would hold a genuine Royal Commission to investigate government and security failures.

The Labor government is using “shoddy” legislation to distract from a failure to confront religious radicalism, while unfairly penalising ordinary citizens and firearm enthusiasts.

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 straw-man 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 home people 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 have 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—the Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026—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.

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

National, Senate Estimates

During this Estimates session with the Clean Energy Regulator (CER), I questioned them on the government’s setup with the Clean Energy Council (CEC). The CEC is a private lobby group, yet they appear to act as the “gatekeeper” as to which solar panels can be sold under the renewable energy schemes.

WHY has a private industry group, which exists to advocate for its members’ commercial interests, been given the power to decide which products qualify for government incentives?

I was told the Clean Energy Council (CEC) was originally “named” in the legislation effectively as a co-regulator and have been “tested” against competitors. The Regulator admitted that they worked back-and-forth with the CEC to help their application meet the required standards.

I asked if this process was open and transparent to the public. Their response? Happy to take it on notice and of course, they used the “commercial-in-confidence” excuses.

When questioned on how they manage any bias, the Regulator pointed to “regular cadences of meetings” and “reporting.” To me, this sounds like a “soft” approach to overseeing a group that serves its own members.

The Regulator claims they now have “greater control” and that the CEC is merely a “service provider,” however the reality is that a private lobby group still appears to hold a lot of sway. They are monitoring themselves through an action plan and reporting back to the government.

I am deeply concerned about the conflict of interest here. How can a lobbying body be impartial?

Australian taxpayers should not be sold out by a system where the foxes are guarding the henhouse.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Why did the Clean Energy Regulator appoint the Clean Energy Council, a private industry lobby group, as the product listing body for solar panels and inverters under the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme?

Mr Parker: Thank you, Senator. I well understand the question. I will flip the question to Mr Williamson in a minute, lest he not get asked a question today, which would be unfortunate in his final appearance! The appointment of the CEC was done through a process under the law which involved a competitive bidding arrangement, and CEC won that process.

Senator ROBERTS: Were government ministers involved at the time?

Mr Parker: Ministers set the legal framework. I don’t think it was actually a decision from [inaudible]. We’ll give it to Mark.

Mr Williamson: Senator, to help you with the context, originally in the legislation, the Clean Energy Council had been nominated as the body both to accredit installers and also to list approved components. In the original regulations, they were named, and they were effectively a co-regulator. Minister Taylor, a number of years ago, asked us to do a review with the department of the integrity of the Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme. Out of that review, there was a recommendation that it be competitively tested, as Mr Parker says, for both the accrediting of installers and the listing of components. We went through a process of going to the market. The Clean Energy Council did not put in an application to continue being the accreditation body, and a new accreditation body was nominated out of that process. As Mr Parker says, for the listing of components, there were a small number of applications, and the Clean Energy Council was determined to be the best of those. The new system, though, is—we have greater control of both the accreditation body and the listing process. They were a co-regulator in the past. Now they are providing a service that we’ve nominated them to do.

Senator ROBERTS: They provide a service to you?

Mr Williamson: Yes. We’re the regulator now. We’re the single regulator, so that co-regulatory model that existed before went with that process. Solar Accreditation Australia, SAA, is the accreditation body, and that has nothing to do with the Clean Energy Council. The CEC is, in fact, still the listing body, but they’re doing that for us, as is SAA for the accreditation of installers.

Senator ROBERTS: What probity checks were undertaken before granting this role to an organisation that actively advocates for its members’ commercial interest?

Mr Williamson: There was an extensive process, and I can pass to Mr Binning, who was involved in that. There was a very lengthy process where a lot of questions were asked of the small number of bodies that applied. Mr Binning was actually the decision-maker, and he did not make that decision until we had done a range of checks of the applications and asked a lot of questions and made a lot of requests for further information. I might throw to you, Carl, to add anything else to that.

Senator ROBERTS: Before you elaborate, what was your role at the time? Who was your employer?

Mr Binning: The Clean Energy Regulator. I was the delegate for the final decision. As I recall, it was a very thorough process run through our procurement. There was probity advice along the way. A preliminary decision was made. Under the act, we were required to publish that decision. A range of submissions were made in relation to the proposed decision. Those comments were than taken into account, and a final decision was made against the criteria that were established for the process.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s fairly loose, but it was a long time ago. How does the Clean Energy Regulator manage the inherent conflict of interest in allowing an industry lobby group to control product eligibility for government incentives?

Mr Binning: We do that through the ongoing governance of our arrangements. We have a regular cadence of meetings and reporting to us. In that reporting, what we’ve really sought to do over the last 18 months—there are two issues that really run intention through that product-listing process, if you like. On the one hand, we are looking for those assessments to of course be comprehensive and rigorous, and that requires that new products, as they come into the country, are compliant with the standards that have been established for those products, whether it is solar panels, inverters, batteries, solar water heaters et cetera. Most of the feedback we got from industry was associated with long wait times for the processing of applications. We’ve had less concerns, relatively speaking, with the rigour of the process and greater concerns with ensuring that the assessments are processed in a prompt and efficient manner. We’ve been working quite closely with the CEC to ensure that there is no compromising of the integrity of the process but that their ability to process applications has been improved.

Senator ROBERTS: Is the process open to inspection from the public?

Mr Binning: I’d have to take the detail of that on notice. I wouldn’t say there’s anything that overtly precludes that, but there would be the usual commercial in confidence and those sorts of arrangements. I’m happy to take it on notice and provide advice.

Senator ROBERTS: I’d appreciate that, and if you could provide the specifics around that on notice. Has the Clean Energy Regulator assessed whether this arrangement complies with Commonwealth probity standards for regulatory functions? I assume there are some.

Mr Binning: As I said, we have a procurement team at the Clean Energy Regulator. They closely observe the process, and the decisions were made consistent with the requirements that are set out in the act. If my recollection is correct—and I think it is—this process is largely governed by the requirements that are set out in the regulations and in the act. Mr Williamson can probably add to this.

Mr Williamson: The government and the minister at the time wanted to work within amendments within regulations.

Senator ROBERTS: That was Mr Taylor.

Mr Williamson: Correct. To work within the regulations and amend the regulations to give effect—and not to have to go back and amend the act—limited the way in which this could be set up. It wasn’t set up strictly as a procurement but rather as a nomination that required us to go through a set of statutory steps to go out to the market on a number of occasions. Then, as Mr Binning said, with decisions both on the product listing and the accreditation of installers, we had to say that this was our proposed decision and invite further comments. It was a statutory nomination process, but we did actually follow Commonwealth procurement and probity arrangements.

While it wasn’t strictly a procurement, we did follow such arrangements in arriving at the decision on the nomination process. It took a very long time. The reason it took a long time was to make sure that the applicants were bringing their applications up to a standard where we could make a decision and get a body for each process over the line. It wasn’t fast because those initial applications weren’t adequate to make a nomination. There was a very iterative process with those who applied to make sure that, ultimately, they had put in a satisfactory bid where Mr Binning could make a decision and say, ‘That passes muster.’

Senator ROBERTS: What governance framework exists to ensure that decisions made by the Clean Energy Council in its regulatory capacity are impartial and not influenced by its lobbying activities?

Mr Binning: As I indicated, after awarding the role to the Clean Energy Council, an action plan around the service that they are providing has been established. There is a regular reporting arrangement which ensures, as I said, that they’re meeting the various performance targets that have been established.

Senator ROBERTS: Does the Clean Energy Regulator audit or review the CEC’s product listing decisions? If so, how frequently and what were the findings? Or do you just have meetings?

Mr Binning: I would say that we certainly closely scrutinise their performance under the requirements of the agreement that we have in place with them. In addition, we closely observe, monitor and interact with the Clean Energy Council around issues that arise or any industry intelligence that we receive. We will regularly be in contact with the CEC team to check and verify the processes that they are undertaking.

Mr Williamson: I can add to that. We have also taken samples ourselves. Through separate arrangements with others, we’ve arranged to actually grab samples of products that have been listed and get them tested ourselves. That was both pre and post the nomination of the Clean Energy Council.

Senator ROBERTS: That still happens.

Mr Williamson: I believe that happens in batches every now and again. There are limits to the funds we have for this, but we have sampled it because some have claimed that companies may have had a golden sample taken and production runs may subsequently be of a lower quality. We have done that, and, as part of the listing process, the CEC also does more real world sampling.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.

May 14, 2026/0 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The UN’s Grip on Our Borders

National, Speeches

The Albanese Labor government is accepting refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries while ignoring Christians being slaughtered in Nigeria and Syria. Why are we importing cultures of violence instead of offering protection to those being persecuted by them?

The regime of Abu Mohammad al-Julani is currently conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites to establish a caliphate. I asked whether the government would balance the intake to protect these groups before they are killed.

Why is the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees effectively “managing” our resettlement intake, a practice that risks the safety and security of everyday Australians?

Instead of addressing why Christian refugees are being excluded, Minister Watt resorted to the usual Labor tactics: personal attacks. He attempted to smear me and my party as “divisive” and falsely attributed comments to Senator Hanson to avoid answering for his government’s policies.

I made it clear: our immigration program should be based on protecting our security and supporting those truly in need, rather than outsourcing our sovereignty to the UN or prioritising groups that do not share our values. The Minister’s refusal to provide a straight answer only proves that this government is more interested in virtue signalling than the safety of the Australian people.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Watt. Last November, I asked you about the country of origin of refugees in your government’s refugee visa program. Your response on notice stated, ‘There were no visas granted to citizens of Nigeria or South Africa through the offshore refugee program.’ In my question, I pointed out the reason why we’re not taking in Christian refugees is that your government is taking refugees almost exclusively from Muslim countries or communities. Minister, why is your government not offering refugee status to Christians currently being subject to persecution, violence and murder in Nigeria and South Africa rather than taking the people who are propagating the culture of violence?

Senator WATT: I’m always careful, Senator Roberts, to not concede that what you put forward as facts are actually facts, particularly on matters relating to migration because we know that you and your party seek to divide Australians based on the issue of migration. If any evidence of that is needed, it’s the conclusion of your question which yet again seeks to tar all Muslim Australians and Muslim migrants with the action of a small minority who do the wrong thing. It wasn’t that long ago that your party leader, Senator Hanson, effectively said that there was no such thing as a good Muslim, a statement that we utterly reject and, in fact, Senator Whitten rejected, to his credit.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: I have a point of order. That’s not accurate; she did not say that. That was a media beat-up.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, thank you for sitting down when I requested it. Minister Watt, please continue.

Senator WATT: Senator Hanson’s comments on Muslims were so outrageous that Barnaby Joyce distanced himself from them and Senator Whitten distanced himself from them. I don’t recall you distancing yourself from those comments, Senator Roberts, and it’s a matter for you to determine how you feel about those statements.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts?

Senator ROBERTS: I just did distance myself because the comments weren’t accurate.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, that’s not a point of order; it’s a debating point. Minister Watt, have you concluded your answer?

Senator WATT: What I’ve said repeatedly in answer to questions from One Nation on the issue of migration in this chamber is that the Albanese government proudly has a policy of not discriminating against migrants based on their religion or other personal attributes. We will always consider the merits of every migration application. Each and every day, we reject applicants who are seeking to move to Australia and migrate to Australia on the basis of character checks and other reasons, but we don’t have a blanket rule of stopping all people from a certain faith in the way that One Nation seeks to do.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Syrian Islamic regime of President Abu Mohammad al-Julani is conducting a slaughter of Christians and Alawites in Syria to turn Syria into a caliphate. The videos are all over social media, and, yes, we have checked them, and they have been authenticated. Minister, will you reduce your Islamic refugee intake and at least balance it with Nigerian and Syrian Christian and Syrian Alawite refugees before they too are killed at the hands of Islamists?

Senator WATT: Again, Senator Roberts, to your deep shame, you are equating every Muslim who seeks to move to Australia with the actions of what sounds like a reprehensible organisation, and that is not a position that we accept. Our position is that anyone who seeks to get a visa to migrate to Australia should be assessed to ensure that they are of good character, that they don’t present

a security risk to Australians wherever they’re from and whatever their faith is. Senator Roberts, I might need to remind you of the comments of your leader, Senator Hanson. She was asked whether there are good Muslims out there, and she said: ‘How can you tell me there are good Muslims?’ If that’s the kind of language and rhetoric that you think is going to help bring this country together, then that’s on you.

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, in your written reply dated 4 November, you twice refer to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and admit that it informs and ‘manages’ your resettlement intake. Why is your immigration program risking the safety and security of everyday Australians?

Senator WATT: It’s not, and, Senator Roberts, I know you and your party have sought to profit politically from the awful tragedy we saw at Bondi just before Christmas. It’s worth remembering that one of the people involved in those attacks migrated to Australia during the Howard government’s period in office and the other of those people was born in Australia. But let’s just ignore the facts for a minute, Senator Roberts, hey? That’s the way you operate. The way this government operates is that we make decisions about individual applicants based on their character, based on whether they’re going to make a positive contribution to Australia and whether they represent a security risk to Australia. We do not have the kind of approach that you are encouraging us to take, and we will always, proudly, stand up for Australian values in terms of who is admitted to this country.

May 7, 2026/3 Comments/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Tracking Vaccine Dollars

National, Senate Estimates

In this session with the Department of Health, I inquired about the total cost of our childhood vaccination program. While I didn’t receive an immediate response, the question was taken on notice.

The TGA also offered to provide a cost-benefit analysis of these vaccines. Frankly, I’m not expecting an honest reply. I will wait and see.

If they fail to deliver, I’ll pursue it at the next estimates.

— Senate Estimates | February 2026

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: How much do these vaccines cost the taxpayers every year: rotavirus, hep B and meningococcal ACWY?

Dr Peatt: I don’t have the individual breakdowns of those vaccines, but I can tell you that, in 2024-25, the National Immunisation Program, which includes a raft of supporting activities that—

Senator ROBERTS: Is that childhood vaccines?

Dr Peatt: No, this is the full complement of National Immunisation Program vaccines and also other activities like communications and data collection, for example. We spent $762.8 million.

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any chance of getting a breakout for the children’s vaccines?

Dr Peatt: It’ll be dependent on whether that information is commercial-in-confidence, but I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.

Prof. Lawler: I’ve mentioned previously that the regulator is involved in balancing the risk and benefit. I would highlight that it would be difficult to talk to the cost of vaccines unless we also recognise that these vaccine-preventable diseases cause an incredible burden of mortality, morbidity and cost. In fact, in the US, RSV is the leading infectious cause of paediatric hospitalisation. So the risk benefit is as important as the cost.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s a good point, Professor Lawler—perhaps if you could include in that the benefits.

Dr Peatt: Certainly.

Senator ROBERTS: Denmark, Sweden, Norway, France and the Netherlands do not recommend rotavirus vaccines except for high-risk cases. The varicella vaccine in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and Portugal is not recommended except for high-risk cases, and hepatitis B vaccine is not recommended for routine use in Denmark, Norway, Finland, UK—Britain—France, Germany or the Netherlands. Surely the default is don’t vaccinate unless the need has been established. Can you show me any of these countries where the absence of the vaccination has led to a higher incidence of child harm—not infection but harm—than vaccinated countries?

Dr Peatt: As my colleague Professor Lawler has outlined, it’s very difficult to compare different countries. That’s really because there are different disease impacts in each different country, which can be related to the public health measures that are in place and also the different diseases that are circulating. We also have different funding mechanisms. In Australia, we’re very fortunate to be in a country that has a program that provides vaccines for free that are recommended by our advisers. We are very fortunate in that sense. So I’d say that it’s very difficult to compare one country to another in terms of how they fund or recommend their vaccines. But I will throw to Associate Professor Katherine Gibney, who may be able to give you an idea about some of the assessment and information that they take into account when they recommend vaccines in the Australian context.

Prof. Gibney: Certainly, ATAGI takes the epidemiology and burden of disease of each of these vaccine-preventable diseases into account as we consider who to recommend the vaccines for. Establishing a clinical need isn’t just about infection—in fact, counting numbers of infections is not particularly interesting. It’s hospitalisations, severe disease and death that we’re particularly interested in or long-term consequences that could be prevented through vaccination. So that’s really what we look at. The first question is: is there a need for a vaccine? Then we look at the vaccine. Considering that TGA has already assessed the effectiveness and the safety, we further review that in the context of the clinical need. Further to that, when we provide advice to PBAC, they look not only at the clinical effectiveness and need but also at the cost-effectiveness. So ATAGI don’t assess that, but that is assessed for every vaccine before a recommendation is made that it be added to the NIP.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, could you show me anywhere where the absence of the vaccination has led to more hospitalisations and more deaths?

Prof. Gibney: Certainly we can take that on notice and provide that.

May 7, 2026/1 Comment/by Senator Malcolm Roberts

The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement

No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.

One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation

Transcript

Budget Reply: One Nation’s Blueprint to Put Australians First

Transcript

The Forgotten Australians

Transcript

The Systemic Failure Killing Our Soldiers

Transcript

The One Nation Wave

Transcript

The Radical Threat They Won’t Name

Transcript

Foxes Guarding the Henhouse

Transcript

The UN’s Grip on Our Borders

Transcript

Tracking Vaccine Dollars

Transcript

Pages

Malcolm’s Fight

Categories