While I agree that protecting our natural environment is a duty of government, I completely disagree with Senator Pocock’s definition of “protection.” The rush toward net zero is not saving our environment; it’s state-sponsored vandalism.
Here is the reality of what net zero is doing to Australia:
✖️ Creating unmanaged havens for pests that will devastate native flora and fauna while destroying food production because of “carbon-dioxide farming.”
✖️ 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests will be required to be cleared for wind turbines, 1.25 billion solar panels installed and the carving out of 20,000 kilometres of 75-metre-wide transmission easements through national forests.
✖️ Transmission line costs have blown out from an initial $8.5 billion estimate to upwards of $120 billion, and likely over $200 billion. When you add the generators, the total net zero cost sits at around $350 billion. Financed with high-cost loans over 35 years, this will ultimately burden taxpayers with a bill exceeding $1 trillion.
I have stood in these forests myself. I have seen developers blowing the tops off mountains to install massive concrete turbine bases. Offshore wind is no better. Data shows these marine turbines slow the wind, trap heat at the sea surface, disrupt marine life (including whales) with sediment and noise, shed microplastics and kill birds.
It’s not possible for anyone to look at Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful? No, it’s not. It’s vandalism.
We cannot put the tops back on the mountains that have been destroyed by this insanity.
This is literally killing the environment to save it.
One Nation will protect our beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism.
One Nation is the true party of the environment.
Transcript
One Nation agrees with Senator Pocock that protection of the natural environment is a fundamental duty of any government. I do, though, disagree with Senator Pocock on the definition of environmental protection. ABARES executive director Dr Jared Greenville said last December that research indicates that projected land-based carbon sequestration goals for our net zero transition will require sequestration projects across 18 million hectares by 2050. While some of this land is co-used, agricultural land locked up for carbon credits is not environmental land. Inevitably it becomes a refuge for pests which infect local farms and devastate native fauna and flora. Carbon dioxide farming is the enemy of the natural environment and the enemy of food production.
Add to this total the 205,000 hectares of farmland and native forests which are being clear felled for the construction of wind turbines and access roads, plus the land for the 1.25 billion solar panels needed to reach net zero—that’s billion with a ‘b’. Then add the 20,000 kilometres of new transmission lines necessary to take power from where it is being generated to where it is needed. Each transition line runs through an easement, usually 75 metres wide, of clear felled land. In 2020 the AEMO cost estimate for most of the transmission line projects was $8.5 billion. Now the transmission line cost is estimated to be at least $120 billion and is more likely to blow out beyond $200 billion. Add another $160 billion for wind and solar generators and we have a $350 billion net zero cost being financed with high-cost loans, which in turn blows out the total 35-year outlay to above $1 trillion.
For environmentally destructive projects like Snowy 2 and for most of the wind projects in North Queensland, those transmission easements run through forests of national significance. I’ve been there, in the very forests this motion is calling to protect. They’re the same projects in which so-called green environmentalists are installing wind turbines and blowing the tops off mountains to make space for the huge concrete bases of massive wind turbines.
Here’s what I don’t understand. Here’s a sensible motion about the need to protect our beautiful environment, yet the motion ignores the massive environmental damage from net zero measures. How can anyone look at one of Australia’s beautiful landscapes scarred with wind turbines, solar panels, access roads and transmission lines and think: no damage here; this is beautiful. No, it’s not. It’s vandalism. This is not just happening on land. Offshore wind turbines harm the environment. A new study in Science Advances shows that offshore wind turbines actually warm the sea surface. Turbines slow the wind. This weakens mixing, shuts down upwelling and in turn traps heat at the surface. This changes the microclimate for more than 10 kilometres behind and stirs up sediment which interferes with marine life, including whales. Add this to bird kills, underwater noise and microplastic shedding and the picture is clear: offshore wind isn’t solving an environmental problem; it’s creating one. This does not even take into account the environmental cost of manufacture, transport, insulation, maintenance, decommissioning, disposal and remediation of massive wind turbines.
One Nation will care for the natural environment. We will ensure that the land is in the hands of the best stewards: farmers. We will cancel the entire project and protect those beautiful landscapes from net zero vandalism, returning land, where possible, to its best use, be that farming or native forests. Unfortunately, we can’t put the tops back on mountains. That damage is there for eternity—a testament to hubris and the tragedy of the paradox of virtue. It’s the killing of the environment in the name of saving the environment. One Nation is now the party of the environment.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/14qDPVETo1U/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 14:55:132026-05-29 14:55:25Saving the Planet or Destroying It? The Ugly Truth
The Australian government is using the UN refugee visa program to intentionally bring radical Islam into the country.
25,000 migrants arrived under the UN refugee program last year, the vast majority coming from Muslim countries. Applications from Christian refugees in Nigeria and South Africa, as well as Syrian Alawites, were excluded.
The president of the Australian National Imams Council, Shadi Alsuleiman (and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram) released a video in which he promises that “Islam will enter every home in Australia.”
Australians have a legitimate reason to fear the current government’s immigration policies.
Transcript
I move:
That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for the Environment and Water (Senator Watt) to a question without notice I asked today.
His government is pursuing a strategy of important radical Islam into our country, Australia, under the guise of the UN refugee visa program. Last year, 25,000 migrants arrived in Australia under this program, almost exclusively from Muslim countries. No places were provided for refugees from Islamic terror in Nigeria or Syria or for victims of black-on-white violence in South Africa, because those refugees are Christians and Syrian Alawites and not Islamists. Where is this UN policy taking Australia? Shadi Alsuleiman is the president of the Australian National Imams Council and mentor to Wisam Haddad, the ISIS cell leader who radicalised the Bondi terrorist Naveed Akram. Alsuleiman has released a video in which he promises, ‘Islam will enter every home in Australia’—and he doesn’t mean to do your dishes! He means to convert you to Islam, or else. Australians have every right to feel afraid of people this government is bringing in.
I wanted to get some straight answers about the government’s 5% deposit scheme, because to me, it looks like risky lending at the taxpayers’ expense.
APRA have previously said that loans with a 95% value ratio are high-risk. I asked how they reconcile that with a government scheme that encourages this exact behaviour. They admitted that high-ratio lending is “more risky” and they are watching it closely.
I’m worried about what happens if property prices drop by 10 or 20%. If people fall into negative equity, the taxpayer is underwriting a huge chunk of those losses. APRA ducked out of giving a specific answer on the scheme itself, however insisted their “stress tests” for the overall banking system are even more severe than the scenarios raised.
I asked: was the Treasurer warned about the scheme’s risks? They told me they gave some advice to Treasury early on about mortgage insurers, but nothing specifically to the Treasurer. They will provide me with a copy of that advice on notice.
I questioned APRA as to whether this scheme follows their own sound risk management standards. They replied that they don’t “opine” on government policy, however confirmed that they’ll expect banks to hold the same amount of capital against these loans as any other high-risk product.
Finally, I asked if they would publish stress test results specifically for this 5% scheme. They stated that their stress tests are “much broader than any one government policy” and that they are “not aware of a stress test” planned for this specific scheme.
APRA knows these loans are risky and are tiptoeing around the topic.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here. APRA has previously stated that loans with loan-to value ratios above 90 per cent ‘clearly expose an ADI to a higher risk of loss’ and that prudent loan-to-value ratio limits are essential for portfolio risk management. How does APRA reconcile those warnings with the government’s five per cent deposit scheme, which institutionalises 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio lending, backed by taxpayers?
Mr Lonsdale: Well, it’s something that we’re watching very closely, Senator. I think the premises of your question is correct: high LVR lending, as a general statement, and high debt-to-income lending are at the more risky end. Because of that, we watch that type of lending very closely.
Senator ROBERTS: Has APRA provided advice to government on the systemic risk and implications of guaranteeing high loan-to-value ratio loans under this scheme? If so, will you table that advice?
Mr Lonsdale: As I mentioned to Senator Brag, we were asked for our advice on LMI providers for the early design of the scheme, which we provided to Treasury, not the Treasurer. But we’ve not provided any advice to the Treasurer on the systemic effects of the Home Guarantee Scheme as currently implemented.
Senator ROBERTS: Could we get a copy of that advice that you gave to Treasury, on notice?
Mr Lonsdale: I’m happy to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Borrowers with 95 per cent loan-to-value ratio loans are more likely to fall into negative equity during downturns, and taxpayers are underwriting 15 per cent of these loans. Has APRA modelled fiscal exposure if property prices fall by, say, 10 to 20 per cent?
Mr Lonsdale: We do very stringent stress tests on the banks and on the system that are more stringent than you just outlined there.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve done what I’ve said?
Mr Lonsdale: More stringent, I would say, and we publish those results. The outcome is that our banking system, particularly our major banks, are very resilient.
Senator ROBERTS: Does APRA consider the scheme consistent with Prudential Standard APS 220 and APG 223, guidance of sound risk management?
Mr Lonsdale: I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but what I can say is that that’s a very important standard that you mentioned, and we deal with the banks all the time to make sure that they are resilient and are adhering to our standards, of which that is one.
Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you discuss the scheme in relation to that?
Mr Lonsdale: As I said to Senator Bragg, if we’re looking at the scheme, we want to have a look very closely at the empirics, the loans being used—
Senator ROBERTS: Once you’ve got experience.
Mr Lonsdale: After we’ve got experience. We like to base our conclusions on facts.
Ms McCarthy Hockey: Government schemes at federal level and state level come and go from time to time. We see different structures of ways in which government make their decisions and put in place policies. At all points in time, it is for the bank to determine its risk appetite for the kind of lending that it would extend and then that it adequately capitalises that and puts liquidity against it. So, I think the really key point here is that we don’t opine on any regime put forward by a government. It is their prerogative. However, the banks are to uphold the lending standards and the risk management, and to capitalise it and put liquidity accordingly. What we then do is look at the macroprudential picture that we monitor—you can see us very regularly publishing our view of that— and take our macroprudential measures accordingly, which are within our gift to do. There are different roles that we play, but the key thing is that banks are managing that risk, we are managing the system risk, and governments will make their decisions as they see fit.
Senator ROBERTS: APRA’s guidance emphasises limiting large volumes of high-risk lending. Does APRA classify the government’s scheme as high-risk lending?
Mr Lonsdale: Again, I don’t want to comment directly on the scheme, but I’ll make this general point: the higher the LVR, generally, the higher the risk involved, and the higher the probability of default. I think that is true. Because we’ve had a large number of questions on high-LVR lending, can I just make this point: it is part of our normal course that we would seek reporting from the banks on high-LVR lending; because it is high-risk lending, we do that. The other thing that I think is a very important point is that when you look at the capital settings that we apply, the vast bulk of lending that is happening in the country—but also that we’d expect under this scheme—is done by the major banks, the lion’s share. The capital that we are requiring to be held is agnostic to the Home Guarantee Scheme. So, regardless of that guarantee, we are requiring the same amount of capital to be held.
Senator ROBERTS: So that means that APRA will apply the same supervisory expectations to banks originating these loans as it does to other high loan-to-value ratio products?
Mr Lonsdale: Yes, we will.
CHAIR: How are you going, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Almost. Will APRA commit to publishing stress test results for the five per cent deposit scheme under scenarios of price declines and unemployment shocks?
Mr Lonsdale: The stress tests that we do are much broader than any one government policy, and we do publish those. I’m not aware of a stress test that we will be doing on the particular scheme.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your succinct answers. Thanks, Chair.
There is a massive disconnect between the RBA’s projections and the reality facing Australian families.
Reckless government spending is fuelling inflation, and everyday people are paying the price.
In this session with the RBA in December, I questioned Governor Bullock on her claim that inflation expectations are ‘anchored’ at 2.5%. With CPI at the time sitting at 3.8% (now 4.2%), that ‘anchor’ looks like it’s dragging. I asked her who has lost credibility here — the RBA or the government?
There’s a real risk of cutting rates too early because of political influence and outside pressure. While Ms. Bullock insists the Board isn’t being swayed by politics, I’m still sceptical about what really happens behind the scenes.
One of the biggest risks I raised was the threat of a federal credit rating downgrade. If the government can’t show budget discipline and we lose our AAA rating, bank borrowing costs will shoot up.
And if that happens, mortgage rates will go up, even if the RBA doesn’t touch the cash rate and that’s a rate hike due to government incompetence.
Finally, we touched on the data. I pointed out how absurd it is that the ABS classifies someone as ’employed’ if they work just one hour a week.
While the Governor appears to trust the official statistics, these numbers are masking the true level of underemployment. There are far more Australians struggling to find work than the headline figures suggest.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’m concerned about government spending, but I’ll ask a few questions before getting on to that directly. In October, you said to me that ‘all the evidence we have is that inflationary expectations have remained reasonably anchored at around 2.5 per cent’. I know you went to this with Senator Hume’s question, and you continued that’s ‘what has made it possible, I think, to bring inflation back down toward the target range so that we’re now under three per cent and heading towards 2.5 per cent and to maintain a relatively healthy labour market’. You couldn’t achieve that without anchored inflation expectations. With the Consumer Price Index headline rate now at 3.8 per cent in the year to October and the trimmed mean up 3.3 per cent, it certainly doesn’t appear that we’re heading to 2.5 per cent anymore. Do you still have no evidence that inflation expectations are above 2.5 per cent?
Ms Bullock: What we’ve observed is what we usually observe, that the very short-term inflation expectations rise, but at the moment we’re still seeing that the longer term inflation expectations are remaining reasonably anchored. But you raise a very relevant point. It’s a risk and it’s something the board is very focused on.
Senator ROBERTS: What does it say about the credibility of the Reserve Bank or, more likely, the credibility of government in terms of government spending if inflation rears its head again?
Ms Bullock: I think credibility is demonstrated by where inflation expectations are. Inflation expectations in the long term remain anchored, which I think says a lot about the credibility of the central bank.
Senator ROBERTS: In 2026, are more families going to be pushed to the brink and paying more on their mortgages because you cut interest rates too early while this government attempted to jawbone and pressure you into doing it?
Ms Bullock: We’ve never been under any political pressure. The board has done what the board has thought was the right thing to do. We thought we were moderately restrictive. We made a conscious decision not to go up as high as some other countries. Our projections still see inflation coming back down, but obviously we’re alert to the possibility that there might be inflation pressures building, and the board will respond accordingly.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you expect under current government strategies and policies to be having to deal with the government again on this?
Ms Bullock: We take what the government is doing as a given, and that is in our forecasts.
Senator ROBERTS: I refer to federal budget discipline, to the credit rating and mortgage rates. The banks are implicitly guaranteed by the government’s AAA credit rating, which allows them to borrow cheaply. If the federal government were to suffer a significant credit rating downgrade below its AAA, could that imply higher borrowing costs on the banks and a wider spread between the going mortgage rate and the Reserve Bank cash rate? In other words, could interest rates charged by the banks rise?
Ms Bullock: The Australian banks aren’t only underpinned by the government, they’re underpinned by the fact that they are very strong, unquestionably strong according to the language. They have strong capital, strong buffers, low arrears rates. They’re rated well because they are very strong financial institutions.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your clear answers. Nonetheless, if the federal government doesn’t get its spending under control and is given a lower credit rating, what people pay on a mortgage could actually go up without the Reserve Bank raising rates; is that right?
Ms Bullock: It could possibly tighten financial conditions. Those are the sorts of things that the Monetary Policy Board would take into account in setting the cash rate. Financial conditions can vary for similar cash rates. The cash rate at a particular level now isn’t necessarily the same tightness in financial conditions as the same cash rate in the past. We have to take into account financial conditions.
Senator ROBERTS: Just a quick question to tidy up my understanding of where you get your figures. The RBA, as I understand it, does a lot of listening right through the community. That’s correct, isn’t it?
Ms Bullock: We have a very extensive liaison program, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What are the sources of your inflation rate and the unemployment rate? Is it many factors—ABS, for example? Whom else would be involved?
Ms Bullock: The inflation rate is the CPI published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The unemployment rate is the same.
Senator ROBERTS: The unemployment rate is just over 4.4 per cent. How many people does that translate into being unemployed right now in Australia?
Ms Bullock: I’d have to get back to you on that in terms of the actual numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s just a straight calculation, right, arithmetic?
Ms Bullock: It depends on the labour force and who’s in the market. I don’t know what the number is. I’ll have to come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: That varies month to month of course. My concern is that the actual number unemployed may be far greater than what is indicated by the unemployment rate. As I understand it, the definition—and I’m looking for guidance here—is that anyone who’s employed or works paid work for one hour or more in a week is counted as employed?
Ms Bullock: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any consideration of underemployment in your deliberations?
Ms Bullock: Yes, we consider underemployment. That’s a rate that we calculate. Basically, that captures people who are employed but would like more hours.
Senator ROBERTS: What is your level of confidence in the accuracy of the unemployment rate and the underemployment rate?
Ms Bullock: We’re pretty confident that the ABS does a very good job of calculating these numbers.
Senator ROBERTS: Is one hour per week employed really employed?
Ms Bullock: That’s the definition, but there are others. As I said earlier, for what it measures, we’re confident they measure it well. But that’s why we take into account a lot of different indicators, including things like vacancies, job ads and how many people actually have a job but would like more hours. These are all things that we consider as well.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/vXTyj3nMYWo/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-29 13:40:192026-05-29 13:40:31Government Spending is Fuelling the Fire
The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 shifts defence review responsibilities to a new joint committee. Although it creates an odd dynamic for the remaining foreign affairs and trade committee, I agree that a dedicated committee is necessary.
The AUKUS alliance is the largest infrastructure spend in our nation’s history. Taxpayers deserve respect and absolute transparency, especially when everyday Australians are struggling.
Right now, there is a distinct public perception that this submarine deal is simply too expensive, particularly while the government concurrently executes a $3 billion fire sale of defence assets to fund its runaway spending.
I asked the Minister a direct question: Why wasn’t this asset sale run past the new committee? Minister McAllister gave a predictable answer, claiming you can’t refer current decisions to a committee that hasn’t been established yet. As it stands, membership on this new committee is subject to a cosy agreement between the Labor and Liberal party whips. This “uniparty” ticket effectively locks out the 50% of Australian voters who do not support either of these parties.
When I questioned why membership was restricted this way, the Minister claimed the Prime Minister would appoint non-government members in consultation with parliament. I must ask: Is this the same Prime Minister who gutted my staff while leaving compliant crossbenchers alone?
Too often, our committee system is a sham designed to protect the government’s narrative rather than find the truth. We saw this with the Select Committee on Information Integrity, which was nothing more than a Labor-Greens stitch-up designed to deplatform critics of net zero and control political speech like a totalitarian regime.
I moved an amendment to guarantee wider parliamentary representation, which would ensure automatic inclusion of Labor and Liberal parties and guaranteed seats for minor parties, including One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens.
With trillions of taxpayers’ dollars on the line for defence spending, we need deeper scrutiny, not a bipartisan shield to keep the public in the dark.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Defence Amendment (Parliamentary Joint Committee on Defence) Bill 2025 takes defence review from the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and puts those responsibilities into a new joint committee on defence.
I have two questions for the minister, but I want to speak a bit more before putting those questions. Aside from this leaving a rather strange committee comprising trade and foreign affairs, this is a necessary measure. AUKUS is the largest defence or infrastructure spend in Australian history. Oversight of this program is absolutely essential. There’s a perception amongst the public that the submarine deal associated with AUKUS is simply too much money at a time when the public are struggling, and the government is coincidentally selling off $3 billion in defence assets to fund its profligate spending. That decision should have been run past the new committee, surely. Why wasn’t it?
One Nation supports the AUKUS alliance, yet more respect should have been shown to the taxpayers to explain the spend, and more oversight on that spend was needed. That is why One Nation is moving a motion today to amend the bill to include wider representation on the committee. My amendment includes a place on the committee for at least one representative from each minor party—One Nation, the Nationals and the Greens. The ALP and the Liberal Party are represented automatically.
There’s a perception that the committee system is not designed to get to the truth but, rather, to get to the government’s version of the truth. We’re seeing this process at the moment with the sham Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy, which was established to prove that the critics of net zero are all lying and need to be shut up and deplatformed with misinformation and disinformation legislation. That’s the purpose. It’s a Greens and Labor Party stitch-up to control political speech in the finest traditions of totalitarian regimes throughout history, and we can see that in operation in every hearing of that committee.
Having representatives from every parliamentary party will ensure that all political opinions are represented on the committee and that witness lists and inquiries conducted by the committee reflect a diversity of perspectives. The uniparty unity ticket on major issues is making the public feel that they’re just not being listened to, that the people are not being considered. It’s not an Australian law that there shall not be taxation without representation, yet this Labor government is making One Nation’s many supporters wish there were such a law here. The government is to spend several trillion dollars on defence by the time a submarine contract is completed. This needs wider and deeper scrutiny for the taxpayers’ benefit and for the nation’s benefit. Membership under this bill is subject to agreement between the government and the Liberal Party whips. Isn’t that cosy?
Senator Shoebridge: Doesn’t that make you feel safe?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes! That may serve to keep out the other parties unless the bill is reworded to protect the interests of the one half of Australian voters who currently do not intend to vote for the uniparty. You’re leaving out 50 per cent of the population. My amendment includes the votes of people who didn’t vote for the uniparty. Minister, my first question is: why is the membership of the committee expressed in a way that would allow only two parties to serve on the committee at the discretion of those same two party whips?
Senator McALLISTER: That inaccurately describes the legislation. The legislation sets out provisions for the appointment of government members and non-government members. As is the case presently for the PJCIS, the Prime Minister of the day would make an assessment in consultation with the parliament about the specific appointments for the non-government members.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that the same prime minister who took the staff of some of the crossbench, decimated our staff, actually intervened and sacked some of my staff, gutted our staff, and left the other crossbench alone because they generally vote with him? Is that the same prime minister? And why was the decision to have a fire sale of defence assets not run past the new committee? Surely bypassing the committee and just waiting a short while would be in the interests of the community.
Senator McALLISTER: The intention in establishing this committee is to provide a forum for oversight of a range of matters, and the scope of the committee’s work is set out in the bill. I think, self-evidently, it would not be possible to refer decisions that are being taken now to a committee that is yet to be established, and the establishment of the committee depends on the debate that we’re having in the Senate right now.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, who selects the additional members?
Senator McALLISTER: This is set out in the legislation, but the Prime Minister consults with recognised political parties in the House of Representatives. I will seek clarification, but it is also the case that the members of the Senate are appointed by resolution of the Senate on the nomination of the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Senator ROBERTS: So, as Senator David Pocock said, it’s a stitch-up.
Senator McALLISTER: I think it’s an unusual proposition to put here in the Senate chamber that a vote of the Senate is an illegitimate way to appoint a committee.
Senator ROBERTS: Only on candidates that the government puts forward—what could go wrong!
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): There are other amendments. If there are no further questions to the minister, Senator Roberts, do you want to put your amendments? Do you wish to speak to them?
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve spoken enough, thanks. I move my amendment on sheet 3634: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 22) to page 7 (line 6), omit subsections 110ABA(2) and (3), substitute:
(2) The Committee is to consist of up to 13 Committee members and must include at least:
(a) 2 Senators who are Government members; and
(b) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Government members; and
(c) 2 Senators who are Opposition members; and
(d) 2 members of the House of Representatives who are Opposition members; and
(e) 1 Senator or member of the House of Representatives from each minority party. Note: For more detailed provisions on the appointment of Committee members, see Division 5. (3) In this section: minority party means a party that:
(a) is not part of the Government or the Opposition; and
(b) has at least 5 members in the Parliament.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Sterle): The question is that One Nation amendment (1) on sheet 3634 be agreed to. The committee divided. [13:25] (The Temporary Chair—Senator Sterle)
I asked the department about its decision to allow US beef imports and why so much of the process is hidden behind redactions.
From what I understand, in 2017, the department reviewed biosecurity risks for cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then, in 2019, it approved imports of cattle born, raised, and slaughtered in the US. however in 2020, the US asked for something new: permission to export cattle that had been imported from other countries into the US. To justify this, the department commissioned two addendums to the original review.
One addendum was released publicly. The other? Completely hidden.
I asked for its title and a copy. The department refused, saying that I’d have to pursue review options on the FOI. What are they hiding?
Here’s the bigger issue: Australia is extremely efficient at producing beef. The only way US beef becomes cheap enough to compete here is if they import cheaper cattle from countries like Mexico, slaughter them in the US, and then export the meat to Australia. If we only allowed beef born, raised, and slaughtered in the US, they couldn’t compete. Now, by allowing Mexican cattle through the back door, we risk undercutting Australian farmers.
The department insists price isn’t part of their biosecurity assessment and that they only look at disease risk. Yet that’s exactly the problem. We’re ignoring the commercial reality that this opens the door to cheaper imports while relying on foreign assurances for safety.
Strong biosecurity is important, however Australians deserve transparency — not redacted documents and blind trust in foreign systems.
Transcript
ACTING CHAIR: Senator ROBERTS.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again. First of all, I’d like to discuss the decision to allow US beef imports. I’m going to go to freedom of information LEX 34322 for some of this information, which you charged me $600 for and heavily redacted. Thanks for that! I’ll go through my understanding. Pull me up if there needs to be a correction, please. The work the department did in their 2017 review strictly assessed risks from cattle continuously resident in the applicant country since birth. Then a 2019 assessment following on from that review approved the export to Australia of cattle that had been born, raised and slaughtered in the United States. Then, in 2020, the US asked for cattle imported from other countries into the US to be allowed to be imported to Australia via the US. The department then commissioned two addendums to the review. Is that correct?
Dr Smith: From what I could hear, that sounded correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So we have a 2017 review, a 2019 approval for US born cattle, then a 2020 request to allow cattle not born in the US and some additional addendums made to the 2017 review to justify that request. Correct?
Dr Smith: Yes, the original 2017 review was for a number of applicant countries, not just for the US, but that was specifically born, raised and slaughtered in the US. The addendum was to allow for cattle born and raised in Canada and cattle born and raised in Mexico imported into the US, slaughtered and then brought to Australia.
Senator ROBERTS: So you made two addendums to the 2017 review. One was called Final report: risk of lumpy skin disease via fresh bovine skeletal muscle meat from applicant countries, but you redacted the name of the second addendum. Why are you hiding it, and what was the second addendum titled?
Dr Smith: I understand ..that was part of an FOI process and that the decision-maker has recently provided that decision and the reasons for doing so, which you’ve received. I think you’ve also been provided your options for a review, and, if any of those need to be taken further, then you have those avenues to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying not only that I can’t get the list of the second addendum but that I can’t get the whole addendum from you?
Dr Smith: I wasn’t the decision-maker on that FOI. I can say that there was an addendum which I referred to in relation to the expanded access. We did do some additional work around the safety of LSD, lumpy skin disease, in skeletal muscle as a separate process. That was also released publicly and deemed that LSD can be safely managed in skeletal muscle imports.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’m asking for is a copy of the second addendum.
Dr Smith: As I mentioned before, I wasn’t the decision-maker in that process. If there is a question around what was provided back to you from the decision-maker, who was an officer in the department, then you have the right to review that decision.
Senator ROBERTS: I have the right as a senator to get a document that I request in Senate estimates.
Ms Saunders: We’ll take that on notice. We don’t have the documents available at this point in time. We’ll have to consider whether we would seek public interest immunity in relation to those documents.
Senator ROBERTS: I was going to mention that. If you disagree, you’ll have to seek PII.
Ms Saunders: Indeed.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just wondering what you’re keeping from the Senate. The core change, as far as I can see, is that Mexico have said they will certify that Mexican cattle were born and raised in Mexico. That’s to stop, apparently, the risk of cattle being brought up from Central American or South American countries, where lumpy skin or mad cow disease is present, into Mexico and then into the United States and exported to Australia. Mexico is considered some to be a narco-terrorist state. Even if you disagree with that assessment, they clearly have a higher risk of corruption and a financial incentive to lie about these certificates. Why are we changing our entire biosecurity tolerances because of assurances Mexico has given not even to us but to another country? They’ve given those assurances to the United States not to us.
Dr Smith: There were a couple of processes of assessment. FSANZ, the Food Safety Australia New Zealand, did their own independent assessment of Mexico as a country. They also assessed US as a country and Canada as a country. They assessed that their systems, their controls, the ways they managed the BSE risk, which is the mad cow risk, was at the lowest category—category 1—noting that Mexico’s never had a reported case of BSE and that the last case of FMD in Mexico was in 1952.
Senator ROBERTS: Who did that assessment of the risk with Mexican imports?
Dr Smith: That assessment that I referred to was FSANZ, the statutory authority under the department of health. That’s publicly available.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve reviewed Mexican beef. What about Central American or South American beef?
Dr Smith: We reviewed the importation of eligible cattle from Mexican supply chains, subject to the protocols that we strengthened with the USDA, to ensure that those cattle—live cattle, not beef—that were brought into the US supply chain could be traced back to their property of origin and that they were sourced from TB-free and other disease-free herds. They’ve tested as such, noting that, as I said in evidence earlier, 1.2 million cattle legally come into the US, and have done for decades, and then they become integrated as part of the herd. We’ve not seen any outbreaks of disease or issues in human health or, particularly, beef exports from the US that have resulted in disease.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re telling me that you have got assurance that cattle from Mexico going to the United States meet your standards. What about cattle that go from South America or Central America into Mexico and then to the United States?
Dr Smith: We’re not assessing beyond Mexico; we’re only assessing those that have been brought into the US from Mexico. But the FSANZ assessment did look at Mexico as a country in and of itself, and they believed that they had the adequate controls to manage, in this case, the BSE risk. We’ve also done a lot of work with the USDA as well to make sure that they have confidence in the system because they need to protect their domestic herd, which is incredibly important for their own domestic consumption. Noting, too, that we import a lot of genetic material from the US, which relies on the same traceability of straws of semen and embryos into Australia—which we’ve been doing for decades—and we’ve never had any cases of diseases as a result.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re relying on the United States to protect itself from South American and Central American beef?
Dr Smith: We’re relying on the fact that we did a systems audit of the US system, which we’ve relied upon for many years for importation of a number of commodities into Australia, that it has been done safely.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re very efficient with our beef production in Australia. The only way importing US beef gets cheap enough for them to compete with our growers here, is if they’re allowed to import cheaper cattle from other countries, slaughter them in the United States and export them to Australia. It’s true, isn’t it, that if we only allowed beef born, raised and slaughtered in the US, they just wouldn’t be able to compete—yet now we’re allowing countries like Mexico through the back door to undercut Australian farmers. Is that correct?
Dr Smith: I wouldn’t characterise it as that. The cattle that they bring are specific for their needs. They are bringing them into the supply chain mostly as feeder cattle—so steers and spayed heifers—that then get brought into their feedlots. They are fattened up and, essentially, they are then treated as US cattle and they would enter our supply chain for market access to us, subject to the raft of conditions that we put in place. Senator ROBERTS: So you’re confident that Mexican cattle coming into the United States, slaughtered in the United States, is not a way for the Americans to undercut our prices in Australia?
Dr Smith: Our biosecurity assessment doesn’t look at price or competitiveness per se. I note that the price of US beef is quite high at the moment, I’m aware of that, but that is not part of our considerations as part of a biosecurity assessment. We’re not able to look at price comparators or impacts on domestic industries as part of our SPS agreement under the WTO.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your direct answers. So we’re potentially exposed to cheaper Mexican cattle coming into the United States and undercutting us in Australia?
Senator Chisholm: I don’t think that’s accurate.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know that’s not correct?
Senator Chisholm: Because I don’t think you’ve been able to point to evidence that that’s the case.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking if that is a possibility.
Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence that—
Senator ROBERTS: What we’re being told is that only the biosecurity risks are taken into consideration.
Senator Chisholm: I understand that, but there is no evidence that what you’re suggesting is the case.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that there is evidence. I want to know—
Senator Chisholm: Then you shouldn’t put something like that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking the question if there is a way of doing that.
Senator Chisholm: There is no evidence to support that.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not saying that. I have got the evidence. I’m asking if that’s a way—I have learnt that it is not a consideration; it’s just biosecurity. That is still an open-ended—
Senator Chisholm: And I’m saying that there is no evidence to support that.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re just going around the merry-go-round.
Dr Smith: Senator, maybe I can help. Commercial matters, as far as what consumers will import, are a matter for commercial operators. If there is a viable commercial market that they can bring product in that meets our requirements under biosecurity, then they are able to do so.
Senator ROBERTS: And if there’s a problem with it, if it’s undercutting Australian beef, then it’s up to our beef growers to draw that to whose attention?
Dr Smith: Yes; but I think it’s unlikely that that’s going to be the case.
One Nation agrees with the sentiment behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolworths have morphed from trusted Australian grocery stores into greedy, shareholder-driven machines that have rightfully become the most disliked brands in the country.
While we support the goal of reining them in, we cannot support this specific bill for several reasons:
✔️ Free enterprise is doing what it does best — punishing greed. We see Amazon partnering with Harris Farm to deliver fresh food and independent retailers like IGA and Supabarn are treating customers like they matter.
✔️ We don’t need more poorly worded regulations. What we need is the ACCC and the Labor government to grow a spine and enforce the laws we already have. The supermarkets are already using deceptive “specials” to manipulate prices and the fines they receive are a pittance.
✔️ If we’re going to talk about price gouging, let’s talk about the government. Between $70 cigarette packets, fuel excise, and skyrocketing energy bills, the government is the biggest price gouger of all.
This bill won’t help the Aussie family at the checkout.
Instead, it will simply create a goldmine for lawyers. And with their deep pockets, Coles and Woolworths will be the ones who will walk away winning while the customers lose.
One Nation supports the “principle” of stopping corporate greed, however we completely oppose this flawed implementation.
STOP making new, ineffective laws and start enforcing the ones that actually hold these giant corporations to account.
Transcript
One Nation agrees with the motivation behind the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Make Price Gouging Illegal) Bill 2024. Coles and Woolies have far too much market power and they’re exercising that power in a way that benefits their shareholders, not their customers. With BlackRock Inc. holding influential positions in the share registers of these once fine companies, rapacious greed was always going to be the outcome. The accent here, though, is on the fundamental mistake Coles and Woolies are making, which is to exercise market power for the benefit of their shareholders, not their customers. Customers have been given notice. Coles and Woolies, once trusted and respected names, are now the two most disliked brand names in the Australian corporate scene. What a fall from grace!
This abuse of market power has caused customers to migrate to new options, so the market’s coming to the rescue. In a stunning rebuke to Coles and Woolworths, Amazon has now paired with Harris Farm to add fresh food to Amazon. Amazon now offers same-day and next-day delivery of Harris Farm products—including meat, dairy, eggs and fresh produce—to over 80 suburbs in Sydney’s inner city, inner west and surrounds. This will use specialised insulated chilled packaging via Amazon Flex for freshness. Harris Farm already had its own online store and partnered with Uber Direct for quick store based same-day delivery prior to this happening. That’s the beauty of free enterprise competition. If one retailer turns a cynical and greedy operation, this creates an opportunity for someone else. And Coles and Woolies will be done.
If you haven’t been into your local Harris Farm, IGA or Supabarn lately, I suggest you do that because Coles and Woolies have put their prices up much more than the inflation rate would justify, and the independent retailers have not. The price difference now is almost negligible, and you still get served by human beings. Fancy that—a human being serving! A retailer who values the customers wants to treat them as human—what a refreshing change! The 25c paper bags don’t fall apart, but the Coles and Woolies’ paper-thin rubbish bags faint with fright when confronted with an escalator or steps on the way back to your car. We’ve all had this happen.
The existing regulations need to be policed before we add new ones, especially ones as poorly worded as this bill. Seriously, this bill could mean anything. The ACCC conducted an inquiry into deceptive price advertising by Coles and Woolies and found they’re using specials to put the price of a product up, then down and then up again in a way that leaves the public confused as to the real price. And the public is learning from this. They know that Coles and Woolies are not focused on customers; they’re focused on their BlackRock Inc. investors. They exploit the confusion to put the prices up further. They were fined a pittance and they’re still doing it. Surely we have laws already to bring these companies to heel. This Labor government needs to grow a bloody spine and just enforce the laws. You’re not enforcing the laws, and then you’re quite often wanting more. How much have Coles and Woolies donated to the ALP in recent years?
While we are on the subject of price gouging, will this bill cover price gouging by the government? Seventy dollars for a packet of cigarettes is price gouging. Fuel excise, the fees on passports, energy bills, insurance, strata fees—these are price gouging One Nation supports the principle but completely opposes the implementation. This bill won’t do anything except create a lawyers’ picnic that Coles and Woolies will win. It will be a lawyers’ picnic, and the customers will lose.
What we are witnessing under this Labor government is nothing short of a deliberate assault on the Australian dream.
Labor is systematically killing off the traditional quarter-acre block and removing the option of home ownership from everyday Australians.
Labor want to make us all equal by making everyone poor, destroying the independence that owning a home provides, so that every citizen is forced to rely entirely on the state, or global corporations.
Labor’s “Help to Buy” and low-deposit schemes are complete traps and push up housing prices. These schemes don’t let young people get ahead. Instead, they limit how far they can get ahead. Under “Help to Buy,” you become a slave to the government in your own home.
If you renovate, the bureaucrats pocket a percentage of your equity — for doing absolutely nothing. You can’t refinance, you can’t use your equity to start a small business, and you can’t help your children buy their own home.
Unlike Labor, One Nation has a fully thought-out suite of policies to restore the Australian dream.
I thank Senator Bragg for introducing the Housing Australia Amendment (Accountability) Bill 2025, which One Nation supports.
There’s an urgent need for this bill, which restores the Senate’s right to scrutinise regulations issued under a bill. In recent years, more and more provisions which would previously have been included in the bill—hard coded, if you like—are now provided for in regulations which are written by bureaucrats for the benefit of bureaucrats, ministers, donors and mates. These are regulations that, in many cases, are beyond the reach of parliamentary scrutiny. They avoid parliament. We are increasingly seeing not government but dictatorship—a collectivist agenda informed by communist ideology and deployed with complete contempt for the parliamentary process and the large majority of Australians who did not vote Labor or Greens.
The Liberal Party had form on this, yet Labor have normalised it. The Albanese Labor government is in the process of removing the option of homeownership from the reach of everyday Australians. Young people will simply not be able to own their own home or use that home in the way that most in this chamber have been able to. Let me explain.
One Nation opposed the Help to Buy scheme because the scheme ensures that people will, most likely, never fully own their own home—never. In the many, many years that this scheme makes you a slave to the government, in your own home, the government does nothing for you. For example, with any renovations you make, the government benefits from what you pay. Installing a new kitchen for $20,000 means you get only $12,000 in capital appreciation and the government pockets $8,000 in additional equity for doing nothing. If you spend $21,000, you’ll first need to get the government’s permission to modify your own home. You can’t use any equity you do accumulate to refinance and free money up for buying a business, for instance. That’s expressly forbidden. Say your children get into trouble or need a hand to buy their own home. You can’t help them. There is no part refinancing. You’re trapped. If you want to buy the government out, then you have to pay them back in five per cent lots.
Why? Well, the government knows prices appreciate. Taking a loan to pay all of the equity off in one go costs the government money. They miss out on the capital appreciation during the period you’re paying that loan off. Say you want to use your home as security for a personal loan: no. There are no secured loans against one’s own home. They’re expressly prohibited. That’s why we did not support the scheme. We are proud we didn’t support it, because it’s a trap. It’s not about letting our young get ahead; it’s about limiting the amount they can get ahead by. That’s what Labor is doing. As usual, communists make every person equal by making everyone poor. This scheme is a tax dressed up as a helping hand, a solution to the exemption of family homes from the capital gains tax. Nobody stands between this Labor government and the money they want to give away to other people in electoral bribes—sorry, ‘promises’.
One Nation opposes the Albanese government’s low-deposit homeownership scheme, which allows borrowers to get a home loan with a five per cent deposit—or, if they are single parents, two per cent. The government underwrites the mortgage so the bank does not wear the risk. You’ll notice a pattern here: this government is every bit as friendly with Australia’s rapacious banking sector as the Liberals were. Under the low-deposit scheme, the home can’t be valued at more than $1.5 million, and there’s no limit on the income of the applicant or the number of mortgages issued. Don’t you just love this scheme! It should be called the ‘making it easier for high-income earners to buy a house in urban Labor electorates’ scheme.
No wonder the government’s support in recent opinion polls is strongest amongst those earning more than $100,000. It’s the party of the workers no more. The party of the rich is a better description of Labor. No wonder the Liberals have lost market share. Labor is stealing their voters.
One Nation is now the party of the worker and the party of small-business owners who use their home as security to grow their business. Our opposition to the low-deposit scheme has been proven to be the right decision. House prices in capital cities went up by between eight per cent and 10 per cent in the year to January 2026, adding $100,000 to the average Sydney home price. That’s $100,000 more that people will have to borrow to get their home. Thanks, Labor!
The additional demand for homes from these schemes forced the price up and made affording the mortgage harder. A low deposit is no help if you can’t afford the repayments on 95 per cent or 98 per cent of a $1-million-plus mortgage. They’ve done this and destroyed hopes. The combined average price for a home in our capital cities is now $1.14 million.
One Nation policy is to allow first home owners to top up the first home owners’ grant with secured equity from the person’s own superannuation account. We will allow low-income earners to buy with a five per cent deposit against a government guarantee on the mortgage. Why won’t this force up home prices? It will be because of the thing the Albanese government refuses to do: stopping mass immigration.
A One Nation government will deport around 200,000 people who are here illegally and will have a moratorium on new arrivals for three years, creating negative immigration. As Australians engage with the housing scheme, they will find there will be a home available to purchase without the price of homes being pushed up. One Nation policies have been thought through. One policy complements another, and every Australian will benefit. Our policies come in suites—s-u-i-t-e-s—unlike this Labor government, which continues to throw money at problems it never solves because it never thinks things through. They want to look good, not do good. It’s shallow and hurting young people.
Yesterday, the Reserve Bank put up interest rates by 0.25 per cent, which would not have happened if government policies had not driven up house prices by eight to 10 per cent in the last year. Every mortgage holder in Australia is now facing higher repayments because of the Albanese government’s inability to manage government policy. Senator Bragg is right that this bill is necessary to provide scrutiny and to try and elevate the standard of government in this country.
Can I say to the Labor government: for the love of Australia, please, please stop trying to help. You’re making it worse, especially for young people. Let people get about their business, keep more of their own money and more easily pay for their homes themselves. Stop bringing in millions of new arrivals—millions of new arrivals—all of whom need a home in which to live. Stop forcing people out of their homes with the evil land tax, as Labor are doing in Victoria, so that your mates running union super funds can buy up the homes. Every new scheme makes things worse for young Australians. That’s why we don’t support your idiot ideas—your dishonest, ludicrous ideas. Where else should the accountability be forced on the government?
Foreign corporations used to pay 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor has cut that tax to 15 per cent. It’s been halved; you’ve looked after your corporate mates from overseas. Labor makes it easy for its mates, globalist foreign wealth funds, to rip more money out of Australia and to rip more money off Australians. You lower the tax, and the tax will come out of the people instead. Let’s be clear. This Labor government said to foreign corporate landlords like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State—with interlocking ownership, they are in reality BlackRock Inc. Labor said to BlackRock Inc., ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’ Australians: forget the Australian dream of owning your own home.
Labor’s dream is that you live in a shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock Inc forever whilst those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. Labor has just cut it in half. That’s what ‘build to rent’ means. Whenever you hear ‘build to rent’ from Labor, remember renting forever to a foreign corporate landlord. They will build homes for sure, but Australians will never ever own them. It’s ‘build to rent’ forever. Part of the United Nations and World Economic Forum’s agenda is global control of people and wealth transfer from the people to global wealth funds like BlackRock Inc. This Labor government is helping that along by giving these foreign corporations a big tax cut to incentivise foreign corporations to buy Australian homes.
The bill did not reduce the tax for Australian owners; it brought foreign owners’ tax rate down to the same level as Australian investors. That’s the most telling part of all. This bill only changed the tax treatment of foreign predatory multinational corporations. Is Labor the party for Australia, or is it the party for foreign corporations? Build to rent answers that question. Clearly Labor is for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street—BlackRock Inc. That’s why Labor’s policies on mass immigration and housing are designed to destroy homeownership for all young families. Instead, One Nation is for Australians owning their own home. On all this, I told you so for years. I initiated the mass immigration and housing debates four to five years ago and have hammered both.
Only One Nation’s housing policy covers all aspects: supply, demand, construction cost and finance. I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report on the build to rent bill. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the Labor Party. The following passages are taken from the dissenting report following the committee inquiry into the Labor Party’s build-to-rent scheme: Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate. This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.
Dr Murray— a witness in the inquiry— was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements: ‘It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.’ That’s similar to One Nation’s housing policy. Here’s another quote from Senator Bragg: At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords, and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’. Really? Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund? A hobby activity—come on! Senator Bragg continues: This is the view of a vested interest— that Labor is cuddling up to— Most Australians would not agree with this proposal. Another witness observed that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia, not from the usual suspects, the Liberal Party, but from the Labor Party, the former party of the workers, headed by Prime Minister Albanese.
A witness said: … pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition. What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice. There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming … Hence the need for Senator Bragg’s bill. His dissenting report said: The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership: ‘… with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose … All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.’ Personal responsibility is a cornerstone of a safe and productive society, I say. Senator Bragg continues: Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre— Really? Fund managers? Foreigners? How very corporate of the Labor Party! Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market.
Dr Murray warned the committee: I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill. It seems Prime Minister Albanese is not only best friends with billionaires like Larry Fink from BlackRock and Bill Gates from ‘Vaccines R Us’ but also best mates with the Islamist Abu Dhabi regime. The dissenting report said: Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market. Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.
Prime Minister Albanese’s housing schemes will lead to foreclosures and misery. This is not an unintended outcome; it’s the point of it. Communists detest homeownership. It provides people with independence from the government, and that’s the opposite of the fundamental purpose of the Labor government, which is to make people reliant on the government. Senator Bragg continues: This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting.
There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly. While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australia is into it.
One Nation is dedicated to all Australians being able to own their own home and to use that home as they see fit. (Time expired)
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RSXFntS1zoc/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-28 08:58:022026-06-03 10:58:51The Death of the Quarter-Acre Block
One Nation strongly opposes the Albanese government’s plan to remove the private health insurance rebate for older Australians (65+).
Removing these rebates will ultimately cost taxpayers billions more than it will save and will put immense strain on the public hospital system.
One Nation rejects the government’s “intergenerational fairness” narrative. It is nothing more than a diversion.
The true causes of financial hardship for Australian people are immigration, net-zero policies, inflation and high living costs.
Rather than cutting health rebates for the elderly, we should stop mass migration and abandon all net-zero targets, which will help ALL Australians.
Transcript
I thank Senator Ruston for this motion, which One Nation supports. Currently, all Australians get a rebate on their contributions to private health insurance. For the people under 65, it is 24.1 per cent, for those 65-69 years of age it is 28.1 per cent and for those over 70 it is 32.2 per cent. These are adjusted for income. Minister Butler described the system as ‘not fair between generations’. The government has announced the additional amount paid to our elderly will be removed, making everyone equal. How very communist and how self-defeating. The rebate is higher the older you get, because the cost to the taxpayer of a person moving from private to public care is higher the older they get. The extra payment encourages older Australians to stay in the private health system and save the taxpayers from having to carry the full cost of their health care.
Across forward estimates, this measure will cost taxpayers—including young people—billions more than it saves, and it will put more pressure on public hospitals already dealing with bed block and long waiting times. Our young people will not always be young. A measure that helps more than three million older Australians today will help younger Australians tomorrow.
The Albanese government is promoting division in order to set one age group against another. How dishonest! Classic communism! This is the politics of envy, designed to cover up the real reasons young people are struggling, which are immigration, net zero, grocery prices, energy prices, inflation—destroying industry, making lives harder and robbing our young of the opportunity to own their own homes, to enjoy the life that my generation enjoys. To pitch to younger voters, start there. Introduce negative immigration until housing and infrastructure catches up, reducing house prices. Terminate this net zero madness and let business get on with creating breadwinner jobs that provide a future for our young.
Intergenerational wealth transfer is a term that is a furphy, a lie, a dishonest diversion. Labor is crippling the young. In reality, this is an excuse from Labor to increase taxes on people with assets who, after a lifetime of work, are the older generations. Remember, today’s young adults are the future older people. This aims to hit all Australians, including the young. You will eventually get hit. This is a lie that is masquerading to steal more taxes. One Nation will unwind this petty, dishonest, counterproductive measure. We are one nation, one community and One Nation will not set one Australian against another.
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.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Image-2-1.jpg?fit=2048%2C1510&ssl=115102048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:38:242026-05-22 05:38:33The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement
