When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/1 Comment/by

Responsible Oversight, Not Cuts to the PBS

,

The New England Times published a hit piece falsely claiming One Nation plans to remove medications from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This is an outright lie. One Nation will defend the PBS, just as we defend Medicare.

Here is the truth.

Our 2025 policy promises a sensible review of medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy. We are looking specifically at just three drugs — Paxlovid, Remdesivir and Molnupiravir — to examine safer, cost-effective alternatives.

No Australian will be left without medication. We are not changing PBS charges, altering existing government payments, or tearing up legally binding contracts.

Society benefits when the sick are healed quickly and cared for with dignity.

Financial barriers shouldn’t stand in the way of care and One Nation will protect the 40-year legacy of the PBS against Labor and Big Pharma’s attempt to spin sensible scrutiny into fearmongering.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Tonight I discuss the heart of Australia’s future: whether our higher education system is identifying and supporting excellence or whether elites have captured education to reward size, history and established reputation. How many Australians know that some of the highest rated higher education institutions in our country, in terms of student satisfaction, are not the sandstone Group of Eight universities or any public universities? They’re smaller, independent universities, one of which, Alphacrucis University College, records student satisfaction rates of 90 per cent for overall educational experience when the national average sits in the mid-70s. The national regulator recognises Alphacrucis as delivering superior quality education and granted it unlimited self-accrediting authority, in part because students studying a postgraduate teaching degree at Alphacrucis graduated with a job 100 per cent of the time. Until recently, I didn’t know that tertiary education institutions with this level of success existed. Australians need to know there are exemplary institutions leading our country, yet we’ve never heard of them. 

We need to reassess how our tertiary institutions are supported, because, if we don’t, we’re reinforcing the status quo, and that’s not working. Our universities have governance issues, financial issues, confidence issues and efficiency issues, yet there are higher education providers achieving excellent outcomes for students without the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in funding that our public universities receive, including grants and commercial activity. If institutions like Alphacrucis do not become well known, students who might have thrived in such a place will miss the opportunity. Students will be less satisfied with their education than they might otherwise have been. Students might be less likely to graduate into employment and less likely to leave their mark and their legacy on our society. Philanthropic foundations need to know that outside of the G8 there’s great teaching and research, and it’s worthy of support. Foundations need to be looking for opportunities to fund teaching and research institutions like Alphacrucis, because that’s where our future may well be. 

Government has set lofty aspirational targets for tertiary attainment through the Australian Universities Accord and has already acknowledged that public universities alone cannot achieve these targets. The system needs provider diversity and rewards for excellence. Our tertiary funding must move to a level playing field. We must allocate funds on actual performance, not past reputation. The government makes much noise of diversity, yet where’s the funding for real diversity in higher education? The G8 sandstone universities would benefit from increased competition. We must do all that we can to remove barriers from lesser known institutions to enable them to compete. Part of that is to raise their profile, and part of that is to shift funds from the sandstone G8s to institutions already delivering. 

One Nation is committed to greater scrutiny of tertiary institution funding and wants to know why funding favours established universities over new entries. I’m focusing on Alphacrucis, yet the issue is larger than one university college. It’s about whether Australia rewards performance or prestige. These are not the same thing. Reward is about working for today’s students. Prestige is about what’s been done for students in days past. It’s about whether new institutions with fresh ideas are given the opportunity to compete or whether the system remains tilted towards those who have always held advantage. 

Alphacrucis University College is a test case, an institution achieving outstanding student satisfaction, national recognition for quality and a growing reputation for excellence, yet most Australians have never heard of it. If we’re serious about innovation, competition and value for taxpayers, then institutions should be judged on what they actually deliver, not on how old they are, how large they are or how well connected they are. Australia’s future depends upon identifying excellence wherever it’s found and giving it the opportunity to flourish. The Australian people deserve a higher education system that rewards achievement, encourages competition and invests in results. That’s beneficial for students, for taxpayers and for Australia’s future. 

Tonight I address media misrepresentation of One Nation’s policy to review some drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. The New England Times newspaper flagrantly lied to readers in a story just published last Saturday, giving the false impression that One Nation will be removing medications from the PBS. Author RK Crosby’s hit piece was titled ‘Concern brewing as buried Hanson policy threatens affordable medicines’. Only last week, I included the PBS in a list of social welfare institutions that One Nation would defend in government—not tolerate or be afraid to touch but defend. This pathetic piece of journalism shows the lack of research the New England Times conducted for its story. I understand that, like many regional newspapers, the New England Times is short of staff. This leads them to accept a hit piece that Better Access Australia most likely prepared. It’s quoted extensively, and its mission statement is to transfer as much taxpayer money as it can into big pharma’s pockets. 

One phone call would have cleared this up. The story stems from a two-line election policy promise in 2025 which said One Nation will review all medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy have been proven. It’s perfectly sensible and responsible. In fact, most of the drugs that were given emergency use authorisation, officially known as the provisional use pathway, have already been withdrawn or had their use reduced to insignificance. Only three remain of interest to One Nation, and these are the drugs we will review: Paxlovid; remdesivir, or ‘Run—death is near’; and molnupiravir. With each of these, there are alternatives which anecdotally carry a lower cost and better safety and efficacy outcomes. No Australian will be left without medication—not one Australian. This is actually a small promise that the pharmaceutical lobby has deliberately taken out of context. During COVID, big pharma benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and is terrified of any scrutiny. 

To open their story, RK Crosby offered a vignette suggesting One Nation will remove asthma medication from the PBS—an outright lie; a fabrication, pure and simple. One Nation threatening affordable medicines is an outright lie. One Nation will not change PBS charges nor change the amounts government pays under the existing arrangements. Contracts signed will be honoured. If we start tearing up legally-binding contracts, confidence in government will never recover. We’re not going to tear up contracts. Negotiate? Yes. Tear up? No. For clarity, no PBS contracts are in our sights. 

The COVID vaccines will be looked at in our terms of reference for a royal commission, although these were not supplied through the PBS. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry didn’t want to mention their COVID products and instead chose to lie about our PBS policy. For the record, here’s the philosophy behind our policy. As I said last week in the Senate, One Nation supports the PBS for the same reason we support Medicare. Society benefits when our sick are healed quickly and returned to looking after themselves. For those with permanent conditions, the basic laws of humanity require society to care for those people with love and respect. The financial cost of medication and related devices should not detract from this care. 

Last week, Minister Butler made similar comments. On this, we’re in alignment. Over the last 40 years, the PBS has balanced prices paid to pharmaceutical companies against product benefits. Sometimes negotiation has delayed drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee displayed a sensible balance, making our PBS the envy of the world. We will defend the process of negotiating drug prices to ensure no compromise on the principles that have informed the PBS for 40 years. 

I’ll discuss two more policies. One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug. To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That’s the point. It’s a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives. 

The other policy is to introduce an eight-year wait for new arrivals to access the PBS, unless you’re a citizen or a permanent resident. Under One Nation, there’ll be an eight-year wait for citizenship and for permanent residence. This will not be backdated. You can’t be unmade as citizen. This will not deny medical care for new arrivals, who will pay for that care themselves. Anyone on prescription medication can vote One Nation without fear of losing access to or paying more for their medication. I trust that’s clear.

/1 Comment/by

One Nation Draws the Line on Terrorism

,

Australians’ safety must come before the rights of people who chose to join terrorist organisations.

The Albanese Government keeps insisting it gave “zero assistance” to repatriate ISIS-linked individuals. Yet, the evidence shows ministerial meetings, advocacy coordination, passport help, DNA testing, citizenship paperwork and a $100 million-funded NGO quietly managing the logistics.

These women entered declared terrorist zones, joined listed organisations, and in some cases, allegedly participated in the enslavement of Yazidi women — offences carrying penalties of up to 25 years. Two have been charged. Why not the rest?

One Nation has moved the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill to stop further returns, including 13 men still in custody overseas. Our bill is constitutional, targeted and designed for one purpose. Keeping Australians Safe.

If Labor won’t draw the line on terrorism, One Nation will.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I move the motion: The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations 

Australia is now hosting people who left our shores to fight for ISIS or other Islamic terrorist organisations against Australia and against our allies in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was overthrown in that war. Syria fell into the hands of Islamic group HTS, which recently reformed into a more moderate government. Guess what? They don’t want these women. Syrian authorities are treating them as foreign nationals awaiting deportation. In early 2026, when a group of Australian ISIS combatants tried to leave the al-Roj refugee camp, Syrian officials briefly turned them back because they wanted explicit confirmation that Australia would accept them upon arrival. The new Syrian government is clearly smarter than this Albanese Labor government. 

What offences did these women commit in travelling to an area designated as a zone of terrorist activity? Firstly, under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, it’s an offence for an Australian citizen to intentionally enter or remain in an area, specifically the al-Raqqa province in Syria. Simply being physically present within these ISIS controlled borders without an approved excuse is a crime carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. 

Secondly, under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code, it’s a criminal offence to intentionally join a listed terrorist organisation. The definition of membership extends beyond combatants to include individuals who swear allegiance, provide support or willingly integrate into the group’s societal structure. The penalty is up to 10 years imprisonment. 

Thirdly, enslavement offences under section 268.10 of the Criminal Code include the reduction of a person to a status of slavery, including purchasing, owning, using or trading human beings. The Australian Federal Police allege that some of these women were complicit in the purchase and domestic enslavement of captured Yazidi women. The penalty is up to 25 years imprisonment per charge, amongst the harshest penalties in Australian law, and rightly so. 

While charges have been laid against two, One Nation is asking, ‘Why not the others?’ Home affairs minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have consistently claimed the government provided ‘absolutely zero assistance’ to bring these women back to Australia. This is not accurate. The evidence indicating that Minister Burke’s office and federal departments helped or cleared paths for the women includes handwritten notes of Department of Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster revealing that Minister Burke held undisclosed meetings with the Save the Children fund, who were responsible for bringing these women back to Australia. During these discussions, Minister Burke reportedly thanked the advocacy group for keeping their repatriation plans quiet and out of the media. The minister explicitly noted that the government ‘doesn’t want to be perceived to have been paying to have them smuggled out’. Paying? The minister is referring to the $100 million that Save the Children has received in federal government funding in the last three years. 

Minister Burke coordinated with Dr Jamal Rifi, a prominent Western Sydney Islamic community leader, who served as the key facilitator managing the ground logistics for their return to Australia. The federal government actively processed the legal paperwork required for international travel, which the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism described as being ‘utterly disingenuous’ to deny as being of assistance. Minister Burke conceded that the Department of Home Affairs assisted with passports, identity verification, DNA testing and citizenship documentation for the children born overseas. When the women applied for travel documents, the government chose not to implement long-term temporary exclusion orders, even though their circumstances perfectly met the criteria for that order. 

The return of foreign Islamic fighters is not over. There are 13 men in captivity in Iraq who could be returned with the same assistance Minister Burke gave these women. Not on One Nation’s watch. Australia needs protection from Islamic terrorism, and we need protection from politicians facilitating Islamic terrorists’ return to Australia. This is why One Nation will tomorrow move to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, a bill the Greens call unconstitutional. What absolute rubbish! Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said One Nation’s bill is structured to navigate constitutional hurdles, because our bill was carefully written to comply with High Court rulings on this topic, and we believe it is constitutional. Our bill strengthens Australia’s ability to prevent the return to Australia of persons who have served with, participated in the activities of or materially supported terrorist organisations, to protect our Australian community. I ask the Senate to take this sensible measure to protect Australians from people who have actively fought in foreign lands against Australia and against our allies, to fulfil government’s and parliament’s primary role, to keep Australians safe.

/1 Comment/by

Strengthening Financial Access in the Bush

,

During this session with Australia Post, I raised concerns from local outlet operators like Kylie in Agnes Waters, who face increasing operational pressures.

Australia Post confirmed that while they are not actively cutting over-the-counter services, telecommunications companies, government agencies, and banks are driving down physical transactions by raising manual fees, pushing digital channels, or pulling services like Western Union.

Addressing the abrupt closure of the Coleambally Post Office, Australia Post explained it resulted from a licensee walking away without notice. To maintain local parcel, mail, and expanding financial services, they partnered with the town’s pharmacy, a co-location model now operating across 82 locations nationwide.

I confirmed that ANZ officially joined Bank@Post on October 1st, bringing the total number of participating financial institutions to 81.

There is a need for physical over-the-counter banking in the bush. One Nation we will establish a People’s Bank to provide a full range of banking services to everyday Australians using the Bank@Post system. This will make Post Offices profitable again and improve banking options for all Australians.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Here’s an email from the Agnes Waters Post Office in Queensland: ‘Hi, my name is Kylie. I managed this outlet for 14 years before buying it 18 months ago. We are 1½ hours from the next nearest full-service post office. In my community, our post office is the only practical point of access for banking, bill payment, retail, parcel services and government related business. This business is under significant pressures from several areas of operation’—which I’ll now ask about. Are BPAY options being reduced inside Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: No, they’re not. What we are finding is that telecommunications companies are encouraging their customers to digitise payment as opposed to going into a branch and paying over the counter—indeed, people are now incurring penalties or higher costs. One telco in particular has increased its fee for those people paying manually over the counter, which is a deterrent to those customers, because they’re trying to encourage them to pay online.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Western Union being withdrawn? I think you said it is because—  

Mr Graham: It is being withdrawn. After a thorough review in relation to the risk of that product, we have decided, with the support of the licensees, to withdraw that product. But we have done an arrangement with Western Union that the individual licensees can have an agreement directly with Western Union to continue providing those services. We’ve also highlighted to those licensees the risks in relation to that service.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are government and agency services available over the counter reducing in number?  

Mr Graham: They are reduced in number, through no action of Australia Post but through the actions of those agencies or those governments by making it available only through a digital channel, or increasing fees for over-the-counter transactions, or, indeed, removing the service altogether. For example, in the Northern Territory, the NT government has removed the ability to provide that service over the counter at a post office. That service is only available at a Northern Territory government office. We are continuing to work with the NT on reintroducing those services to an over-the-counter service.  

Senator ROBERTS: The retail structure that once supported LPOs has been replaced with a new system, I’m told, that provides less profit for the post office. We’ve spoken about this before. They must have lost revenue. When I go into a post office, no matter where it is, there’s less merchandise available for sale. Do you accept that change has cost LPOs revenue and profit.  

Mr Graham: No, I don’t. The LPOs have a licence to go and sell whatever product they think is appropriate for their post office. In our corporate post offices, yes, we have reduced the range quite a lot. We no longer sell air fryers or electric guitars or whipper snippers or flat-screen TVs. When we did sell them, we sold them at significant loss. We have focused on five key categories, based on significant surveys from our customers about what they want to buy in a post office, including greeting cards, and travel is a big one because we obviously provide passport renewal. We provide travel insurance and other things related to travel, cheap mobile phones and SIM cards, and then a small range of general merchandising. But we continue to provide the licensees with access to Australia Post products. As I said in my earlier statement, with things like photocopy paper or our greeting cards, we have dramatically increased the margins available to licensees through our collective purchasing power and are making those available as an Australia Post branded product. The product’s called JoyUp—that’s not my choice; I’m not a marketing person—but the licensees have the ability to put whatever product they feel they can sell within their Post Office. Indeed, I’ve been to many licensed post offices where there’s a broad array of products that they make money on.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s nothing to stop them putting their own arrangements in place?  

Mr Graham: Provided it complies with Australian safety standards and Australian copyright standards, correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got Kylie’s letter in front of me. I was going to read some out, but in the interests of time I won’t do that. Kylie talks about uncertainty around contract terms making it hard to plan for the future. Is this something you’re familiar with?  

Mr Graham: No. Again, if it’s a licensed post office, it’s a perpetual licence. As I said, we have been in consultation with the licensed post office council and both licensee associations to look at modernising the agreements we have in place around commissions. These were set up many, many years ago and, again, aren’t really fit for purpose, and both licensees agree. We continue to be in consultation as to how we can modernise those agreements and look at things like creating a larger fixed fee to provide greater sustainability and greater certainty. However, I go back to the previous comments—the nature of a post office, and how it is used today, is dramatically different from how it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. We continue to work with licensees in relation to the sustainability of these outlets, but it is challenging.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve been watching, in the last 10 years—since I’ve been in the Senate—just how dramatically your letter traffic has gone down. Your parcels are picking up, but you’ve got increased competition. So your traditional services are now a small proportion of your overall services.  

Mr Graham: Correct. As I said, 60 per cent of the reason someone goes into a post office today is parcel related; next is Billpay, then Bank@Post and then things associated with passports, but all three of those are in decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a huge community impact from a post office being shut.  

Mr Graham: Indeed. I’ve been to regional towns where the licensee has handed back the post office. Again, as Senator Henderson mentioned, in the case of Tathra it’s been in place for 123 years. It’s been in place for that long because it was one of the stops where Cobb & Co used to refresh the horses. That’s how we ended up with post offices in these small country towns. But, again, that community is using that post office for eight transactions a week.  

Senator ROBERTS: So why did Coleambally Post Office close? I understand it was out of the blue, sudden, and now the only service is the pharmacy, running the mail service—with no attempt on your part, apparently, to reopen the location. I checked, and the population at Coleambally in 2016—that’s the latest figure I could get— was 1,330. So it’s not a tiny town, and it’s an irrigation area, which means there should be good money around.  

Mr Graham: Yes, I agree. We literally had no notice, nor did the town. The licensee literally walked away— put a lock on the doors and didn’t come back—and we continued to pursue that licensee. We immediately set about ensuring that people could get access to mail and parcels, because that was the priority for the town. We worked with the local pharmacy, who stepped up to the plate and was able to provide those services under a CPA arrangement. We continue to work with that pharmacy. Indeed, we met with council again this week to look at how we can reintroduce financial services, and we are committed to doing that in Coleambally. But this is a good example of what happens when a licensee vacates with no notice. We are as blindsided as the community. We recognise that Coleambally requires these services, and we’re working with the community to make sure these services are available. We do see the association with pharmacies as a good partnership. Pharmacies, like Australia Post, are a trusted brand in the community. They have extended opening hours. Unlike Australia Post, most of them open seven days a week, generally. They, also, are under threat from changes within their and are looking at additional foot traffic to generate sales. We now have 82 post offices in conjunction with pharmacies. It’s proven to be a successful model, which is why, when Coleambally came up, we immediately defaulted to talking to the local pharmacy, with the support of the pharmacy.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re in partnership with some pharmacies in some areas?  

Mr Graham: With 82 pharmacies, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to rural customers who say that your level of care about the plight of rural customers is a scandal? How far is it to your local post office?  

Mr Graham: I live in the city. My local post office is probably 1½ kays, two kays.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to customers who are concerned about the plight?  

Mr Graham: We agree with their concerns. That’s, again, why we’re happy to have the regulatory commitment of 2½ thousand post offices in regional, rural and remote areas. We do have some significant difficulties, particularly in the remote locations where we continue to fund a presence because it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll continue to do that. Again I call out the difficult nature of these licensees and their viability. Where a town has a need, we will make sure we satisfy that need.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to touch on banks quickly. Freedom-of-information requests revealed part of the terms for the government to approve a ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp Bank was for the ANZ to make the best endeavours to join Bank@Post on commercial terms for a minimum of three years. Can you provide the date they joined so I can ensure that they at least stay for the three years?  

Mr Graham: I’m pleased to say that, after some intensive negotiations, we convinced ANZ to join. Their original premise was that they didn’t have a lot of customers interested in the service. However, they were active from 1 October last year as a member of Bank@Post, and we have seen a significant activity with ANZ customers in relation to using those services both in metropolitan areas and regional areas. Again, this has provided an additional income stream to licensees because, obviously, ANZ was not part of Bank@Post previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many banks now participate in Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: We have 81 financial institutions and banks participating. Obviously the big four banks are the bulk of the transactions, but there are 81 institutions, credit unions, smaller banks and other financial services in relation to which we can perform over-the-counter services.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think the only question I’ve got left is: will One Nation get into government and create a people’s bank using Bank@Post for a full range of banking services before you shut down every branch in the bush?  

Mr Graham: Well, first of all, we are not shutting branches in the bush. We have no intention of being a full service bank. We believe that the over-the-counter services we provide are a valuable community service, and we will continue to sustain those services. Moving from an over-the-counter service provider to a full bank is a large undertaking and not one that we are considering at Australia Post.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for attending. Thank you for your answers and punctuality.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

National Security Must Comes First

,

I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.

I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.

I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.

I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!

Transcript:

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.  

Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.  

CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?  

Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.  

Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.  

Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?  

Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back. 

CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?  

Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?  

Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?  

Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?  

Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?  

Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.  

Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?  

Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?  

Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?  

Mr Gilmore: It is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?  

Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again. 

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules

,

One Nation opposes the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 which implements the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty. This bill represents an unnecessary surrender of Australian sovereignty, creates excessive bureaucracy and risks global food security and medical research.

This bill mandates strict notification and database requirements for collecting marine DNA. This will discourage expensive deep-sea medical research, protect pharmaceutical companies and impose unprecedented criminal penalties for collecting ocean compounds.

It also allows the UN to declare specially managed ocean areas, aligning with the UN’s “30×30” target (conserving 30% of oceans by 2030).

Despite clauses protecting commercial fisheries, the bill threatens the global seafood supply (up to 11 billion tonnes annually) without viable substitutes.

Further, it requires mandatory assessments for activities that may cause environmental harm. This is vague, bureaucratic overreach that fails to address actual ocean issues, such as third-world plastic pollution forming major ocean garbage patches.

It also establishes a large enforcement apparatus (inspectors, permits, audits), committing Australian taxpayer funds without a capped limit. This is literally giving a “blank cheque” to the UN.

One Nation will always protect taxpayers from unquantified financial burdens, safeguard global food security, and resist the transfer of regulatory power to international bodies.

Australia first!

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia’s obligations under the agreement made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It’s called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN’s full of acronyms, isn’t it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia’s rights in that region. Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature’s own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can’t be patented. They’re a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature’s remedies hidden in the ocean depths. 

Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN’s powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease. 

The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans. 

The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world’s oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty ‘shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine’ existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world’s ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I’ll explain in a minute. 

I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia’s fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they’ll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world’s hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia’s aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn’t include wild-caught fish. What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania’s fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It’s not the first time I’ve asked them that question, and I still haven’t heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will. 

The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word ‘may’, which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations’ recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva. 

How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won’t. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can’t, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won’t take them on. 

Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here’s the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That’s the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes. 

The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said ‘more bureaucracy’, I wasn’t joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for. 

And here’s our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn’t say how much. You do not say how much. It can’t, because the UN hasn’t set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers’ money, and we have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent properly. When you can’t fulfil that obligation, we don’t want to spend it. There’s no reason why the spending can’t be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it’s the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty. Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation’s overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that’s just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories. 

That’s exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world’s oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world’s hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That’s what you’re all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.

/0 Comments/by

13 Months Later, Labor Finally Listened

,

I first announced our policy to cut fuel excise back in February 2025, repeating it in March 2025 as part of our promise to deliver $40 billion into people’s pockets. Senator Hanson and I have consistently championed this measure, including early in 2026 following rising Middle East tensions.

After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining why cutting fuel taxes would stimulate the economy and boost productivity without driving inflation, the Albanese government finally adopted our policy, even copying our slogan about putting money back into people’s pockets.

While our policy isn’t to remove the GST on fuel entirely, halving the excise automatically reduces the GST applied on top of it, chipping away at an immoral tax-on-a-tax that both major parties have long supported.

One Nation was the first to call for fuel security, supply stability, and excise relief long before the major parties even thought of it.

They called us extremists.

Yet we were right all along and we are proud to see that our vision finally delivered some relief to everyday Australians.

— March | Senate Speech

Senator Roberts: All these bills are coming before the parliament this week to solve the fuel crisis, when the real solution would be to solve the government crisis. Reducing the excise on fuel was part of One Nation’s 2025 federal election campaign. 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Excuse me, Senator Roberts—can you maybe just be a little bit lower in terms of the sound? It’s— 

Senator Roberts: I’m already pretty short! 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Thank you for your good humour. 

Senator Roberts: I first announced this One Nation policy on 11 February 2025 in a Senate adjournment debate. The policy was repeated in my adjournment speech on 25 March 2025 as part of our election promise to cut $13 billion worth of excises to put more money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. Not only have the Labor Party stolen the policy; they’ve stolen the slogan about putting more money back in people’s pockets. 

My talking point is similar to one I’ve heard today. It’s this: the ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I’m confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. The policy was a hit and helped to start the orange tidal wave, the orange movement. 

Senator Hanson spoke to One Nation’s policy to reduce the fuel excise in her senator’s statement on 5 March 2026. In a statement on fuel prices and security amid Middle East tensions, Senator Hanson said: 

“The government collects 51.6c per litre in fuel excise. One Nation was elected on a policy to halve that tax, cutting 26c a litre immediately, with compensation for any truckies and farmers losing rebates. The Morrison government took our advice in 2022 for six months—”

They took our advice— 

“but didn’t look after truckies and farmers. It’s time for the Albanese government to do the same and deliver cheaper fuel for Australians in 2026.”

On 2 March, I raised the fuel crisis two days after the jets flew from Israel into Iran. On 12 March, I spoke on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 and called for the excise to be halved. This week, Senator Hanson called for the fuel excise to be removed and for the road user tax on trucks to be suspended for three months. One Nation, One Nation, One Nation, One Nation. Our policy is not to remove the GST on fuel, though reducing the excise 52c a litre will reduce the GST by 5c and end this immoral tax on a tax that both you parties support. 

So, here we are. After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining to the ideologues on my left why reducing the fuel tax will help everyday Australians and stimulate the economy, finally, lo and behold, One Nation policy is now government policy. As I explained a minute ago, it’s not inflationary. It increases productivity. I did hear Senator Waters describe this bill as ‘rushed’. The bill is rushed. The idea of fuel duty relief, though, is not. 

It was amusing to listen to the Liberal Party and the National Party take credit for the idea. I went back and looked to see when the Liberals first started talking about cutting the excise on petrol and diesel. It was on 26 March 2026, last week, after four weeks. Yet, somehow, the Libs claim it was the Liberals who forced the Albanese government to introduce an excise cut. Nonsense. This is the second time today the Liberals have dispensed with the truth. Senator Cash’s speech on the cash ban regulations was factually false. It misrepresented the truth, and we will explain to the people of Farrer how the Liberals and the Nationals sold out the bush. Today, the uniparty was on display for everyone to see. Look at them down there. The Labor, Liberal and National uniparty were defending their big mates in big banking—their big donors in big banking. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 implements a 50 per cent cut in petrol and diesel duty and suspends the road user charge. One Nation will support this sensible measure to reduce the cost of petrol by 31c for everyday Australians and 32.5c for the trucking industry. This will keep the trucks moving, putting food on the shelves at the supermarket, stock in the shops, medical supplies in hospitals and dentists and ensuring the economy doesn’t melt down entirely as a result of the war in Iran. 

I remind people that One Nation were the first to raise the fuel supply, fuel security and price volatility issues. We were the second, we were the third, we were the fourth, and we were the fifth, before the Nationals and the Liberals even dreamt of it. They’re playing catch-up. We are having crisis after crisis, and you lot over there in the government accused us of being far-right-wing extremists. We are correct, we are right, and we hit the target before you even dreamt of it.

/0 Comments/by

Retrospective Fees or Government Cover-Up?

,

A 2011 legislative drafting mistake caused ASIC to apply indexation incorrectly, leading to inaccurate review and late fee charges.

The Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025 seeks retrospective authorisation, deeming previously collected, incorrect fees legally valid after the fact.

Small businesses and employers end up paying the price for a government mistake.

I feel very uneasy about that and dislike retrospective legislation unless it is truly necessary. We do not support this bill.

Small businesses shouldn’t be penalised for government administrative errors, especially during tough economic times.

Transcript

ASIC collects fees from users registering their business entities, such as companies, as part of its regulatory activities. The review fees act provides ASIC with the power to collect fees in relation to review dates for certain entities. Typically, an annual fee falls due on an entity’s anniversary of registration on ASIC’s register. The review fees regulations prescribe the review fees. Regulation 4 sets out how the fees are applied and calculated, including an indexation mechanism, and schedule 1 sets out dollar amounts that apply to particular entities and circumstances. ASIC identified a technical error during a routine review of its regulations—so full credit to ASIC—which affects how indexation was applied to certain fees.

The affected fees are late fees, tenure upfront fees and special purpose company review fees collected under the review fees regulations. The 2011 amending regulations made amendments to the review fees regulations to increase the base rate for certain review fees and continue the annual indexation of those fees using the increased base rate. In addition, these amendments reinserted the same base fee for some review fees, and other review fees were not amended. The indexation provisions applied for all review fees, which did not reflect the intended policy outcome at the time—poor drafting of legislation—nor does it reflect the intent now. As a result, ASIC applied an indexation methodology which resulted in incorrect amounts of certain review fees being charged.

These amendments validate review fees ASIC has already collected and deem the amount of the review fee to be a certain amount. This ensures any review fees charged from 1 July 2011 are valid and that ASIC was authorised to collect the review fees—authorised retrospectively. I feel very uneasy about that and dislike retrospective legislation unless it is truly necessary. This bill, the Corporations (Review Fees) Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2025, is trying to validate a government drafting blunder to make taxpayers liable, even when the government is at fault.

We would not support the payment of late fees as a punitive measure during difficult economic times when the original source of authority is faulty. I think of the small businesses that are impacted. I think of the government agencies that extort fees from many small businesses and other employers. My current view is that we should not support this bill.

/0 Comments/by

Is Aboriginal Arts Funding Out of Proportion?

I asked Creative Australia why Aboriginal organisations are receiving such an out-of-proportion share of arts funding.

Their own annual report shows $32.1 million in First Nations investments out of a $285.8 million funding pool – over 10%, roughly three times the proportion of Aboriginal Australians.

Promoting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art is important and no one disputes that. But why is it treated as more important than promoting any other form of art?

Proportion matters.

If it doesn’t – isn’t that just more divisive?

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. I want to start by making the observation that your grants are important to what most Australians would consider culture—symphony orchestras through to local brass bands, regional and city theatres, museums and art galleries—genuine arts. We recognise the importance and that people think they’re important. These need support. My questions go to what appears to be the strong appearance of DEI in recent years, which suggests you either have too much money or have lost contact with community expectations. My question is: looking at the last three years of grants, eight of your top 20 grants by value are to Aboriginal organisations for a total of $13 million out of $37 million. That’s more than one-third. Why are Aboriginal projects prioritised over the wider community? Our Aboriginal community is not one-third of the Australian community. 

Mr Blackwell: I think that by far our biggest funding agreement is with Opera Australia, and there are 39, I think, organisations in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework, which account for approximately $140 million of the investment that we had last year, which was $285.8 million overall. The total value of investments to First Nations, as reported in our annual report last year, was $32.1 million out of that $285.8 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it’s a bit over 10 per cent.  

Mr Blackwell: It was a bit over 10 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about your top 20 grants—$13 million out of $37 million of the top 20 grants?  

Mr Blackwell: What program are you referring to? If we look at grants, we’ve got grants in multiyear funding agreements, we’ve got project grants and suchlike. If I were to look at the top 20 multiyear grants within Creative Australia, then they will all be in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework. There are three First Nations organisations in the National Performing Arts Partnership Framework: Bangarra, Marrugeku and Ilbijerri. I think they would rank at about $3 million to $4 million for Bangarra, and about just over a million for the other two. They are obviously, by far, a lot smaller than the top grants within that category. I’m not sure where that information is coming from.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you check, then, that eight of your top 20 grants by value are to Aboriginal organisations.  

Mr Blackwell: I don’t think that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you check?  

Mr Blackwell: I can check, sure. I don’t know those figures.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just take it on notice. I haven’t got any more figures other than the global figures. Eight of your top 20 grants by value—  

Mr Blackwell: Can I ask about the source of the information? That will actually help me answer your question.  

Senator ROBERTS: My staff are very diligent. I’m assuming it came from your figures.  

Mr Blackwell: Our figures would have been through, say, our annual report. If they came from our annual report, they are the figures that I’ve given you, which would be $32 million on a total investment of $285 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s more than 10 per cent?  

Mr Blackwell: That would be just more than 10 per cent, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: About 11 or maybe even 12 per cent?  

Mr Blackwell: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s about three times the proportion of Aboriginals in our Australian community.  

Mr Blackwell: We have—  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s out of proportion. That is what I’m getting at. It doesn’t matter whose figures we use; these figures which would have come from you—  

Senator Green: The parliament passed a law in 2023 that established the current Creative Australia as we know it—  

Senator ROBERTS: 2023?  

Senator Green: 2023. And one of the functions of Creative Australia is to—well, there are lots of functions in the act. There’s the promotion of art. Safe workplaces is one of them. And the promotion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art is one of the functions of Creative Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Out of proportion to other—  

Senator Green: No, it’s not about proportion. The law doesn’t say that it should be proportional; it says that it is their job to promote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander art.  

Senator ROBERTS: More so than others.  

Senator Green: That’s what the parliament agreed to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister.  

Senator Green: You’re welcome.  

/0 Comments/by

Stopping the Latest “Mediscare” Lies

,

One Nation supports the sensible reforms to let trained registered nurses prescribe common PBS medications — a practical step that will ease pressure on doctors, strengthen rural healthcare and improve access for everyday Australians.

This isn’t a thought bubble; it’s the result of decades of professional evolution in nursing.

I also put an end to the latest round of “Mediscare” nonsense. One Nation will defend Medicare and the PBS — full stop. We’ll crack down on the $3 billion in fraud the government refuses to confront, protect patients from bureaucratic roadblocks, and ensure no Australian pays more for a prescription under a One Nation government.

Our healthcare system must serve patients, not criminals, not fraudsters and not political spin.

One Nation will keep Medicare strong, keep the PBS fair and keep pressure on a government too timid to clean up its own mess.

Transcript

One Nation will support the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025. It amends the National Health Act and the Health Insurance Act 1973 to enable approved registered nurses to prescribe certain pharmaceutical benefits under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. Australia’s health system is experiencing increasing demand due to an ageing population and rising prevalence of chronic disease, something we do need to better understand. Improving access to safe and effective medications is essential to meeting the health needs of everyday Australians. 

Registered nurses comprise around half the Australian health workforce and are the most geographically distributed health profession. They’re the best placed to prescribe certain common medications, taking the pressure off doctors while reducing travel and inconvenience to patients. This will support rural pharmacies. Registered nurses must complete a three-year bachelor’s degree in nursing. Nurse practitioners must hold a master’s degree in nursing and complete 5,000 hours of advanced clinical practice. 

The history of the idea of allowing nurses, suitably trained, to write prescriptions is quite long. It began with a trial in New South Wales between 1991 and 2000—a generation ago. This went national in 2001 with the advent of the national Nursing and Midwifery Board, designed to bring regulation of nurses closer to the system used for doctors. It was at this time that the pathway to nurse practitioner was introduced. In 2010, nurse practitioners were approved to write prescriptions under the PBS, although only while working in collaboration with a registered medical prescriber. Then, in 2024, the government removed the need for collaboration with a registered prescriber, allowing nurse practitioners to prescribe most medications under their own Medicare Benefits Schedule prescriber number. Finally, in 2025, the government introduced the ability of registered nurses to prescribe. There are suitable checks and balances. Nurses must meet specified qualifications, complete the course and maintain endorsement. The first cohort were enrolled and have now completed their training. 

This legislation will enable these health professionals to prescribe certain medications. Perhaps this could have been done the other way around, with the heads of power to allow registered nurses to prescribe written into law before we started training them, disrupting their careers and offering them a career path which didn’t yet exist. Maybe that’s just a sensible One Nation thing. 

This legislation is being supported across the chamber and could have been supported a year ago. The point of this history lesson is clear. The move to allow registered nurses to prescribe is not a thought bubble. It’s the result of a generation of evolution in the education and professional certification of and skill base within the nursing profession. 

The system they’ve put in place appears fit for purpose. Not all drugs can be prescribed by registered nurses, just certain ones: birth control; repeat prescriptions across a wide range of conditions. There are lots of opportunities to take the pressure off our doctors. This is particularly beneficial to regional and remote areas. 

For those who may be concerned about this measure—and One Nation is not concerned with it—I reference the PBS auditing framework. The PBS has excellent audit routines which scan all the prescriptions written across the system and zero in on any patterns out of the ordinary. These are then followed up with a phone call or, if necessary, a visit. Misuse will be detected. One Nation does contend medical professionals are given insufficient discretion to use their wealth of medical knowledge. In this case, it will provide an additional check. The initiative in part stems from the Strengthening Medicare Taskforce. One Nation is pleased to strengthen Medicare with this initiative. 

Next, I must address ‘Mediscare’ 3.0, which disreputable media have been promoting in the last few weeks. I say ‘Mediscare’ version 3 because the last two elections saw the Labor Party, or their supporters, smear the Liberals with a false ‘Mediscare’ campaign. Now it’s One Nation’s turn to be smeared, and Labor is smearing One Nation. They must fear us. While it has been only one week since the last time I defended Medicare and the PBS in a Senate speech, it seems I need to do it again. Very well. One Nation will defend the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Medicare. Both are part of a social-welfare safety net which maintains a healthy population and contributes to Australia enjoying a high standard of living. Medicare and the PBS are why people pay taxes—and don’t forget it, government. 

Taxes are, of course, not the government’s money. Taxes are the people’s money and should only be spent accordingly. Hardworking Australians do not deserve to have their money wasted or handed over to fraudsters. One Nation will work with and better resource the Benefits Integrity Division and the Fraud Fusion Taskforce to ensure every cent of money spent through Medicare and the PBS goes to people who need it and who qualify for the benefit. 

It’s intolerable to me that new drugs, drugs that could save lives, are held back, despite agreement between the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the drug maker, because of the cost, because billions are being taken out of the system in fraud. And, yes, some prescribers are complicit, although a tiny amount. No patient with a legally obtained Medicare card should ever be afraid of using that card under a One Nation government. No Australian will have to pay more for a prescription under a One Nation government. We will support and maintain the system of the Medicare urgent care clinics, and we will work constructively with all stakeholders to extend operating hours for service delivery to take further pressure off public hospital emergency departments—which we will be able to afford because we will remove the criminals and fraudsters from the system and ensure everyone who uses a Medicare card is entitled to use that card. The government knows who these people are—yes, you do. The government knows where the $3 billion a year in fraud is coming from. Their own integrity division said as much in Senate estimates recently. The fraud figure is the government’s, not One Nation’s—we didn’t cook it up; the government’s own agency told us. The Albanese-Burke government doesn’t have the guts to do anything about it. 

I’m concerned that the Health Legislation Amendment (Prescribing of Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2025 could create a two-tier health system. Rural, regional and poorer suburbs would get registered nurses and nurse practitioners. Richer suburbs would get doctors galore. In fact, I’m sure that’s going to happen because it’s happening now. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the federal department of health track their workforce using a framework called the Modified Monash Model. Their data shows a stark imbalance. Roughly 84 per cent of private hospital medical practitioners and the vast majority of medical specialists operate exclusively within major capital cities and metropolitan centres. Small, regional, rural and remote towns classified as MM4 to MM7 contain the lowest number of healthcare workers per capita. In these areas, access to medical care drops drastically. In these areas, GPs provide primary care and act as emergency doctors and hospital doctors, making up 60 per cent of the entire available hospital workforce because there are so few dedicated specialists. The bill before the Senate will help take the weight off those GPs, yet will not solve the issue of doctors gravitating to wealthy suburbs and cities. What may solve that problem is to do more to assist children from the bush to take up medicine as a career. One Nation’s health policy, to be released later this year, will add more detail to that statement. 

Finally, I’ll be moving amendments to this bill on behalf of Senator Lambie, who’s recovering after recently herself quality-testing our healthcare system. As it currently stands, properly qualified podiatrists and podiatric surgeons can prescribe specific medicines to their patients, although these prescriptions are not recognised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Patients either have to pay the full price or meet with the GP to get the same medicine prescribed under the PBS—or, worse, go without and suffer the consequences. That’s ridiculous. Podiatrists require a university degree, must maintain membership of their professional association and are affiliated with Ahpra, like other medical associations. Their medical expertise in their area of care is well capable of supporting improved prescribing rights. The focus of our healthcare system must be what’s best for the patient, and what’s best for the patient cannot include bureaucratic roadblocks and financial pain. The amendments I foreshadow do not reduce safeguards. They do not give podiatrists greater prescribing powers. They will ease GPs’ workload and make things easier for patients. They are commonsense amendments, and they should be supported. 

/0 Comments/by