ASIC Failed This Whistleblower

,

Whistleblowers deserve protection not punishment when they expose major safety breaches.

I questioned ASIC in Senate Estimates about Roxanne Mysko, a brave whistleblower and former Compliance, Health and Safety Manager at transport company ECS.

Despite following whistleblower protocol to the letter when reporting serious, systemic safety failures, including zero safety audits conducted from 2007 to 2020, Ms Mysko faced severe retribution. Instead of stepping up to investigate fatigue-related risks and enforce the law, ASIC simply kicked the can back to the regulator, leaving workers and the public at risk.

I asked ASIC why they have failed to protect her and hold these corporations accountable. Instead of answering this question, they hid behind process, promising to address the matter in a private briefing.

To top it off, investors left out in the cold by the Lyon Property Group collapse are being denied access to administrative compensation schemes, with ASIC trying to pass the buck off to the Department of Finance.

I won’t let regulatory bodies off the hook for failing the people they are supposed to protect.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for being here. Ms Roxanne Mysko is a whistleblower who has not been protected by whistleblower legislation as she should have been. She was the compliance, health and safety manager for ECS Project Logistics, a major transport company. On 16 June 2020, she reported significant safety breaches in that company to SafeWork SA. She also reported to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator and to Senator Glenn Sterle that ECS had done no safety audits from 2007 to 2020, and had no safety system as of February 2020—this was fully evidenced. ECS worked for Santos. Despite this, the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator did not investigate the raised issues of fatigue and lack of safety audits. ASIC were notified in February 2022; ASIC simply referred the issue back to the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator, where nothing further has been done and the risks continue regarding limited attention to fatigue related deaths, systemic regulatory failures and domestic heavy vehicle safety. Ms Mysko followed whistleblower protocol to the letter and has been on the receiving end of significant retribution for her disclosures as a whistleblower. Evidence shows ECS was contracted to Santos, Ensign Energy and Easternwell. Why has ASIC shown zero statutory duty to uphold the whistleblower safety act and laws? Are you aware that these are very serious criminal offences and involve risking the lives of workers and public safety at extreme levels?

Ms Court: Thank you, Senator Roberts, and good morning. I know you have raised this issue with us previously, so thank you for your question. Since we last met, I have some more information in relation to the matters that you raised. The difficulty I have is that we’re unable to give evidence about whistleblower interactions in a public forum. So I’m in a bit of a bind.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have a private briefing?  

Ms Court: Of course, Senator, we’d be very happy to give you a briefing. I am aware that the issues you’ve raised date back, I think, to 2022, as you said in your question. I can certainly assure you that these issues were looked at carefully and in a considered way. But, if you’re comfortable with that, it would be preferable for us to have a briefing and let you know about this—to the extent, again, that we can by law. I’ll have to get some advice on that but, certainly, we’ll be as open as we can.  

Senator ROBERTS: We prefer to get issues fixed for a constituent rather than to put on a show, so I’m happy to get a briefing.  

Ms Court: Thank you Senator, that’s good of you. We will take you up on that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll ask some more questions, but just tell me if they’re appropriate or not. Why has ASIC not protected Ms Roxanne Mysko since the amended whistleblower act commenced on 1 January 2020?  

Ms Court: Again, I’ll take that on notice, Senator.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Why has ASIC not prosecuted the CEOs of Santos, Ensign Energy, Easternwell and ECS for violence towards the safety manager and for whistleblower retaliation over the years?  

Ms Court: And again Senator, I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who is responsible for the statutory duty to be upheld for whistleblower protection inside ASIC? Why has ASIC failed to protect a whistleblower when, in this case, Roxanne Mysko reported the issues to Senator Glenn Sterle—who’s a good friend of mine—when he was undertaking a Senate inquiry into how dangerous the heavy vehicle transport sector is?  

Ms Court: I can answer one part of that question, if that would be of assistance? We take whistleblowing complaints very seriously. There are legal rights and protections for eligible whistleblowers, and there are some statutory criteria that whistleblowers need to come within in order to get statutory protection. Those protections have been strengthened since about the middle of 2019. We have, internally, established the Office of the Whistleblower. So, in terms of your question as to what happens to a whistleblower request when it comes in, we have a specialist team that is experienced in dealing with whistleblowers and in making sure that ASIC applies the statutory obligations that we have in relation to whistleblowers properly. The issues that you have raised would have been dealt with through that Office of the Whistleblower and, as I said, we’re very happy to talk to you and give you a briefing on what we can and can’t do.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve looked at the remaining four questions on this topic, and we’ll cover them in the briefing.  

Ms Court: Thank you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Investors in the Lion Property Group are currently being denied access to the administrative remedy under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme—the CDDA—by ASIC. They’ve been told that the Commonwealth is unable to process ASIC related Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims. I have quite extensive questions to submit on notice, but I wish to ask now why the government is unable to proceed with the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme claims in these circumstances?  

Ms Court: I don’t know if you were in the room, but Senator Bragg raised a similar issue with me earlier. There are complications about the application of the CDDA to ASIC. Just in that regard, I might have to correct the answers I gave to Senator Bragg earlier—I think I said that the CDDA did apply, but it was just that ASIC didn’t administer it. I understand now that it actually may not apply. We are very familiar with, and concerned for, the various investors that have lost money in Lion Property; I understand that has been a very significant issue. But, in relation to the CDDA, it’s not clear that it does apply to ASIC. In any event, those complaints are not dealt with by ASIC—as would be appropriate, of course.  

Senator ROBERTS: Who deals with them?

Ms Court: The Department of Finance would deal with them if they applied. Is that right? I’ll hand over to Mr Gregson.

Mr Gregson: That’s right. The relevant department for those inquiries is the Department of Finance.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you sure about that?  

Mr Gregson: That’s my understanding—that would be the prime body.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Who’s Protecting the Consumer? Not Government.

,

Australians are being ripped off, while big corporations profits hit record highs. The reason? Excessive market concentration.

In sectors like banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance, four major players control over 70% of the market. In fact, 7% of Australian industries have market concentration over 80%, compared to just 1% in the US!

Take our four major banks for example. They offer identical products, use identical strategies and share the exact same major institutional shareholders like BlackRock and Vanguard.

We don’t have four distinct banks in Australia; we have one massive monopoly hiding behind four different logos.

When crony capitalism replaces genuine free enterprise, it’s Australians that pay the price.

The bureaucrats and the Government can offer all the excuses and buzzwords they want.

One Nation will never stop fighting to break up these monopolies and put money back in your pocket.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is my first attendance in this session with the National Competition Council. My question is inspired by a common theme in many calls to my electorate office noting that we have an apparatus of government that’s designed to ensure free enterprise competition sets market pricing rather than crony capitalism and yet prices seem to be out of control for many people and corporate profits are at record highs. The perfectly legitimate conclusion is that something is broken, and the attention must fall on the National Competition Council. It’s your task to ensure competition, isn’t it?  

Mr Bezzi: Thanks for the question. We have a range of responsibilities under the Competition and Consumer Act. They include the promotion of competition but within the context of national competition policy and within the context of specific research projects that we’re given. So, for example, we’re dealing with a research project at the moment which will help tradespeople and people in other occupations operate across state borders. That’s an important aspect of promoting labour mobility within the economy. We are also working to support states and territories that have identified a range of areas of regulatory reform which will help promote competition. I’ll see if my colleague Mr Biesaga wants to add anything to the answer.  

Mr Biesaga: I’d like to add that, with the intergovernmental agreement being put into place in November 2024 along with the respective federation funding agreement, we are at the early stages of getting national competition policy and standing that back up. Over the past number of years, the NCC was mainly responsible for the National Access Regime, and we are now in a phase of gearing up to be able to be more active in backing the National Competition Policy space.  

Senator ROBERTS: The internationally used measure of concentration of market power is called CR4. It simply shows how much market share the top four companies have within a specific market. A high—above 60 per cent—CR4 suggests the market could be classified as an oligopoly with limited competition. In an oligopoly, profits are high because the entrants work together to rip off their consumers, who all lose. Can we agree a CR4 is too high in any industry?  

Mr Bezzi: As I mentioned, our role is to promote competition. The Treasurer has identified that, in many areas of our economy, sectors are significantly concentrated and more concentrated than would be preferred. There are a number of reforms that the parliament and the government have engaged in in recent years that have sought to address this issue. One of them is the development of the National Competition Policy. Another is—and this is something that the Treasury worked closely with the ACCC on—the reformed merger control provisions. Those provisions were explicitly targeted at giving the ACCC the capacity to tackle market concentration in sectors where it had grown too strong. I hope that response assists you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s go on to some specific examples. An example of what goes wrong in an oligopoly is in our supermarket sector right now, where the ACCC has prosecuted Coles and Woolies for false and misleading advertising, increasing retail prices—which is inflation—and increasing corporate profits. These facts were proven by the court judgement against Coles. Does this mean the National Competition Council has failed to ensure free market competition in the supermarket sector, or are you just winding up to do that?  

Mr Bezzi: We share responsibility for promoting competition with the ACCC. As you pointed out, the ACCC has done an excellent job prosecuting that particular case and has a mandate to enforce the competition law. That’s a very important task in concentrated markets like supermarkets. They’ve also been given specific power to deal with mergers in the supermarket context. Ms Cass-Gottlieb is probably best addressed to discuss how those powers are being used, but our mandate at the NCC is about promoting the National Competition Policy. Over time, we’re hoping that that will assist to create a more dynamic, more competitive economy. 

Senator ROBERTS: In Australia, many sectors of the economy have a CR4 concentration of market power above 70 per cent, including banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance. These are industries which directly affect the cost of living for millions of everyday Australians. How did Australia get to this position, and when are you going to target these inflation-critical industries to restore free enterprise and competition and shift market power back to consumers?  

Mr Bezzi: I’m not going to speak for the ACCC, but I can say that, over many years, the merger control provisions perhaps did not give the ACCC the capacity to deal with growing [inaudible] in the way that it should have been able to. That was certainly pointed out in the debate on merger reform, and I think that parliamentarians were convinced that that was the case. I’m not sure whether Ms Cass-Gottlieb wishes to comment further, but these things happen over a long period, and they’re largely a result of historical legislative and regulatory settings that enable developments such as concentrated markets to occur.  

Senator ROBERTS: What options are available to you, and what are you considering?  

Mr Bezzi: It’s not the role of the National Competition Council to engage in enforcement action. That’s the role of the ACCC, our responsibility—  

Senator ROBERTS: What options can you give the ACCC?  

Mr Bezzi: Well, they’ve got a range of options that they can speak to, including significant enforcement powers under the Competition and Consumer Act. They’ve also got significantly enhanced merger powers. That’s something that probably should be addressed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Just checking, I thought you implied that we haven’t been doing our job in Australia in banking, supermarkets, telecoms and insurance and that you’re now looking at addressing that. What options can you address it with?  

Mr Bezzi: Parliament has sought to address the concentration problem through the merger reform process.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any others?  

Mr Bezzi: There’re stronger enforcement powers that the ACCC has in relation to misuse of market power. As I said, enforcement isn’t really territory for the National Competition Policy. We’re also looking at supporting the process of National Competition Policy. Where there are states and territories that have come together and agreed over packages for reform, we support those reforms by recommending to the government that payments be made to states and territories to incentivise that reform process. Those payments will be made from the $900 million productivity fund that the government has established, and over time that should help to make the economy more dynamic and more competitive. There are a range of things that are being done.  

CHAIR: I need to rotate the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can I just ask two questions?  

CHAIR: If they’re very quick.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Australian industries are more concentrated than in the US, with seven per cent of Australian industries having a CR of more than 80 per cent, as against one per cent of industries in the US. Revenue of Australia’s top 100 listed companies as percentage of GDP rose from 27 per cent in 1993 to 47 per cent in 2015, almost 50 per cent. The source of that is the ACCC. This is not a new trend; it’s been going on for years. Minister, your government, your department and your National Competition Council are responsible. Seriously, the Liberals are paid by their donors to look the other way. What’s your excuse? You’re concentrating the market.  

Senator Gallagher: I don’t think you’ll find a government who’s done more than we have to address competition across the economy. Seriously, go back and have a look. Yes, there’s always more work to be done, but a combination of the reforms that have already passed the parliament, the powers that we’ve given to the ACCC and their ability to enforce the laws that the parliament has played is making a real difference.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware the four major retail banks have similar strategies, similar products, similar services? Their products are the same.  

Senator Gallagher: I think those issues have been well understood and well canvassed.  

Senator ROBERTS: They’ve each got a controlling interest in them by BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State. We haven’t really got four major banks; we’ve got one major bank hiding behind four logos. The banks have got far too much power. 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, are you finished with your question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, do you want to make a comment?  

Senator Gallagher: My answer is that there is a continued focus in this area. We have assistant minister Dr Leigh working with the Treasurer in this area. There was a lot of effort going into it in our first time term, and it continues in this term.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. 

/0 Comments/by

Labor is Tanking Australia’s Living Standards

I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher’s about a critical issue affecting every working Australian: falling productivity.

The official numbers from the Australian Bureau of Statistics don’t lie. Under this Labor government, productivity (GDP per hours worked) has dropped from 100 to 96.9%.

At the same time, Labor brought in 301,000 net overseas arrivals in just one year.

This is what the data tells us:

➡️ Migration only boosts productivity if migrants are more highly skilled than the existing workforce.

➡️ Less than 20% of their 301,000 migrants are classified as skilled arrivals.

➡️ Australia now has a record 2.59 million short-term visa holders (excluding tourists) in the country, which international data proves drags productivity growth down even further.

I asked the Minister a simple, direct question: Has Treasury modelled the damage this massive influx of low-skilled and short-term visa holders is doing to our GDP per capita productivity?

Instead of giving a straight answer, Minister Gallagher dodged, talked about Net Zero, and gave excuses.

Adding millions of people without the skill levels or infrastructure to support them isn’t a productivity strategy. It’s a recipe for lower living standards for everyday Australians.

One Nation has policies that put Australian workers and our national interest first.

— June | Question Time

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, and relates to productivity. The measure of productivity I’m using is from the Australian Bureau of Statistics: GDP per hours worked. Under your government, the index measure of productivity has fallen from 100 per cent to 99.6 [96.9] per cent. Net overseas migration in the year to December 2025 was 301,000 people. What change will these 301,000 new permanent arrivals make to our productivity—GDP per hours worked—across the forward estimates? 

Senator Gallagher: I welcome the question on productivity because this budget had productivity right at the centre of the decision-making that we took. As Senator Roberts would know from attending estimates, as he does and has as a representative of his party—he knows, from all the advice that Treasury has provided, that productivity growth in the decade to 2020 was the slowest in 60 years. Get your heads around that as everyone points the finger: the slowest in 60 years was in the decade to 2020. We recognised, when we came to government— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: On a point of order, I asked about productivity falling under your government. 

The PRESIDENT: I believe the minister is answering your question, but I will continue to listen carefully, and, if she isn’t, I’ll direct her to your question.  

Senator Gallagher: I was explaining the evidence that Treasury has provided, through various committee proceedings that I’ve been at and that Senator Roberts has been at, that the productivity challenge that Australia has right now is similar to many advanced economies and that we had seen slowing productivity growth in the decade to 2020. We revised back the productivity growth assumptions in our budget on the advice of Treasury. Those had been hiding behind the myth of their numbers in their budget. We adjusted it based on advice from Treasury, and this budget has a range of measures that go right to the heart of driving productivity improvements, which, I would think, all of us in this chamber could agree is a good thing. Whether it be some of the regulatory reform work that I’m doing; removing some of the barriers to trade, which Senator Farrell’s at the heart of; building a single national market; accelerating approvals with the work that Minister Watt’s leading in the environment and the work that Minister O’Neil is doing in housing; the work with the states and territories looking at how we use data and AI—all of these big challenges that economies like Australia are grappling with, we are dealing with in this budget. I’m not sure—the clock ran out. 

The PRESIDENT: Sorry, Minister. Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: OEC data shows productivity improvement only occurs if the migrants have a higher skill level than Australia has as a whole—in other words, quality, not quantity—otherwise, productivity falls. Minister, does the low rate of skilled migration—less than 20 per cent of your 301,000 migrants—mean that productivity in Australia across the forward estimates will continue to fall?  

Senator Gallagher: I know that One Nation and those parties on the right would like to blame every challenge to this country on migrants. We don’t. On this side, we don’t take that view. The productivity challenge is real. It’s real in our economy. It’s real in many, many economies around the world. The measures needed to improve productivity involve governments tackling serious challenges that have been ignored for too long, like—and I know you disagree with this, Senator Roberts—the transition to net zero. I know you don’t like it, but energy is a big part of seizing the— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: I don’t want to know about the globe. This is a point of order on relevance. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, why are you on your feet? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you. The minister is being relevant to your question, and I’ll continue to listen carefully. 

Senator Gallagher: Migrants have made a very significant investment into our economy and have brought additional benefits. We value them and the contribution they make. We’re dealing with the migration challenges. The net overseas migration has come down 45 per cent, and we’ve got a range of productivity measures in place. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: International data shows that, the more short-term migrants a country has, the less the productivity growth. Under your government, Australia has 2.59 million short-term visa holders—excluding tourists, of course. Minister, have you modelled the effect on gross domestic product per capita productivity from having so many short-term visa holders in your visa mix? 

Senator Gallagher: Treasury does a range of modelling and a range of analysis that feeds into our budget papers. Obviously, the numbers through net overseas migration inform other numbers that run throughout the budget papers. Again, we value the work and contribution of migrants and what they bring to this country. The productivity challenge is a substantial one. Senator Roberts, I would think that, on the issues that we’ve focused on in this budget, you would agree with many of them and you would agree that these are areas that governments and parliaments should be focusing on to drive productivity, because we know that, when we’re improving productivity, we’re improving the life of every single citizen, and we are focused on that. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS: A point of order on relevance again, President. I asked about per capita GDP productivity from so many short-term visa holders. That’s all I asked about. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, and the minister is being relevant, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

Clean Coal vs. Snowy Hydro: Which One Makes Sense?

,

During Question Time, I asked Finance Minister Katy Gallagher for the real bottom line on Snowy Hydro 2.0.

Not just the construction cost. I asked for the true total to taxpayers: interest on the debt, transmission lines, endless maintenance, and the required wind and solar replacements.

The response? Labor admits they don’t even know how much it will cost or when it will be finished. A recent ANAO audit confirmed there is no reliable system to track future costs, no completion baseline, and no quality data.

Originally pitched as a $2 billion project, it’s already blown out to $42 billion — and that’s just a fraction of the final bill. When you factor in the full life cycle costs and the massive grid overhauls needed, taxpayers are staring down at $100 billion plus in costs for a project that will lose money every year, and provide a tiny amount of electricity at a totally unaffordable price.

Yet, Labor refuses to cancel it.

Reliable, low-cost clean coal power stations could secure our energy grid today without bankrupting the nation, however Labor remain fixated on Net Zero at all costs and hardworking Australians are paying the price.

It’s time to stop the waste and put cheap, reliable power first.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, regarding the cost to taxpayers of the Snowy Hydro 2.0 scheme. Minister, can you inform the Senate how much Snowy Hydro 2.0 will cost to complete, including cost of construction; capital costs through to the end of the financing cycle, meaning interest on the debt; maintenance through the same period; the cost of transmission lines dedicated to this project, including maintenance; and, finally, the industrial wind and solar installations, including cyclical replacement, needed to generate the power? In short, if it’s built and it’s paid off, how much all up is this thing going to cost? 

Senator Gallagher: I’m happy to update the chamber with the information that I have available to me on Snowy 2.0. I think you’ll remember that, when we came to government, we inherited a project that was having significant difficulties. If you remember, I think former prime minister Turnbull announced this project and said it would cost $2 billion. It had not had a business case done. There had been no scoping done. There had been no surveys done of the geological environment that the project was going to be built in, and so there was a significant reset probably in the first couple of years of our government, and that increased the project total cost to in the order of $12 billion. Currently, the Snowy board is undertaking a cost reassessment for the total project cost. We have not received that work yet. It is due to the government towards the end of July. I would say that Snowy 2.0 is more than half built. It is an important project for the nation in terms of the security and stability of our energy grid. It is an important project, but, as to any further reassessment of the costs, the information that I have are the ones where we took that initial reset to properly scope the project, get it back on track and work with the organisation to deliver the project when it was raised to $12 billion. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian National Audit Office audit released this month found significant shortcomings, including no reliable system to track future costs, no base line for project completion and no quality data with which to work these things out. In short, we don’t know how long it’s going to take and how much it’s going to cost. Just like the uniparty’s net zero, there’s no plan. Minister, will you cancel this project? 

Senator Gallagher: No, the government will not do that. As I said, it is an important project. I think I saw a figure that said it was 72 per cent complete, but I will correct that if I am wrong. I can’t find that number in front of me, but I was reading some documents about Snowy Hydro on the weekend. In relation to the ANAO report—I should say this because you didn’t—it did say that the management of the project has been partially effective and there were, I think, five or so recommendations which outlined deficiencies in some project governance arrangements. Snowy 2.0 has accepted, I think, the vast majority of those recommendations. It is an important project for the stability and security of our energy system. It’s an important project to get done, but it has been a troubled project from the beginning, including when it was so poorly implemented initially by those opposite. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Labor appears to be upset about Senator Whitten signing a contract to sell his shares in September 2023, almost two years before his Senate nomination. Minister, at what point do you accept that a clean coal power station provides cheaper power, much more of it, than this fantasy project costing taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion, before it’s paid off? When will you give up this fantasy? 

Senator Gallagher: Again, Senator Roberts, this project is important for the security and stability of the energy grid. In relation to coal-fired power stations, there have been none built in this country for decades, and, indeed, under the former government, I think there was $3 million allocated to Collinsville to explore that. I don’t know what happened to that and where that project ended, but we heard nothing from it. The market is not building new coal-fired power stations. They’re not. If they were able to deliver the energy that you say they would be able to do in a way that you want them to do, the market would be investing in them. They’re not. The market is investing in renewables because it delivers cheaper and more reliable energy. We’ve seen that, indeed, in some announcements that Minister Bowen has made in recent times about the wholesale price of electricity coming down because of the amount of renewables in the system. 

/0 Comments/by

Time to Pull the Plug on Snowy 2.0

,

I asked Minister Gallagher a simple question about the true cost of Snowy Hydro 2.0. Unsurprisingly, I got a response, just not an answer.

Economic analysts like Robert Gottliebsen projects that this project could cost taxpayers over $1 trillion by the time it’s finished. While One Nation believes this figure is far too high, the lack of proper planning, financial analysis, cost control and transparency makes an accurate analysis impossible.

How much will electricity have to cost for taxpayers to get their money back? They don’t know. They are making this up as they go along!

One Nation will:

❌ Close down Snowy 2.0 before it sends the country broke.

❌ Remediate the environmental damage.

❌ Build clean, reliable coal-fired power to slash the cost of living.

A One Nation government will stop this madness, balance the budget and put Australians first.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Thank You. I take note of Minister Gallagher’s response—it wasn’t an answer—to my question regarding the urgent need to close down Snowy Hydro 2.0 before it sends us broke. Robert Gottliebsen, not a man to be taken lightly, has projected the cost of this project at over $1 trillion after allowing for capital costs, maintenance, transmission line construction and maintenance costs, industrial solar and wind installations necessary to provide the power, and regular renewal of these renewables—because they only last 15 years—from now until the project is finished and paid for, likely in 2060. Then add in the annual subsidies, because Snowy 2.0 will always run at a loss and you’ll be paying for it. How much will the power have to be priced at to get our money back? They don’t know. They’re making this up as they go along. What a metaphor for the whole so-called net zero transition, a transition to poverty! One Nation will close this project down, remediate the environmental damage and replace the generation of power with beautiful, clean coal-fired power, lowering the cost of living for all Australians and helping us balance the budget.

/0 Comments/by

The Bureaucracy of Bias

,

During my second session with AHPRA, I asked their representatives about their neutrality, bureaucratic overreach and entanglement with radical ideological and political advocacy groups.

When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on whether AHPRA caseworkers even possess the basic competence to distinguish between a psychoanalytic view of psychosis and a genuine psychotic disorder, or whether they’re weaponising ignorance to take unwarranted action against doctors, he could not provide an answer and took it on notice.

More importantly, I am extremely concerned about AHPRA’s institutional alignment with politicised organisations such as ACON and its Pride in Diversity program, including their active membership and participation in the Australian Workplace Equality Index.

Despite admitting that no formal assessment has ever been conducted to evaluate whether these ideological partnerships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest, Mr Untersteiner hid behind procedural bureaucracy and evasive talking points.

When asked how AHPRA can possibly claim to be an independent, unbiased regulator while paying to participate in programs designed to push progressive inclusion agendas, they dodged my questions, basically admitting they have no defence for the exorbitant legal costs hardworking Australian doctors face when forced to defend themselves against unaccountable regulators.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to skip a lot of my questions, Mr Untersteiner, and go straight to general questions. Would an AHPRA caseworker understand if a doctor were referring to a psychoanalytic view of psychosis rather than a psychotic disorder?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on question on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: If they don’t understand, are they in a position to take action against such a doctor?

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Given Ahpra’s affiliation with the Rainbow Tick scheme and ACON, a high-profile gender identity organisation, how can a doctor be sure that AHPRA is neutral and not biased against them?

Mr Untersteiner: I go back to an earlier point that I made, which is that we regulate one million health practitioners, and those one million health practitioners will see many millions of Australians as well. We have a paramount responsibility of public protection within the legislation. In order for us to fulfil that duty, we need to be engaging with all sorts of communities to understand their experiences in the health system and to understand their experiences with the regulator as well, and so we meet with many different organisations, including Australian Disability Network, for instance, Diversity Council Australia and many, many others. I could go on. We also work with Pride in Diversity for the exact same reason.

Senator ROBERTS: Can AHPRA confirm all formal and informal relationships it maintains with ACON and its programs, including Pride in Diversity.

Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take it on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Is AHPRA currently a member of Pride in Diversity or participating in the Australian Workplace Equality Index?

Mr Untersteiner: We do have a membership with Pride in Diversity.

Senator ROBERTS: At what cost, and when did you join?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What due diligence was undertaken before entering into these relationships, particularly given ACON’s explicit advocacy role on gender identity policy?

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’m happy to take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts of interest in its regulatory functions?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m confident that they aren’t creating any kind of conflict. Again, as I mentioned, we use a range of different partnerships and memberships to ensure that we’re hearing different voices from the community. At the end of the day, our regulatory role is founded in the legislation and in the codes of conduct. Again, I’m very comfortable that we fulfil that duty without a conflict of interest.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you conducted any formal assessment of whether these relationships create actual or perceived conflicts?

Mr Untersteiner: No formal assessment.

Senator ROBERTS: How does AHPRA reconcile its statutory obligation to act as an independent regulator with participation in programs designed to influence institutional behaviour toward progressive inclusion strategies?

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I think I’ve answered that.

Senator ROBERTS: Not specifically.

Mr Untersteiner: Again, we apply legislation and codes of conduct in our investigations. To go further, ultimate decisions are made by professional boards under the legislation. Members of the professional boards are not employees of AHPRA. They are statutory appointees appointed by every state and territory health minister and the federal health minister, so they are independent of AHPRA in that sense. Again, there is an arm’s-length arrangement in decision-making. Beyond that, there is a right of appeal through to tribunals and even the higher courts. Again, there is a very robust regulatory and legislative framework that ensures that there isn’t a conflict of interest that occurs as a result of us listening to different members of the community to understand their experiences.

Senator ROBERTS: Do you know what it costs to go to court?

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we’re going to have to rotate the call. This is your last question.

Senator ROBERTS: Has AHPRA received advice, internal or external, on whether alignment with advocacy organisations risks regulatory capture or bias?

Mr Untersteiner: I’ll take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you Mr Untersteiner.

/0 Comments/by

Can Doctors Still Discuss Gender?

,

I questioned representatives from AHPRA regarding their heavy-handed and unjustified actions against Dr Amos, an academic psychiatrist from North Queensland.

On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia slapped immediate restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, banning him from patient contact and social media commentary on gender.

This move was triggered by just four complaints (three were anonymous and none were from patients) concerning three X posts — one questioning whether trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis and another using biological pronouns during an exchange.

When I pressed Mr Untersteiner on what specific parts of those posts allegedly posed a “serious risk to public health and safety” to justify an immediate action order, he hid behind confidentiality provisions and refused to discuss individual cases. Even with support from Senator Henderson challenging their secrecy, the agency repeatedly dodged direct questions.

When I asked Dr Orchard whether a health practitioner has the right to refer to biological sex, or if doing so constitutes discrimination, they hid behind vague codes of conduct and social media guidelines instead of giving a straight answer.

AHPRA claims they only intervene when debate crosses into hate or discrimination, yet they couldn’t provide a clear set of guidelines defining what they actually consider “misinformation.”

I questioned their process of issuing severe penalties before facts are even established or investigations conducted, ultimately destroying doctors’ careers over anonymous complaints and standard public commentary.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have Ahpra please? Thank you all for being here. Dr Amos is an academic psychiatrist based in North Queensland. His academic work includes numerous published journal articles and
conference presentations on gender medicine. On 26 February 2026, the Medical Board of Australia placed restrictions on Dr Amos’s medical registration, preventing him from having direct or indirect contact with patients and banning him from posting on social media on the topic of gender. This was in response to four complaints about three X posts. Three of the complaints were anonymous. It’s important to note that there was no patient complaint. He had posted that ‘there is no reliable evidence that trans identification can be differentiated from psychosis.’

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, given that it is almost 10.30 and we’ve had all of these questions from senator Henderson—

Senator ROBERTS: No, we haven’t had these questions.

ACTING CHAIR: I think you’re going to get a similar response.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve had this topic but not this question. Another complaint was that, in a post exchange, Dr Amos used biological pronouns and thereby was accused of misgendering a UK trans activist. The
immediate action order used by Ahpra against Dr Amos is meant to be reserved, as I understand it, for when there is a reasonable belief that a health practitioner poses a serious risk to public health and safety. What specific elements of those posts did the board determine posed a serious risk to public health and safety under the socalled national law?

Mr Untersteiner: As the chair has highlighted, I’ve answered this question numerous times. My response will remain. I can’t comment on individual cases, because we have very clear confidentiality provisions.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on then. Does a health practitioner have the right to refer—

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, just one moment. I hope it is a point of order, Senator Henderson, and not commentary.

Senator HENDERSON: No, of course not. This is just a point of order in relation to advice that I’ve just received through the secretariat. If the information is public, there’s no basis not to answer these questions. We’ve
checked the advice with the chair. So I would just challenge—

ACTING CHAIR: You haven’t checked the advice with the chair.

Senator HENDERSON: Sorry, I meant with the secretary. Apologies. I’m just saying through the chair that I don’t think it’s appropriate that you decline to answer these questions. It’s not consistent with the rules of the
Senate insofar as—

Mr Untersteiner: Sorry, to confirm—

ACTING CHAIR: I think this is an interpretation issue. The information that that you have is not necessarily the stuff that is printed in whatever publication it is that has been quoted. There is a big difference in reporting from wherever you got it and the agencies actually providing you with their detailed private information that is protecting other people’s privacy. But I’m happy for Mr Untersteiner to take that on notice and provide the rationale and the breakdown. Perhaps you, Senator Henderson, could provide the information that you were reading from previously in terms of your—

Senator HENDERSON: I’ve tabled that, Chair. That’s been tabled.

ACTING CHAIR: Right. I still haven’t seen it. Nobody’s given it to me, I’m afraid.

Senator HENDERSON: Please speak to the secretary. Please don’t—

Senator Roberts interjecting—

ACTING CHAIR: I’ll just finish. I believe you’ve been asking the Clerk about a public interest immunity claim, and we can go to that point at that time. But let’s just take it on notice and come back with the rationale and the understanding, and then Senator Henderson and Senator Roberts can go through that and determine what steps they might like to take next.

Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate Senator Henderson interjecting, but the ultimate umpire is the TV camera—the people watching this at home, the Australians. Does a health practitioner, Mr Untersteiner, have the right to refer to a trans person’s biological sex?

Mr Untersteiner: I’m struggling a little bit with that question in regard to our role as the regulator. I don’t know—

Senator ROBERTS: Is it discrimination for a health practitioner to refer to a person’s biological sex? Is it discrimination?

Dr Orchard: I understand your question to be: is there an issue with a practitioner making public reference to someone’s gender or sex?

Senator ROBERTS: To refer to a person’s biological sex.

Dr Orchard: Generally, in respect of public comments by practitioners, you’ve heard earlier the discussion around the right of free speech and the fact that Ahpra and the boards are committed to those ideals, but there are limits to free speech and how people express themselves—

Senator ROBERTS: So a doctor talking about biological sex is going against free speech?

Dr Orchard: What I was going to say is that the codes of conduct and the social media guides that are published by boards set out quite clearly the expectations of practitioners when they are making public comments.
They should make comments that are respectful and that rely on the best available information and so on—

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

Dr Orchard: I beg your pardon?

Senator ROBERTS: I think you’re a man.

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, it’s not appropriate to get personal with the witnesses. Please have some respect.

Senator ROBERTS: How can a doctor fulfil their ethical obligation to inform the public of potential harms of gender interventions and gender ideology without being accused of discrimination against LGBTIQA+ people?

Mr Untersteiner: I’ve answered this question several times. As a regulator, we think health practitioners have a right to have public debate about a range of different issues, which include, again, gender-affirming treatment, gender blockers and other like treatments. We would not be taking regulatory action on that basis. Again, I think I’ve got to be very careful here about selective media and about using that as the basis.

Senator ROBERTS: What specifically would Ahpra consider to be misinformation in a post? If you can’t speak to that now, take it on notice.

Mr Untersteiner: Sure.

Senator ROBERTS: How do Ahpra staff acquire the capacity to know what is true or false information in this highly contested area? How do you know?

Mr Untersteiner: We rely on the existing clinical guidelines, but we also will look at the specific facts of the case, the specific facts of what was said and what context that was said in. Again, I want to be clear here that we will intervene where this goes beyond a debate about clinical pathways and treatments and moves into a place of hate or discrimination against individuals or groups. Again, I see firsthand the harm that discrimination and hate cause the community. I see vulnerable people in all walks of life in this country who fear seeking help because individuals go beyond debating appropriate clinical pathways or advice and move into very clear discrimination.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me specifically, please, a set of guidelines of what would be deemed by Ahpra to be misinformation in a post.

Mr Untersteiner: That’s a hypothetical. I don’t think I can answer that question.

ACTING CHAIR: Last question, Senator Roberts.

Senator ROBERTS: You’re breaking careers on it. The Medical Board of Australia’s immediate action orders are implemented before the facts are established and before an investigation occurs. Is it reasonable to destroy a doctor’s career for three social media posts without conducting an investigation—three anonymous complaints, no patient complaints?

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’re working on a limited basis there.

Mr Untersteiner: Again, I’d just say I don’t agree with your characterisation there. There’s a lot more information that won’t be public and isn’t appropriate for me to talk about. I’ve got legal obligations that I must
meet—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

/0 Comments/by

Bureaucracy, Grants and Closing the Gap

,

I questioned Commissioner Kiss, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission regarding her comments warning against right-wing parties following the One Nation win in Farrer. She said that she did not recall making any such statements. 🤔

Moving on, I directed my questioning toward the “Aboriginal industry,” raising concerns that allocated funds are being consumed by middlemen, bureaucrats and activists rather than reaching impoverished Indigenous Australians.

Following interventions from the Chair, I asked about crime statistics and accountability within communities.

I then pressed the issue with the Minister representing the Government on the effectiveness of their spending and closing the gap.

As for an acceptable answer- crickets 🦗🦗🦗

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Kiss. You recently made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties. Apparently that was after the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election.
Is that correct?

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure what you’re referring to.

Senator ROBERTS: After the resounding One Nation win in the Farrer by-election, you made comments warning of the dangers of right-wing parties.

Ms Kiss: I don’t recall using that language at all. Can you clarify what you’re talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: No, that’s all I’ve got here. What benefits for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders would such a statement bring?

Ms Kiss: Again, I’m not clear what you’re referring to. So, if you could, give me some clarity around where I might have used that language. I don’t recall using that language.

Senator ROBERTS: You didn’t use it?

Ms Kiss: Not that I can recall.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What are your thoughts on the Aboriginal industry—that is, what’s referred to as the Aboriginal industry, the lawyers, the politicians, the public servants, the bureaucrats, the contractors, the
academics and the activists living off the money allocated to assist Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in poverty despite receiving welfare payments the same as other Australians in need? The money is being allocated, but it’s not getting to where it needs to be. What are your thoughts on that?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, that sounds an awful lot like you’re asking the commissioner for an opinion. That’s not—

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have an opinion?

Ms Kiss: I do have an opinion, but it’s not my role to share my opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that that’s happening?

Ms Kiss: I can speak to the fact that we know that there is a fair amount of financial allocation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander services and supports. I’m not sure what you’re referring to in terms of welfare support, but I do have concerns about the fact that funding that’s being allocated to our communities and to our organisations and to government agencies is not actually meeting the needs of our communities. That’s evident in the Closing the Gap targets.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. We’re agreed. Are you aware that often more than half the grant money is eaten up by salaries and other middleman costs before getting to the people the grant was supposed to assist?

Ms Kiss: The indication of that has been presented in Productivity Commission reports and Indigenous expenditure reports, so, yes, I am aware that there is consideration of that.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m struggling to see the connection between your questions and the role of Commissioner Kiss.

Senator ROBERTS: I think we’ll see it fairly soon.

CHAIR: Okay, I’m looking forward to that. That would be helpful.

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that most assaults upon Aboriginal women in the Northern Territory and in Western Australia are committed by Aboriginal men?

Senator COX: No, they’re not.

Ms Kiss: I’m not sure that those statistics are necessarily accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Why does nobody comment that the large proportion of incarcerated Aboriginal people are in jail because they committed crimes warranting a jail sentence from a magistrate or judge? That’s
called social justice.

Ms Kiss: I can’t make comment on that, Senator. That’s not a question for me.

CHAIR: Again, it’s asking the commissioner for her opinion.

Ms Kiss: Senator, I don’t make the decisions about who goes to jail and how they’re sentenced. Sorry. Senator ROBERTS: Minister, when will this government learn that throwing money around is not the solution? These people are living in misery, in poverty, and throwing more money at them and throwing it to the activists and the parasites in between is not being effective. It’s quite clear. Social justice includes people
accepting responsibility for their own actions and genuine help on the ground. What is your government going to do about closing the gap, because it’s widening now?

Senator Green: Thanks for the question, Senator. I reject the language in your question. Yesterday, in front of the Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, the National Indigenous Australians Agency
appeared and gave a lot of evidence about all of the work that we are doing to improve outcomes and close the gap. Our government is committed to that. The Prime Minister gave a statement to acknowledge the Closing the gap reports. We acknowledge that not enough is being done and more needs to be done, and that’s why we’ve made significant investments in the budget. I want to thank the commissioner for the work that she does in highlighting not just to governments around the country but to everyone in the country how important it is that we do close the gap, not just for the people who are living these lives right now but for future generations of Australians.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Ms Kiss. Could I have Dr Cody to the table again please? I want to read a statement from the Australian newspaper. It’s wrong, what we’ve learned today. It’s wrong, so I’m not accusing
you of doing this, okay? I want to ask you a follow-up question. It says: Yet it is women from across the political spectrum who are appalled by her relentless campaign to erase sex-based rights. The problem is not you, is it? The problem is the Labor Party’s 2013 law—correct?

Dr Cody: The law is as it has been passed. My role is to advocate for gender equality, for the rights of women and also for the rights of the LGBTQI+ community within a human rights context.

Senator ROBERTS: So what I’ve picked up today is that the problem is the law, the law is an ass, yet many people perceive you as an activist. Does that tell you anything about the way you fulfil your role?

Dr Cody: I’m not sure what the question is, Senator.

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. This is another quote from this article: The global pushback Cody is witnessing isn’t against women’s rights—it’s for them. Do you agree or disagree?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I think this is again veering into the territory of asking for opinions. If you’ve got questions relating to Commissioner Cody’s role and her responsibilities, feel free to ask.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just finish with that. The global pushback isn’t against women’s rights; it’s for women’s rights and women’s safety. Thank you very much for appearing.

/0 Comments/by

Who Are the REAL ‘Free Press’?

,
Podcasts and social media have MSM running scared

One Nation were extremely proud to launch their Victorian candidates in front of the Rebel News cameras.

Rebel News, many may remember, aligned themselves with the Freedom Movement in Victoria during the darkest days of the Daniel Andrews’ Labor regime.

While mainstream broadcasters took hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars for Covid vaccine advertising and government assistance during the lockdowns – promoting unquestioned government propaganda, actively distorting truth, and discouraging critical safety questions – Rebel News stood with protesters as rubber bullets, pepper spray, and unforgivably heavy-handed policing intimidated people out of their rights. Their independent cameraman, Rukshan Fernando, provided an eternal record of government abuses of power in an era where many leaders would prefer the whole thing be swept aside and buried.

Transparency?

Not in a world where the state press takes over a billion dollars a year and media empires beg and scrape at the Treasury door for tax dollars while the internet rises up to replace them.

One Nation firmly supports the ‘free press’ as a pillar of democracy.

The question is – which press are actually ‘free’?

You decide…

In my opinion, the news channel that shared viral footage of a pregnant woman being handcuffed, beachgoers surrounded by armed officers, and pensioners being wrestled to the ground over mask violations, was doing its job. For this, they received door-knocks from police and thinly-veiled threats.

When One Nation is asked why it has given priority to independent media over The Guardian, ABC, and others – the reason should be obvious.

We reward those who upheld democracy and passed Australia’s first real test against tyranny since the war years.

Covid is important, because it was during this age of hysteria and sanctimonious propaganda that MSM died.

It wasn’t only a lesson about the need to reform our medical institutions and international oversight – it was a Litmus test on the relationship between the press and Parliament.

One that, MSM failed.

Qualified journalists, who have no excuse, presented obvious failures of logic and false claims from politicians as ‘fact’ – and persecuted anyone who dared to challenge them. Daily, they used their platforms and position of privilege, authority, and trust to encourage a culture of bullying and snitching between friends, family, and colleagues.

Had the press acted responsibly, politicians would not have been able to destroy so many Australian lives and livelihoods.

Instead, they shamelessly took the money.

Media empires coerced and threatened their own staff.

And now they want to re-write the record and pretend they were ‘always sceptical’.

What rot.

What lies.

The same journalists who now refer to me as a ‘conspiracy theorist’ went all-in on the most damaging lies of the Fauci-driven pandemic response. Subsequent hearings and releases from the US have shown how misguided this approach was.

How many people were harmed? We may never know – short of a true Royal Commission.

The scars of that time, however, live on as legislation with sunset clauses and exceptional emergency powers Parliament was never meant to have.

A One Nation government will seek to amend these injustices and return a sense of normality to our nation.

In the meantime, Pauline Hanson has put some of the worst behaved media networks and publications on notice.

Those who abused their position by fabricating outrage and misrepresenting One Nation in the past have been disinvited from high-profile events. And, like toddlers throwing a tantrum, they have stomped around and whinged about how ‘unfair’ it is that they were ‘banned’.

It’s a concern these politicians and competing media networks never extended to Rebel News or other independent conservative journalists who have been locked out of election press tours. Nor did they mind when the government sent orders to Silicon Valley to have their posts removed from social media.

My view is that The Guardian, ABC, and others are not genuinely distraught about the so-called ‘free’ press, rather they’re miffed about no longer holding a privileged position in the information economy.

Australians are not being denied access to One Nation, its policies, or its candidates.

Of all the political parties operating in this country, One Nation was the first to fully embrace social media and engage meaningfully with citizens. The ‘major’ parties rarely do this outside the lead-up to the election where they spend a few short weeks pretending to care about voters and then promptly slam the doors shut on public conversation.

I would argue that the cosy relationship enjoyed between the ‘major’ parties and legacy media networks, form the basis of an undemocratic system.

Why don’t they talk about the shadow bans and unspoken blacklists employed by networks where elected politicians are excluded from public discourse?

Media curates whose voices you hear.

They pick and choose who to exclude based on ratings, clicks, and personal bias.

Worse, for the ‘friendly’ politicians who appear daily, the comfy, pre-scripted questions and lack of proper questioning leaves me asking, why bother inviting them onto the screen? Media may as well print their press releases and move on.

Today’s media landscape looks nothing like the ‘rough and tumble’ debates of last century where politicians were perfectly capable of facing questions about their policies.

While One Nation puts an extraordinary amount of effort into each policy – and remains happy to answer detailed questions or even make adjustments following public feedback – you’re hard-pressed to find more than a few campaign lines embossed on professional (yet ideologically sparse) press releases from the other parties.

Given this, it does not surprise me that during the hysterical meltdown a few weeks ago, where I became the favourite chew toy of editors (who should be a lot more careful with their fact-checking and damaging false accusations), they took particular offence at my appearance on podcasts.

We’re always hearing Labor and the Coalition complain about Australians falling into ‘dangerous echo chambers online’. Ignoring that MSM is itself a dangerous echo chamber – the solution from the major parties appears to be to ban, restrict, or demonetise online discussions.

The whole of modern history tells us this approach is the least likely to change people’s minds or encourage a return to rational thought.

Instead, the lesson of Western Enlightenment has always been to err on the side of more conversation.

To have debates.

To talk to people whose views differ.

To challenge both yourself and others.

To wade into unfamiliar rooms and have difficult discussions.

How else can a politician hope to find out why it is that these voters have come to their views?

And so yes, I have made a point of going on many podcasts. Far more than most of my peers. I speak to everyone – from the largest and most controversial podcasters in America to start-up Australian journalists trying to break into the market. I’ve been on podcasts that host a wide range of topics – everything from forums on energy and its future, discussions about freedom of speech, I speak to medical professionals, I’ve spoken to economic professionals, Constitutional experts, Defence and Veterans podcasts, and conversations about migration. Most Fridays I speak directly to citizens about their concerns and catch people up with what’s going on in Parliament.

My peers on the other side of the blue, green, and red fence can scorn all they like – none of them are changing minds on their Insiders love-in.

The childish response to my record of sharing public discourse reveals how threatened media and politicians are by the simple act of talking outside the Canberra Bubble. Or should we say, safe space?

Last week, my critics were thoroughly embarrassed.

The ABC callously and wrongly ridiculed a discussion I had regarding the possibility that Covid vaccines could have an impact on miscarriages calling it a ‘debunked conspiracy theory’.

Referring to these as ‘unreported’ (meaning the ABC weren’t paying attention) livestream conversations with ‘anti-vax mandate activists’.

Well, yes, we still take the position that mandated Covid vaccination, on threat of job loss and lock-outs, was morally wrong and reprehensible. This is a mainstream view in hindsight, we might remind the ABC… The article continued to promote ‘anti-vaccine mandate’ as if it were a bad thing.

This was during the early days where the exact numbers and data were not known. It was a conversation about whether a risk to pregnant women existed at a time when women were being denied proper risk assessment. These women were contacting our office. They felt as if they were being lied to by authorities.

Well, we were right to ask questions. We were right to have discussions. And we were right to raise the alarm on possible harm to pregnant women.

Dr Anthony Fauci’s 2021 texts, revealed by Donald Trump’s executive order, show there was a discussion about ‘weigh[ing] the potential risks and benefits’ regarding pregnant women taking Covid vaccines.

Two vaccines in the US, Pfizer and Moderna, had been granted emergency use while data was still being collected on pregnant women – in other words, they didn’t know the risk profile.

These texts reveal that Fauci was aware of ‘fevers’ and ‘cytokine storms’ occurring in patients after the second dose which ‘theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the first trimester’. To which other experts replied, ‘Good point.’

The Health and Human Services Department in the US no longer recommends these vaccines for pregnant women or healthy children.

Our position has always been transparency. This means freedom for doctors and medical professionals to voice their concern without fear of losing their jobs – and freedom for Australians to have access to honest medical information, not ‘risk-assessments’ decided in the dark by foreign bodies and boards that we did not elect.

It is the ABC who failed and it is the ABC who should apologise for that failure to the Australian people.

Politicians such as myself were elected to have these conversations when others cannot, because we have additional protection. It’s shocking that Australia has reached a point where seeking data and questioning ‘authority’ has become an excuse for the ‘trusted’ media to whip themselves into a frenzy.

Perhaps if they asked more questions, they wouldn’t need taxpayer dollars or legislative assistance to survive.

Who are the REAL ‘free press’? by Senator Malcolm Roberts

Podcasts and social media have MSM running scared

Read on Substack

/by

71% Visas Granted Without Points Test

,

When you can’t get through the front door — go through New Zealand

The Albanese Government has turned New Zealand into a back door for Australian citizenship. Under Labor’s 2023 changes, anyone who gets NZ citizenship, even if they weren’t born there, can come to Australia on a 444 visa, stay indefinitely, and become an Australia citizen after four years without ever becoming a permanent resident or passing our points test.

When I pressed the department on how many people become permanent residents without passing the points test, they took the question on notice. The response is staggering.

Only 29% of permanent visas granted in 2025-26 to 31 March 2026, were points-tested. That means 71% of people gaining permanent residency, and eventually citizenship, never sat the points test at all.

Even New Zealand’s Foreign Minister has warned his country is being used as a stepping stone. Yet when I raised these concerns, the Minister tried to spin migration numbers to mislead Australians, ignoring the truth that Morrison raised immigration after COVID, and Albanese then drove it two records high, followed by a slight dip he now claims is a “cut”. He fails to mention the latest year is another record.

Australians deserve honesty. This government created a back-door pathway that undermines our citizenship standards and disrespects migrants who did the right thing, followed the rules, and passed the points test.

The Minister needs to stop playing games with the numbers and start serving the Australian people.

One Nation will immediately deny permanent residency and citizenship to anyone who fails the points test.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My questions are about the citizenship back door between New Zealand and Australia. Changes made by the Albanese government in July 2023 allowed New Zealand citizens who have lived here for four years to become Australian citizens without having to first become permanent residents. Is that correct?  

Mr Layton: Technically, that is correct. The 444 visa is categorised as a temporary visa. The 444 visa holders have, since that time, become eligible for citizenship.  

Senator ROBERTS: And a New Zealand citizen can come here without a visa and automatically qualify for a subclass 444 visa—that’s correct?  

Mr Layton: No, that’s not correct. The 444 visa is applied, upon arrival, to a New Zealander. So they obtain that when they arrive in Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: Basically that’s the same as a permanent visa? Mr Willard: It’s a temporary visa, the 444.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is it effectively a permanent visa—they can stay?  

Mr Willard: They can stay indefinitely, but it’s classified as a temporary visa.  

Senator ROBERTS: I don’t know why that’s the case, but let’s leave that. They can stay indefinitely. They arrive and get a 444 visa to stay indefinitely. Then, after four years, they can get citizenship without getting a permanent visa—straight from subclass 444 to citizenship. Is that correct? Mr Layton: Technically, that’s correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: Then aren’t we really just relying on New Zealand having the same standards for citizenship as Australia?  

Ms Foster: This was a government policy decision. We are responsible for giving effect to it.  

Senator Watt: It’s worth recognising that many if not most of those New Zealand citizens who are gaining Australian citizenship have spent many years in Australia working and paying taxes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I recognise that. I’ll go on. Do they in New Zealand, though—you may become a citizen in New Zealand if you’ve been there five years, can hold a conversation in English and are of good character proven with a police check. Summary offences don’t take away your good character. That’s the bar these people are using to become Australian citizens. Yes, some Kiwis are here for 20 years. It’s annoying that they don’t become citizens, but there are certain loopholes. There are certain benefits of not becoming citizens. I’m talking about people who use this as an easy entry. It is why New Zealand is now the No. 1 source of Australian citizens in the two-year period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025. Isn’t it an easy back door? Someone who’s come to New Zealand can come straight here.  

Ms Foster: Again, I think you’re asking us for an opinion. We can give you facts about the system, but we can’t comment on assertions of that nature.  

Senator ROBERTS: They can do that, can’t they? I’m not asking for your opinion. They can do that. Ms Foster: Technically, someone can, as the officers have said, come to Australia on a 444 visa, and, after four years, they can apply for citizenship.  

Mr Sharp: They would have had to have met the time threshold in New Zealand to acquire New Zealand citizenship as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: But that’s at a very low threshold, a low bar. In that period from 1 July 2023 to 30 June 2025, 48 per cent of New Zealanders who are now Australian citizens were not born in New Zealand. They came into New Zealand from overseas. That’s a backdoor entry to Australian citizenship with a much lower bar because they had to meet the threshold for New Zealand, which is lower than Australian citizenship. That’s a much lower bar than people moving here directly and following the rules in Australia to citizenship, including passing what is called our 100-point test with at least a score of 65. This New Zealand back door is way easier than getting 65 on the 100-point test. For clarity, children don’t generally need to pass citizenship tests. Can you clarify that rule by age please. What’s the age threshold?  

Mr Willard: It’s 18.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you understand the position that offering this pathway to people from foreign countries to come in through the back door in New Zealand without passing the points test is a slap in the face for those who have come here fairly, waited, worked, studied and done the right thing but can’t get citizenship because this government wrote in a backdoor way for no obvious reason? Can you understand that?  

Ms Foster: We can’t comment on opinions of that nature.  

Senator Watt: I have to say, I think it’s pretty insulting to a lot of New Zealand citizens who become Australian citizens to talk about them coming through a back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m talking about people who come into New Zealand, meet the lower threshold in New Zealand and come here. That’s who I’m talking about, Senator Watt. I’m surprised you can’t work that out. If this was about working with our neighbour New Zealand, why wasn’t there a provision for the pathway to be open only to New Zealand-born people rather than a deliberately set up back door to let in people that couldn’t pass a points test? What was the reason for that?  

Mr Layton: The policy and the parameters around that are a matter for government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister?  

Senator Watt: I’m trying to remember the reason the government made that change in our first term. My recollection is that it was partly in recognition that, because of a change that had been made by the Howard government, there was a very large number of New Zealand citizens who had lived in Australia and worked, paid taxes and contributed to the community in a range of ways but, despite having lived here for such a very long time, were unable to get Australian citizenship, because of rules the Howard government imposed. That, in our view, was not fair. I remember that being at least one of the motivations for changing the policy.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got no problem with that. What I’m talking about is people who come to New Zealand, quickly meet the lower threshold for citizenship there and come here and automatically get citizenship.  

Senator Watt: I’m not sure that people who, as you say, move to New Zealand and then move to Australia are necessarily of ‘low standard’. That’s what you’re implying in your question.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I would also suggest that the New Zealand citizenship process is not a matter for Home Affairs.  

Senator ROBERTS: No, it’s about using that threshold for people who are new to New Zealand. How many citizenships have been awarded to people who haven’t passed the points test under any circumstances?  

Mr Layton: Sorry, the points test?  

Senator ROBERTS: The Australian citizenship points test.  

Ms Sharp: The points test is one way somebody can gain a permanent residency in Australia, but not every person who gains permanent residency in Australia comes in as a points tested migrant.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many do?  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: They fall in love with someone!  

Senator ROBERTS: How many come in without passing the points test?  

Mr Willard: I would have to take that on notice. I would note that there are also employer sponsored migrants. There are many different types of permanent residents.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. According to an article: It has also prompted New Zealand Foreign Minister Winston Peters to flag concerns his country is being used as a stepping stone by migrants wanting to come to Australia, and that the trend will further accelerate under an easing of its own migration rules which will grant residency in just 18 months for some workers. Those numbers, combined with the recent rise in New Zealanders moving to Australia, have raised doubts about Australia’s ability to meet a planned slowdown in migration— He doubts whether you’re going to slow down— as well as concerns it is robbing New Zealand of both its professional and low-skilled workforce.  

Senator Watt: For starters, migration numbers in Australia have significantly fallen over the last couple of years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Compared to when? What’s the baseline?  

Senator Watt: Compared to the surge that we saw after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You mean the surge in 2023-24?  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, please let the minister finish.  

Senator Watt: Yes. That was the surge that happened after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your surge, where you went from 500,000 to 750,000.  

Senator Watt: No, the surge that followed COVID.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have been very orderly throughout today, and you are usually pretty good at not interjecting. I would ask that you maintain that order and allow the minister to respond, please.  

Senator Watt: Here are a couple of other facts about this situation. I think we’ve already heard that the process that now applies still requires someone who has moved to New Zealand and gained New Zealand citizenship to have that for five years—so they spend five years in New Zealand and then four years in Australia. If you want to characterise that as a back door, that’s a pretty slow back door. Second, you’ve been asking questions about the points test. Any person who wants to get Australian citizenship still needs to meet the character and identification requirements and pass the security tests as well. As I said earlier, I think it’s a bit insulting to be suggesting these people are running through a back door and are of low standard. That’s what you’re suggesting.  

Senator SHOEBRIDGE: There’s a bloody long garden path leading to that back door.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve worked and lived in New Zealand, turning around a business there for 12 months. They’re wonderful people. But Winston Peters is concerned that their immigration system is being used for quick entry into New Zealand to go to Australia.  

Senator Watt: That’s a question for New Zealand to address.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s also a question for Australia to address, and that’s what I’m doing on behalf of the taxpayers. Minister, I agree with you on one point: mass immigration was started by John Howard’s government. It was pretty much doubled since then in Scott Morrison’s government, and then you tripled it in the early days of 2023-24. Senator Watt: What’s NOM stand for?  

Ms Foster: Net overseas migration.  

Senator Watt: Actually, net overseas migration has fallen by 45 per cent over the last 12 or 18 months. I can get you the exact timeframe.  

Senator ROBERTS: You had two very high years, a low year and now a very high year again.  

Senator Watt: Yes, after COVID.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re playing with numbers.  

Senator Watt: It’s another one of those ones. We’re never going to convince you.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, have you got a question?  

Senator ROBERTS: I go by the data.  

Senator Watt: During COVID, migration crashed. After COVID—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct.  

Senator Watt: lots of people came home. Migration rose. We have now reduced NOM by about 45 per cent by—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s misleading, Minister, because—  

Senator Watt: No; it’s actually called facts.  

Senator ROBERTS: it increased dramatically under Morrison to re-establish what he thought were the right numbers of migration. Then you almost doubled it, then you decreased it slightly, and now you’re doubling it again.  

Senator Watt: So we should have told all those Australians who wanted to come home after COVID that they weren’t allowed home?  

Senator ROBERTS: No, not at all. I’m talking about immigrant—  

CHAIR: Can I interject for a second here—  

Senator ROBERTS: Mass immigration—mass immigration.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I am not hearing any questions from you. Can I take it you have finished this line of questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, you can. 

/2 Comments/by