Where Are the Dams?

,

During recent Estimates hearings, I questioned officials from the National Water Grid (NWG) and Minister Murray Watt on critical water infrastructure and supply issues amid Australia’s surging population and rising demand.

I asked for an update on the Paradise Dam works, noting that the Crisafulli government is still evaluating the business case. I also asked questions regarding the Urannah irrigation project, highlighting that the detailed business case was withdrawn by the proponent and the Queensland government in late 2022.

Citing Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data showing a 12.9% rise in water demand (including a 6% increase in household water and a 14% jump for food production), I enquired on how the government plans to meet this massive resource pressure. I pointed out that this surge equals the volume of a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months, asking where the infrastructure is to support record immigration levels.

While Minister Watt argued that the federal government funds regional water infrastructure, efficiency programs and buybacks, he maintained that state governments hold primary responsibility for drinking water supply.

I questioned the actual yield of the $210 million WISER program (Water Infrastructure for Sustainable and Efficient Regions) and asked why cancelled initiatives like the Hughenden irrigation project (HIPCo) remain active on the NWG’s website rather than being moved to a history page. These questions were taken on notice.

— May | Senate Estimates

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: First, could you update us on the Paradise Dam works. When we last spoke, you indicated that the Crisafulli government was still evaluating the business case and had not made a request for funding. Has there been any change to this?  

Mr Southwell: No, we don’t have a business case from the Queensland government. I don’t believe the Queensland government has a business case from Sunwater either.  

Senator ROBERTS: I also asked about the reason the project sponsor had pulled out of what is a project of national significance, the Urannah irrigation project. Mr Darrough took that on notice. It wasn’t, however, placed on notice. I’m trying to understand why the sponsor pulled out before asking the Crisafulli government why they aren’t proceeding with this project. Can you give me a simple rundown, please?  

Mr Darrough: Pardon me, Senator, can you repeat the question about the question on notice. The response was provided.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Mr Darrough took that on notice’, is what I said.  

Mr Darrough: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: It wasn’t, however, placed on notice.  

Mr Southwell: We did table a response.  

Mr Darrough: The Urannah Water Scheme detailed business case is publicly available on the Queensland government website. I provided a link for that as well. On the environmental impact statement material, the Queensland Office of the Coordinator-General published the terms of reference for the EIS on 31 March 2021, and it records that the EIS process was withdrawn in December 2022. This is a matter between the proponent and the Queensland government.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of the projects in your project list include recycling sewage and/or grey water and directing the output into drinking water, including into a storage dam from which drinking water is drawn?  

Mr Darrough: I would suggest that the answer is no, but I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’d be particularly interested in South-East Queensland.  

Mr Darrough: I don’t have the—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m just saying. What is your target for water consumption per person, per day? How much water do you actually have to provide to keep water up to people, stock, station, irrigation, more people, more food and industry. We’ve got record immigration. What’s your target per person, per day?  

Mr Darrough: That’s not a question for National Water Grid.  

Mr Southwell: We don’t have a specific target from the National Water Grid Fund.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, remember that most of the responsibility for providing water, especially drinking water, if that’s your focus, rests with state and local governments. We have a role in funding some of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll just remind you of this from your website: ‘The National Water Grid Investment Framework ensures funding decisions guide long-term, responsible investment in water infrastructure. It also helps the government plan for future challenges, including climate change, population growth and rising demand for water in farming.’ According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, water demand in Australia rose by 12.9 per cent from 2022-23 to 2023-24. A rapidly increasing population creates demand for more household water, up six per cent in that period. Also, from demand for food, water use is up 14 per cent. In actual terms, that represents another 1,965 gigalitres. In one year, that’s a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are these Warragamba dams coming from? Where are the plans for more water to meet the needs of the last million new arrivals, let alone the one million more due by 2028?  

Senator Watt: I know that it would be your party’s policy to link all of these issues to migration. You just talked about the increasing demand for water for food production. That’s not necessarily about feeding the Australian population. You would remember, I’m sure, that the vast majority of food produced in Australia is exported. The demand for water is also partly about supporting the trade and businesses of farmers who produce the food.  

Senator ROBERTS: Senator, I know you want to weasel out of it, but the fact is that immigration is up, food production is up, for whatever reason.  

Senator Watt: Immigration is actually coming down under our government.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s up compared to three years ago. It’s up compared to five years ago.  

Senator Watt: It’s coming down under our government. I know you don’t accept that, but it’s coming down.  

Senator ROBERTS: It’s 750,000 for each of the last three years.  

Senator Watt: That’s not correct. We can produce the figures that show—  

Senator ROBERTS: Three years ago it was 750—  

Senator Watt: This is not really the committee to get into this—  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct. Where are the future Warragamba—you’ve got a water crisis cabinet.  

Senator Watt: But net overseas migration is falling.  

Senator HENDERSON: It’s at a record high.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got a water crisis coming; what are you doing about it?  

CHAIR: Senators, I think there’s a bit of talking over each other. We’re getting to the end of the evening. Let’s do this as clinically as possible: question then answer.  

Senator Watt: In general terms, from a federal government perspective, what we are doing to meet the demand for water across the country is helping fund certain infrastructure projects.  

Senator ROBERTS: Which ones?  

Senator Watt: The projects that the National Water Grid has funded, which we’ve said we’ll come back to you on notice about. There are many of them. We are encouraging water efficiency and investing in water efficiency, including on farms. We are funding voluntary water buybacks. There are a range of activities that we are funding. But when it comes to restrictions on water consumption, that is generally determined by state and local governments or the owners of that infrastructure.  

Senator ROBERTS: When is the next Warragamba Dam coming? Where is it? We need a new Warragamba Dam every 18 months. Where are they? They’re not there.  

Senator Watt: That would generally be a matter for states.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got your WISER program, water infrastructure for sustainable and efficient regions, which sounds nice. Let’s describe it: plugging leaks, building local pipelines and improving recycling facilities—$210 million in total. How much will this water add up to, from the WISER program? Will it be a Warragamba Dam every 18 months?  

Mr Darrough: I need to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question on this bracket: your website still lists projects that have been killed off by the Albanese government, including the Hughenden irrigation project, HIPCo. Why are cancelled projects not removed or moved to a history page? Is it to give the impression the National Water Grid is actually expanding when it’s not?  

Senator Watt: There were no announcements made about that project in the budget.  

Senator ROBERTS: Previously?  

Senator Watt: Not that I’m aware of.  

Senator ROBERTS: Will you check? Take that on notice?  

Senator Watt: Sure. 

/0 Comments/by

Will the ATO Pay for Its Mistakes?

,

I brought up the deeply distressing case of Mr Jae Jang, highlighting striking similarities to the Clarke case. I noted that after years of protracted legal battles, criminal charges against Mr Jang and his employees were dropped because the prosecution had no evidence to offer. I pointed out the devastating human toll — Mr Jang spending time in jail and his sister dying by suicide after her bank accounts were falsely frozen by the ATO— leading me to state that the ATO has blood on its hands, and asking whether these cases reflect a broader pattern of behaviour.

Ms Owen confirmed she had concluded a review of Mr Jang’s case, finding some of his allegations substantiated, and noted she is now conducting a systemic review examining whether historical issues like bias or prejudice in decision-making could still happen under current protocols, with a report due to be published the following month.

I pointed out that systems drive behaviour, noting that unlike in the United States where investigation and prosecution are separated, the ATO handles both, creating an institutional incentive not to drop flawed cases. Ms Owen observed that the ATO does implement some separation of duties between audits and criminal investigations, which her inquiry was also examining.

I then asked if she saw parallels between these cases and the robodebt scandal, specifically regarding the ATO providing unreliable data, though Ms Owen viewed them as separate. While she acknowledged that both the Clarke and Jang cases resulted in major financial, emotional, and business harm, she clarified that her investigation found no direct causal link between the ATO’s actions and Ms Jang’s tragic death, though she strongly criticised the ATO’s failure to acknowledge notification of her passing for five years.

When I asked if the commissioner would give undertakings to compensate Mr Clarke and Mr Jang, Ms Owen stated that compensation is outside her remit and a matter for the commissioner. Finally, I asked whether the Jang and Clarke cases add weight to the Falinski inquiry recommendations, particularly regarding shifting the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the ATO, to which she replied that it was a policy matter outside her remit.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware of and familiar with the case of Mr Jae Jang?  

Ms Owen: Yes, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was reported on A Current Affair on 14 July and again on 15 July 2025. The Jae Jang case has similar patterns to the Clarke case that I just discussed. The ATO caused criminal charges to be brought against Mr Jang. His case dates back as far as 2011. After protracted legal activity, the case against Mr Jang was dropped because ‘the prosecution had no evidence to offer’. Similarly, charges against employees of Mr Jang were dropped because there was no evidence to offer. Yet in this period Mr Jang spent time in jail and his sister suicided after her bank accounts were falsely frozen by the ATO. That means the ATO has blood on its hands. Are these two cases one-off aberrations by the ATO, or do they reflect a broader pattern of behaviour by the ATO? 

Ms Owen: What I can say in response to that question is that I think it’s on the public record that I have conducted a review of Mr Jang’s case. He did complain to me about the case that you’ve just described there, and I’ve recently concluded my review of that case. That was, obviously, reported recently in the media. I found some of his allegations to have been substantiated, but not all of them, from the evidence that I’ve reviewed. Mr Jang has my report and my full findings, as does the commissioner of tax. That review is of a particular taxpayer. As you say, it’s an egregious case, particularly in relation to suicide. Every loss of life to suicide is a tragedy, and I have paid my condolences to Mr Jang and his family. But my role is to ensure that this isn’t systemic, and I think your question, generally, is one that ties those two cases together and asks whether there is a systemic issue here in the ATO. Following my review of that individual tax case, I’m now conducting a systemic review that looks at whether those matters, which were historical—as you say, from several years ago—could or would happen now, under current protocols, whether there is a systemic issue within the ATO and what controls they have in place should there be individual instances of bias or prejudice within their decision-making. That report will be published next month.  

Senator ROBERTS: Systems drive behaviour. Some systems are the most powerful drivers of behaviour. In the United States, so I’m advised—I might not be perfectly correct on this—the arm that identifies a case of tax cheating or fraud or whatever hands it over to another, separate group to prosecute. This is not so in the ATO; it’s the same group, which would mean, I think, an incentive to not drop a case, even if it was found to be not correct.  

Ms Owen: Again, that’s probably more a question for the ATO. But my observation would be that the ATO does put a separation of duties into some of those duties—for example, the difference between an investigation, as in audit, and a criminal investigation. The teams that select the cases for audit are separate from the teams that conduct the audit. So some of that pattern that you’ve described from the USA—I have to say I don’t have that knowledge of the USA system—is in effect in the ATO. And part of my questioning is: is it effective?  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and I’m in touch with someone in Australia who’s helped a lot of small businesses where they haven’t had that separation of powers—and their victims wrongly so. Do you see any parallels between these two cases and the behaviour of the ATO in the robodebt scandal? Specifically, the false income assessments by Social Services were based on incomplete and arguably misleading income data provided to it by the ATO, and the ATO knew or should have known their data was unreliable for the robodebt exercise. Are there any parallels?  

Ms Owen: I don’t see a parallel between the investigation that I have made in the case of Mr Jang and the systemic review I’m undertaking on how the ATO controls for bias in its decision-making. From what you’ve described in terms of robodebt, I think they are separate.  

Senator ROBERTS: They provided sloppy information on robodebt. You’ve already acknowledged that both these cases have incurred or resulted in major financial, emotional and business harm to the people that the ATO had in it’s sights.  

Ms Owen: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve acknowledged implicitly—correct me if I’m wrong; I’m not trying to put words in your mouth—that Mr Jang’s sister’s suicide is arguably linked to the chasing of his business and employees by the ATO.  

Ms Owen: I should put on the record that my findings—as I said, in looking into somebody who has committed suicide, there is a very tragic event in a set of very complex circumstances. In the investigation that I undertook, I found no causal link between the actions of the ATO and the tragic loss of life of Ms Jang.  

Senator ROBERTS: What did you say that you found?  

Ms Owen: I found no causal relationship between the actions of the ATO and the tragic loss of life of Ms Jang. What I did comment on was how the ATO had treated Ms Jang and, in particular, the very sad consequences of how they failed to acknowledge notification of her death for five years.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the case of Clarke and Jang, would the commissioner give undertakings to compensate Clarke and Jang for the harm done to them? 

Ms Owen: That’s a matter for the commissioner, I think.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any role in undertaking, for example, a compensation process?  

Ms Owen: That’s outside my remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s the commissioner?  

Ms Owen: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Now that I have a better understanding of your role, some of these questions don’t apply. In the Jang case, the ATO is apparently cooperating with the tax ombudsman on an investigation into the matter. Will or should the investigation be confined to the specifics of Jang and not draw broader conclusions? What are your broader conclusions?  

Ms Owen: Just to be clear: the review that I’ve undertaken is in two parts. The first part is specifically in relation to the taxpayer Mr Jang and his personal circumstances. Because of privacy reasons, that is a report that is now concluded. It’s gone to Mr Jang as the original complainant and it’s gone to the commissioner. That will not be published. I put a short statement on my website to explain what I’ve done in that position on that particular case. Phase 2 of the review is to look at the systemic issues, which, again, I think is where you’re coming from. Is there a pattern of facts here? Is there a theme emerging of things that we should be concerned about in the conduct of the ATO? That review is where I’m looking at whether there are instances of bias or prejudicial decision-making within the ATO and the controls the ATO has in place to prevent that happening, given that it’s a known risk in all tax authorities. That report is the report that we’ll probably publish in July, next month.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume you’re familiar with the Falinski inquiry?  

Ms Owen: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: That was conducted by the House parliamentary and tax committee and made recommendations for changes to the tax act. I understand that one recommendation was to shift the burden of proof on tax debt allegations from the taxpayer to the ATO. Do you consider that the Jang and Clarke cases add weight to the Falinski report recommendations?  

Ms Owen: I think that’s a policy matter and probably outside of my remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

Millions Support One Nation

,
Free speech, open debate and the restoration of Australia

The political landscape in Australia is changing. There is no question about that. Some call it the rise of ‘Populism’. Others prefer to frame it as a return to common sense.

Public sentiment is changing because Australians are fed up with years of lies and bad governance.

They are demanding that government do a better job and stop wasting money.

Specific demands to restore Australia – taxes, migration, regulation – have been laid out in the public forum. Public demand is not a mystery to solve. It’s a list titled, ‘Fix these things!’ handed to politicians.

The Labor-Liberal uniparty are simply not listening.

Or if they are listening, they are choosing to ignore the public.

This is why Australians are joining One Nation.

Our growing support has nothing to do with ‘evil social media’, online ‘misinformation’, the ‘spread of hate’, or ‘grievance politics’. No. Our popularity is the Australian public expressing their survival instinct against an increasingly expensive, unreasonable, and incompetent government.

Voters know that One Nation DOES listen.

We do care. We want a better Australia – for everyone.

Unlike the uniparty, which seems happy to govern over the ashes of Australia, we want rich pastures and pristine landscapes – metaphoric and literal.

One Nation are the last true conservatives, the last environmentalists, and the last party the serves both small business and workers.

We do not see Australia as landscape of race, class, and religious conflict. We believe it’s a hub for healthy financial and ideological competition with free speech as the pinnacle of innovation. After all, if we are not able to speak our minds, how could we possibly debate the best possible future?

And yet, instead of conceding that decades of failure can be fixed with a return to basics, the uniparty has locked arms to counteract ‘evil Populism’ which they see as the greatest threat … to themselves. At no point have Labor and the Coalition combined to talk about the restoration of Australia. It took a uniparty popularity crisis for them to act. This, if nothing else, shows you where their priorities sit – with themselves.

One Nation is facing this increasingly intolerant and jealous political force. A uniparty movement whose followers are leaning on sometimes violent speech and disturbing demands.

It’s our view that the Left has become dangerous.

One Nation have always – and will always – defend free speech and open debate.

These are the foundations of our democracy and the wider civilisational idea of the Enlightenment.

However, we are also aware of the legacy of violence and political persecution perpetrated by left-wing regimes throughout history.

Mao’s Great Leap.

Stalin’s Cannibal Island.

The Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.

On and on it goes. An endless list of murder, slavery, and horror perpetrated in the name of collective power.

It always starts the same – with the radicalisation of young people.

What begins as a few chants about murdering a political leader or imprisoning their followers – shouted from the mouths of people too young to understand what they’re saying – ends in a disaster for every citizen.

Extreme politics does not end with the political figures it targets. It ends with the collapse of democracy, the erasure of history, and the refashioning of objective truth into propaganda.

One Nation believes there’s a clear line between debate and language that normalises hostility or encourages others to treat political opponents as legitimate targets of violence.

It’s my view that Jim Chalmers, Anthony Albanese, and now Michelle Rowland are in danger of encouraging or, at the very least, remaining idle while those who align with their political movement cross that line.

Listen to this speech from the Prime Minister following One Nation’s spectacular victory in Secret Harbour:

Following One Nation raising a complaint, the Attorney-General appeared to victim-blame Pauline Hanson and One Nation, suggesting that Ms Hanson should, quote: ‘reflect on her own behaviour and her party’s ideology’.

In recent weeks we’ve seen children call for violence against Pauline. Threats of violence graffitied on public places. Threats of violence left on our social media accounts. Around the world, conservative figures have been murdered or almost killed at the hands of left-wing radicals. When these uncivilised tragedies occur, educators, commentators, and left-wing political figures have either openly cheered or called for more violence. This is shocking.

When the Prime Minister takes the stage and uses misinformation and disinformation to falsely paint a grassroots political opposition as ‘a threat to democracy’ – he shames himself and his office. He is partaking in the normalisation of extremism on the Left.

Young people on the left take their lead from the Prime Minister.

As Senator Hanson said, quote:

‘What he’s doing is putting me in a position of threats against me now that I have to have federal police protection whenever I’m out here, meeting people. It’s a shame. He’s caused this. I don’t want it. I want to feel safe in my own country.’

So, what’s the truth?

The truth is the Albanese government has abused the trust of Australians. Their tax hikes have made people poorer. Their policies have oppressed and marginalised honest, hard-working people. And businesses are collapsing. Voters want hope. They want change. They want peace.

And again, I say – shame on Albanese for trying to paint his political opposition as a threat to Australia simply because he’s too weak and incompetent to save his government.

One Nation is polling as high as 30%. Millions of Australians support One Nation. These are ordinary citizens who want change. Our supporters are not extremists. Can Labor and the Greens say the same?

Ministers should not use language that encourages the public to treat them as something to fear.

The Attorney-General should never imply that threats against Australians are somehow understandable because of how they vote.

Instead of asking why Australians are walking away from them, Labor is choosing to vilify those Australians and heighten the risk to them from other members of the public. The Coalition aren’t much better. Certainly, they are more jaded.

It’s also worth noting the staggering discrepancy between ‘outrage’ for the safety of high-profile women.

When a campaign against Jacinta Allan used the phrase, ‘ditch the witch’ – Labor ministers and media erupted in outrage. The Prime Minister declared it ‘totally unacceptable’. It became a national lecture on sexism.

What about kids marching in the street, shouting for Pauline Hanson to be killed and her face drawn onto images of a pig?

Not so much as a comment.

This isn’t speculative. A few weeks ago, at the height of this rhetoric, a One nation staffer, a grandmother, was assaulted and hospitalised while wearing a One Nation shirt.

We are constantly told by government officials that more must be done to prevent violence against women. Which is absolutely correct. So why is violent, misogynistic rhetoric excused when it supports the Labor cause?

Why is one woman’s safety treated as less important than another woman’s?

It’s a dangerous moment when Australia’s first legal officer refuses to condemn threats against a fellow female politician and instead blames her for them.

When the Prime Minister was evacuated from his home in February due to security threats, Pauline responded by saying, ‘Violence is not the answer – we have to have free speech, free debate and make our choice felt at the ballot box.’

That is the standard every elected leader should uphold.

/0 Comments/by

A Fairer Deal for Aussies

,

One Nation is proud of its comprehensive, detailed seven-page immigration policy, designed to fix the daily challenges facing everyday Australians.

While critics, particularly from the Uniparty, dismiss our policy, we recognise that their opposition is either politically motivated or stems from an ignorance of the facts.

And let’s be clear, backpacker, PALM and tourism numbers will remain unchanged under our policy.

Backed by Treasury’s FIONA model, it shows that while prime working age migrants (aged 25 to 35) yield a positive lifetime contribution of $198,000 per person, family reunions, older migrants and non-working arrivals create a net financial COST of $126,000 per person to taxpayers. Our policy seeks to increase young, skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing and aged care, while screening out non-producers to maximise overall economic value.

Our policy almost mirrors Canada’s successful approach, where recent immigration slowdowns have already eased rental pressures and supported workers. Australia currently has 690,000 unemployed and 1 million underemployed citizens who deserve to be prioritised and trained first.

One Nation will always put Australians first!

Transcript

Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.  

The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.  

FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.  

Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.  

Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.  

As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.  

Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them. 

Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.  

/0 Comments/by

Zero Tolerance for Neo-Nazis

,

The Prime Minister and Attorney-General have called on One Nation to disavow the Nazi party, and media outlets like the Sydney Morning Herald unfairly claimed that One Nation refused to denounce Nazis despite quoting speeches where we explicitly did so.

One Nation completely disavows neo-Nazis and ethno-nationalists who distort nationalism to promote supremacy.

Transcript

Recently, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General called on One Nation to disavow the Nazi party. Last Friday, Paul Sakkal, the Sydney Morning Herald chief political correspondent, tried to smear One Nation on this. Yet, a week earlier, I had published my Spectator Australia article denouncing the Nazi party. Last Wednesday, in my senator’s statement, I doubled down on my denouncement. In the Spectator and in my senator’s statement, I asked why the Labor Party and the political left did not stand against violence in word and deed from all sides of politics, left and right—as One Nation does. The Sydney Morning Herald used that comment yet not the next sentence, which I’ll quote: 

Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nationalists and ethno-nationalists exist in this country. We disavow them completely. They stand in opposition to everything One Nation believes. 

The Sydney Morning Herald ran its story as One Nation refusing to denounce Nazis, when we had denounced them in a speech the article quoted. 

Since then, I’ve been asked why I included nationalists in the list of those I denounced. I’ll clarify. The Nazi party in Australia no longer uses that name nor the name National Socialist. The new name for the same tiny group is nationalists. The dictionary defines nationalism as a political ideology and sentiment that promotes the interests, cultural identity and political independence of a particular nation above all others, yet Australian Nazis are distorting this to redefine nationalism as an ideology pushing a nation’s cultural or political superiority and dominance over others. That’s why I prefer the term ‘patriotism’: a love of one’s country and its shared civic values. 

Everything I and One Nation do is to benefit Australians. We denounce vested interests and globalist agendas clearly. The Nazis are trying to corrupt the meaning of the word ‘nationalist’. I’m pleased to celebrate being a patriot. Be careful: language is powerful. 

/0 Comments/by

One Nation’s Immigration Policy

One Nation are committed to a net-negative migration plan during the first three years of a One Nation administration.

We will slash over 750,000 temporary visas.

Because of how broken the current system is, a period of adjustment is necessary.

Every day Aussies are having to grapple with the consequences of mass migration. Consequences that the career politicians running the country are entirely insulated from.

One Nation are determined to end mass migration.

There is only one party in Australia with credibility on this issue.

Media ReleaseDownload
/0 Comments/by

Truckies Sound the Alarm

,

During this session, I raised critical questions with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator regarding the life-and-death matter of rising heavy vehicle road fatalities, noting recent increases in New South Wales and Queensland.

I questioned Ms Rosie about anecdotal insights regarding the source of these high-risk drivers.

Speaking objectively as a migrant myself, I passed on widespread reports I’ve received from Western Australian and Queensland truckies suggesting a high number of Indian immigrants are obtaining licenses too easily or operating without them.

While Ms Rosie maintained that their compliance and reporting systems are strictly risk-based and agnostic to ethnicity, I wanted these serious, on-the-ground concerns from our truck drivers formally put on the record.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Rosie. This is a life-and-death matter. It’s killing people. Which are the states where there has been an increase in heavy vehicle road fatalities?  

Ms Rosie: New South Wales has had a slight increase, and so has Queensland.  

Senator ROBERTS: What about Western Australia?  

Ms Rosie: WA I can’t give you because we don’t regulate WA. At a high level, I understand WA is pretty flat.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve heard a few stories, and that’s all they are; you’ve got the official figures. Anecdotally, are you hearing anything from drivers with experience on the road as to what sort of groups are the source of the new unlicensed drivers, new untrained drivers or inadequately trained drivers?  

Ms Rosie: We’re always hearing insights. We’ve got a line that people can call if they want to give us information on illegal or other dangerous activity within the trucking sector. We do get insights on sham contracting and arrangements that are deemed to be illegal or unsafe, and we do track that. One of the things that we’re doing—I would say to the committee this is one of the things that we’re very keen on—is getting the industry to call that line and to give us as much information as possible if they are worried about those concerns. If your constituents are worried about those concerns, please call in. We are using that data very actively to track risk profile of operators and drivers. We have a risk profile of every operator and every driver, and if there are increased calls about particular operators or particular drivers, we will be regulating them more strongly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are there any groups that appear more often anecdotally or in the data—nationalities, ethnicities?  

Ms Rosie: By operator? We know the operators who are appearing more in the data, and I wouldn’t say that there was any particular profile other than the way they operate.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve heard—I was born in India. I’m a migrant. I look at data objectively. That’s why I’m asking. I’ve heard so many stories from WA truckies and Queensland truckies that a lot of Indians are getting licences very easily—or not getting licences. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that. The chair has.  

CHAIR: All of us in the industry know it.  

Senator ROBERTS: You all know. I’m not accusing you of anything, by the way.  

Ms Rosie: I know. All I can say to you is we take a risk based approach. Irrespective of ethnicity, we will be looking at all operators and all drivers and we will be taking a consistent approach across all of those drivers. If there are groups that are higher risk, you can be assured we will be acting on those groups. We’re doing it right now; we’re acting on a number of groups that we consider high risk and we will take action. Whether that’s stopping accreditation, whether that’s prohibiting their vehicles or whether that’s removing them from the system, we will be doing that. We are agnostic about that. Irrespective of their ethnicity or their backgrounds, we will be taking action against all operators who are operating outside or are high risk.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’m just passing on anecdotal information from WA truckies and Queensland truckies, and the chair has verified it.  

Ms Rosie: Understood.  

CHAIR: I’m just wondering when we let the rabbit-proof fence down and let you into WA, Malcolm. When did that happen? You snuck in! 

/0 Comments/by

The Terrifying Scope of the eSafety’s Power

,

One Nation strongly opposed the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 and its draconian amendments – which passed the Senate today.

The social media minimum age framework has fundamentally failed because a nanny state cannot outsmart tech-savvy children using VPNs and other “workarounds”. Instead of protecting kids, it isolates them and pushes them into less supervised spaces like game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor.

This Bill increases penalties to nearly $100 million and grants the eSafety Commissioner terrifying, unchecked powers over Australians, including the power to compel people to travel (at their own expense and under threat of prison) to answer questions before her.

Which platform do you think she will demand appears first?

And more importantly, the dangerous abolition of the right against self-incrimination without proper age protections or mandatory legal representation.

The eSafety Commissioner’s office has become a heavily politicised weapon rather than a protector of children. When in government, One Nation will abolish this position, moving staff back into the department of media communications so they can focus on their actual, vital work of removing abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes.

The legislation relies on vague definitions of “reasonable steps” completely dictated by the commissioner. The government is simply doubling down with massive fines because their initial unworkable ban is failing in the courts.

How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.

Transcript

Officially, the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen the operation of the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA. The bill expands the eSafety commissar’s information-gathering powers and increases civil penalties for noncompliance to around $100 million—$100 million—depending upon state. In reality, the social media minimum age framework legislation has failed, and now the government is doubling down. 

One Nation does not support the social media minimum age ban, for two reasons. Firstly, what children do online is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state. Secondly, the technology will never be smarter than a resourceful and tech-savvy child. 

In November 2024, I moved an urgency motion arguing that a blanket ban expropriates parental power. Parents in the home can supervise a child’s device better than a tech company or a Canberra bureaucrat. No country has made age limits work, and the ban would make parents who let children watch educational YouTube content law-breakers. I call for better parental locks from platforms and device makers instead of a nanny state rule. Parental locks from platforms and device makers have been proven to work. 

I quoted the Australian Human Rights Commission warning that a ban would isolate young people. I predicted that the ban would fail because of VPNs, impersonation and other tricks while pushing children onto less supervised spaces, such as game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor. This is exactly what’s happened. The ban has failed, and the answer from the eSafety commissar is bigger fines, more power over you and more removal of human rights. A government amendment circulated overnight is draconian and terrifying. The amendment will provide powers for the eSafety commissar to demand that a person travel at the person’s cost to appear before her in person and includes penalties of up to a year in prison for refusing to do so. Which platform do you think will be the first that the eSafety commissar demands to appear? No doubt X, to continue her obsession with Elon Musk. If the commissar thinks she will be demanding that witnesses appear from overseas, I would point out that Julie Inman Grant, the commissar, refused to appear before a US congressional inquiry into her actions last year. One can’t demand a higher degree of accountability than the commissioner was prepared to demonstrate herself.  

The amendment abolishes a basic human right against self-incrimination. While it does say the evidence can’t be used in a court of law against a person, there is a known backdoor entry to this. The amendment does not protect young people, which is ironic, given it sits in a bill supposedly designed to protect young people. The subject of an examination order can be a person of any age. There is no age restriction on that power. There are no protections requiring a minor to be legally represented or have a parent present—none. There is a right to have a lawyer and not the requirement for one. We know how that works in practice. In short, turn up and get done over or go to jail. That’s life in the ‘Soviet Republic of Australia’ under this Albanese Labor government. 

One Nation will oppose the amendment. We will oppose the bill and, when in government, we will abolish the position of the eSafety Commissioner. The role was intended all along to be a political appointment, and the incumbent is proving the truth in that statement. One Nation will not, though, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will maintain the functions of the office of eSafety and move the staff back into the department of media and communications. The staff are doing very good work taking down abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes and must be allowed to continue that work. 

Other provisions of the bill include a doubling of fines on social media companies for failure to demonstrate reasonable steps to comply with the ban. The problem with the legislation is and continues to be the definition of ‘reasonable steps’, which is—hang on, there is no definition. The commissar sets the rules in a legislative instrument titled ‘Social media minimum age: regulatory guidance’. Then the commissar enforces them as the commissar sees fit. Reasonable steps is anything the commissar decides it should be. Defy the commissar, and you will cop a fine that’s been increased from $48 million to almost $100 million in this bill. What next? How about $200 million fines? No, $500 million fines. Do I hear a billion? That’s not how legislation is supposed to be drafted, and this is not how government power is supposed to be used. This is power over the people. They should be serving the people. 

The real problem around compliance from social media companies, though, is the inconvenient truth that the eSafety commissar has lost all except one court case her office has started. Perhaps strengthening the legal basis for these fines in the first place would have been more important than simply allowing the commissar to threaten a larger fine. I say ‘threatened’ because no social media company has been fined under legislation relating to age verification—not one. So why increase the fines—the ones that haven’t been used yet? The government continues to pursue a strategy it can never win. Harsher penalties are a typical bureaucratic response to being defied when in fact the defiance is because the ban is not technically feasible. 

Moving on, the bill enables the commissar to compel the production of information or documents from any person. All that’s needed is for the commissar—or the commissioner—to believe on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance from a provider of an electronic service that is or may be—notice the opening of the envelope!—an age restricted social media platform. If this looks like unchecked power, it is—unchecked power over not just children and social media platforms but over every Australian, adults included. For example, information from third parties, such as age assurance providers or app store operators, may assist in validating or testing claims platforms made about their compliance with the minimum age obligation. Once again, these powers are not limited by age. An individual who discovers a workaround may be compelled to provide information around how they did that, no matter the age. The committee report recommended the bill pass as written. There were concerns from submitters whether the measures imposed, increased discovery and higher penalties, were necessary and proportionate to enforce the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA ban. the office of the information commissar made a great point that the information-gathering powers in the bill should be extended to their office. This would allow them to determine if the information that age-verification companies are collecting was being dealt with according to Australian privacy legislation. 

The Law Council of Australia criticised the new information-gathering powers under section 63G as being too powerful for the stated outcome, as did Free Speech Union, and X sounded like they were lining up to challenge them in court. Multiple submitters complained about the very high fines, up to slightly over $100 million, depending upon the state. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a review after 12 months into the effect of the social media minimum age framework, SMMA ban on children, which is faster than the statutory two-year review. I would recommend that submission to the government. How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people. 

/1 Comment/by

Failed Taxes Are Funding Organised Crime

,

Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.

I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.

What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.

That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.

I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?  

Mr Allen: I did.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?  

Mr Allen: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.  

Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.  

Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—  

Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.  

Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?  

Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.  

Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.  

Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.  

Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—  

Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.  

Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator. 

Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.  

Mr Allen: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.  

Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.  

Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.  

Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.  

Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.  

Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?  

Mrs Wishart: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?  

Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.  

Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.  

Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.  

Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?  

Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?  

Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.  

Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?  

Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?  

Mr Alexiou: Correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.  

Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that. 

/1 Comment/by

Tearing Up Competition and Consumer Rules

,

The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 gives the ACCC and the minister wide ranging power to exempt large corporations from anticompetitive and fair trading laws during crises like the Iranian oil shock.

It lets the government “tear up the rulebook” by rubberstamping illegal anticompetitive behaviour through a Ministerial instrument.

Using the Iranian fuel crisis as an example, major fuel importers deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market to inflate prices, hurting independent regional stations and everyday consumers while securing windfall profits.

The Labor government is backdating the bill to retroactively cover up corporate profiteering, which is being done to push high fuel prices and artificially boost lagging electric vehicle (EV) sales to advance its Net Zero agenda.

The Albanese Government is turning out to be the most totalitarian government in Australian history.

Transcript

This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it’s a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister’s office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won’t even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should. 

This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers’ expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia’s fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding. 

Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they’re helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I’ll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. 

I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment. 

Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it’s the people who pay. We can’t normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don’t really mean it. I’m just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn’t it? Is that right? 

One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions. 

In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That’s why he’s got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation. 

/0 Comments/by