Labor is using censorship to stop power shifting back to the people …
Labor’s Digital Duty of Care bill forms part of an ongoing tantrum put on – jointly – by the Uniparty and media after they lost control of the political narrative.
The rise of social media represents their loss of power.
As children, we learned ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ and now we see that ‘the keyboard cuts deeper than a surrendered blue-bin machete’ … for there is nothing Albanese fears more than a TikTok meme and the sound of laughter.
It infuriates the Canberra class that Australians are free to criticise policy and tear apart established ‘narratives’ and ‘virtues’ that form the bedrock of their Marxist-inspired regime.
As ‘subjects’ of this regime, Australians are supposed to admire the Uniparty’s efforts to ‘progress’ society toward … well, they’re not really sure. All we know is they want praise even as smoke rises from similar governments across the West.
However, the Uniparty have forgotten that the poorer and angrier the public, thanks to political mismanagement and abusive systems of taxation, the more urgent censorship laws become.
Voters aren’t cheering – they are waving pitchforks. The Uniparty want this opposition edited out of history.
To them, everything is about consensus.
We saw it with Climate Change and Covid. They use the power of ‘consensus’ to overturn science, fact, and reality. Sometimes they call it a ‘social licence’. These aren’t even real consensuses. Not if they have to be curated with censorship, bribed with grants, or threatened with ruin. Now, they are doing it again with mass migration and Wokeism. And they need to shut social media up to achieve their goal.
Remember, if the Uniparty cared about ‘safety’, as they claim in their press releases, they’d be focused on crime waves victimising major cities. They would make parks and playgrounds safe for children. Instead, they obsess over ‘online safety’ – which they do not have to prove – as the perfect vehicle for digital censorship.
Mainstream media is happy to help them do this.
While social media robbed politicians of control, it stripped billions from media empires. The eyeballs that kept advertising money flowing and justified insane salaries for mediocre presenters has dried up and moved online. Advertisers follow customers.
Instead of improving their product and competing in the expanding free market, mainstream media are colluding with the Uniparty to shrink social media and return Australia to a tightly controlled system of curated narratives.
They want a return to an era where misleading editing, selective footage, and outright propaganda can roam around unchallenged, influencing the political future of the country.
Where politicians can offer up seats on the press bus in turn for soft interviews and blind-eyes.
Where the negative aspects of their policies go unreported or re-imagined.
This is not healthy for democracy.
One Nation supports social media because we believe the voice of the people and independent journalists make Australia freer and safer.
We believe Canberra cannot be trusted with censorship powers and that mainstream media deserve to be out-competed on account of their appalling behaviour exhibited over decades.
Both of these entities – mainstream media and the Uniparty – have a credibility crisis.
They know that One Nation is exposing their plan.
It’s no surprise, then, that the media declared war on One Nation and began publishing unhinged hit pieces that served to demonstrate perfectly everything we have been saying.
Allow me to embarrass the media again.
Over the last 20 years, their influence has crashed. Broadcast television fell from 56% of adult TV usage to 20%.
For the next generation of voters aged between 18-35, it’s less than 12% and shrinking rapidly.
TV is predominately reserved for sports – not news. And even then, younger generations are ditching TVs entirely in favour of consuming all digital content via their phones and laptops.
Australians are no longer stuck with a handful of free to air channels offering nauseating drivel. They can switch off. And they do.
TV hosts who were locked into multi-million dollar contracts are furious that they’re being out-competed by people filming high-quality shows in their bedroom.
The social media model is proof that real talent has been locked out of the media industry for decades on account of the incestuous friend-of-a-friend hiring loop.
A normal person would celebrate this rise of independently trained talent growing online.
Isn’t this good for productivity?
Isn’t this better than joining the Centrelink queue?
No. The Prime Minister, his Communications Minister, and their media friends would rather see this grass roots industry strangled in its crib to protect their own power structures. That is the selfish nature of power.
It’s surely a coincidence that the majority of social media news commentary is coming from young conservatives who have been locked out of the ‘fair and balanced’ billion-dollar-per-year public broadcaster.
The losses to Australia’s network giants are substantial and some may argue – deserved.
In 2006, Channel 9 was worth $7.5 billion. Today, it’s worth just $960 million.
Channel 7 fell from $4 billion 20 years ago, to $115 million today.
During the same period, Channel 10 went from $1.5 billion and now sits on the books of its owner, Paramount, at $20 million.
And News Corp fell from a high of $85 billion to $14 billion.
Fairfax Media was valued at $9 billion. It sold to Channel 9 and is included in their value.
All values adjusted for inflation.
Today, these media organisations openly support and offer little pushback when the Uniparty present policies to suppress social media or allow Silicon Valley to be raided for the undeserved and unearned profit of Australian media entities.
Traditionally we’d call this a ‘conflict of interest’ – one that is never stated by those publishing the stories, just as they neglect to disclose how much public money they received from Labor-led media grants that mysteriously overlooked independent conservative news outlets.
There was a time we’d call this ‘fascism’.
Here is my reminder to mainstream media: conservatives make up over 50% of your audience. One Nation supporters are roughly 30% of your potential customers.
To alienate, ridicule, insult, and lie about and to this market probably explains your falling profits and rapidly eroding shareholder value.
The fable of ‘The Scorpion and the Snake’ was written for the Australian media class, who are hopelessly ensconced in their urban bubbles, preaching to an ever-shrinking base of champagne socialists raging at the dying of Wokeism.
They do not see the world as it’s; they see the world as they are.
Conservatives can turn to The Spectator Australiaand Epoch Times for accurate news and current affairs – or follow the many independent voices on social media who form a community of conservatives across the Western World.
Anika Wells and the rest of the Uniparty can put forward all the censorial pieces of digital barbed wire they like.
Just know that as soon as One Nation takes power, we’ll be tearing it all down and restoring freedom, dignity, trust, and truth to the people.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/One-Nation-Makeover.jpg?fit=2048%2C2048&ssl=120482048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-22 17:53:572026-10-22 17:54:05Raging at the ‘Dying’ of Wokeism
One Nation warned about Labor’s housing policies — and now young buyers are paying the price.
Negative equity, tax hikes and soaring interest rates have created the perfect storm.
We won’t stop exposing this incompetent government’s selling out of young Australians trying to get ahead and own their own home.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: When the government released its housing policy, we warned about the debt trap, which is exactly what is happening. The debt trap has closed on young buyers. We warned about the negative equity arising. Here it is. Thank you, Labor! We warned about changes to capital gains tax. Look at the consequences. We warned about negative gearing being abolished. Here it is. We warned about interest rates increasing because of Labor government spending. Here it is. It’s the perfect storm, thanks to the Labor Party. We will continue to expose this lazy, tired, dishonest, incompetent government.
An Islamic centre in Broadmeadows – “MyCentre” – received $68,000 under the Community Language Schools Grants program. I asked Minister Watt what steps had been taken to verify these funds were used for teaching Arabic to schoolchildren after reports emerged that funds went to a radicalised adult instead.
Minister Watt stated he could not comment on the specifics of the case as the allegations are under active investigation by a joint counterterrorism team (AFP, Victoria Police, ASIO), He emphasised that all grant recipients are expected to comply with funding agreements, with reviews triggered if breaches occur.
When asked whether “MyCentre” was audited between grants for specific program guidelines (such as teaching hours, residency status, and attendance levels), Minister Watt said that the Department for multicultural grants performs due-diligence checks for compliance and risk evaluation. While taking allegations seriously, he reaffirmed the government’s broad support for multicultural organisations.
I questioned whether the Minister could personally assure taxpayers that no government funds were diverted, given reports that “MyCentre” sent $1.1 million overseas to regions like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Somalia since the Labor government took office. Minister Watt replied that he had not seen these claims, questioned their source and pointed out it is unclear whether those were government grant funds or privately raised money, reiterating that any non-compliance concerns are investigated under standard policy.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, in regard to the Community Language Schools Grants program, a Liberal government program that the Albanese government expanded with $26 million in taxpayer money while retaining the purpose to teach foreign languages to schoolchildren up to HSC level. UAE terror pilot Hamam al-Hammami has admitted his radicalisation started while studying at my centre in Broadmeadows, which received $68,000 under this program. At the time, he was an adult university student, not a primary or high school student. My centre is open to all ages. There is a co-located school called MYCollege which is a different legal entity. The grant didn’t go to the school; it went to the radical Islamic centre. What steps have been taken to ensure the funds given to my centre were actually used to teach schoolchildren Arabic?
Senator Watt: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Strictly speaking, I think this is probably a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I might be wrong about this, but I think that the funding for language schools is provided through the Department of Education. But I’m happy to do my best to answer your question. This follows a similar question that was asked by Senator Hanson yesterday and indeed is very similar to the question that Senator Duniam asked Senator Wong earlier in question time today. What we have said is that the matters involving the allegations against this pilot are currently under investigation through a joint counterterrorism team. That team comprises the AFP, Victoria Police and ASIO. They are investigating this man’s links to Australia. As an investigation is underway, it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment. As I said yesterday in answer to Senator Hanson, there is no current threat to the community or public safety in Australia, and we certainly trust those agencies to undertake their investigation properly.
More broadly, when it comes to multicultural grants, again, I made the point yesterday that that we certainly expect all organisations that receive government funding, whether it be through English-language courses or other grants, to conduct themselves in line with government guidelines and funding agreements and in accordance with the expectations of the Australian taxpayer. If any activities breach those requirements then that funding will be reviewed. Given that this matter is under investigation through the joint counterterrorism team, that’s about as much as I can say.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: There are multiple requirements for a grant under the Community Language Schools Grants Program. These include hours of teaching, students being citizens or permanent residents, minimum attendance levels and others. Grant recipients were warned in a grant explainer that they will be required to provide proof they have met the guidelines. Was MyCentre audited between grants to ensure compliance with grant guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the audit.
Senator Watt: Again, given that the question has been put to me rather than the Minister representing the Minister for Education, I’m probably better placed to speak about multicultural grants that may have been provided to this organisation. What I can say on that is that the Department of Home Affairs conducts due-diligence checks to assess compliance with eligibility requirements and to identify information that may present a risk to the achievement of the grant objectives. Of course, any allegations of wrongdoing must be taken seriously, but what we will do in the meantime is support multicultural organisations. I know that that’s something we would never see from the One Nation party, which continues to argue that Australia has a monoculture. In contrast to that, we support multicultural communities in Australia and recognise the contribution they have made to this country over many generations.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
Senator ROBERTS: So no answer. Since Labor came to power, MyCentre’s Broadmeadows operation has sent $1.1 million overseas in so-called aid to Afghanistan, Indonesia, Somalia and other Islamic areas. Has the minister assured himself that every cent of taxpayers’ money given to MyCentre was used for the purpose of teaching children a foreign language and nothing else?
Senator Watt: I haven’t seen the allegations that you’ve just made that this centre has sent money overseas. I’m not sure what the source of that claim is. Also, I’d make the point that, even if that is the case, I’m not sure whether the money that has allegedly been sent overseas has been sourced through government grants or whether that’s been privately sourced and fundraised. Again, when it comes to government grants to any organisation that receives a multicultural grant, our requirements are clear. We expect those organisations to follow government guidelines to comply with their funding agreement, and, whenever there’s a concern that that has not occurred, that matter is investigated.
While market competition and cost-of-living relief are urgently needed, the Greens’ proposal for state-run supermarkets and price caps is economically flawed and infeasible.
Instead, One Nation supports increasing competition by funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices, dishonest advertising, and unfair competitor advantages used by major supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi). We propose shrinking government waste and passing those savings directly to Australians through tax cuts.
State-run supermarkets historically fail.
Will the Greens’ proposal to acquire existing Coles and Woolworths sites offer fair compensation, or will they rely on state acquisition tricks similar to what John Howard used to steal farmer’s property rights in the past?
Supermarket profits (around $1 billion combined from $100 billion in sales) represent a thin profit margin on actual sales. A 1% reduction in retail prices would completely erase those profits. And the Greens’ promise of a 30% price reduction is mathematically unrealistic without massive taxpayer subsidies, which ultimately will require raising taxes.
While the Greens’ policies will add to your cost of living through higher taxes, One Nation’s policies will put more money back in your pocket, delivering genuine, lasting cost-of-living relief.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: This motion is two-thirds of a good idea. Yes, the Colesworth duopoly needs competition. One Nation would do that, funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices in the industry used for the market advantage of Coles, Woolies and Aldi, including supplier agreements, side agreements, rebates, dishonest advertising and disadvantaging competitors, sweetheart union agreements and government policy designed to damage small and medium competitors. Secondly, yes, everyday Australians desperately need cost-of-living relief. One Nation would do that, shrinking the government to fit the constitution, as we said, in early 2025, eliminating government waste and duplication, then passing on the savings in the form of tax cuts, with more people keeping more money of their own. That’s One Nation’s way.
It’s the third part that One Nation opposes: a government run supermarket. With this policy, the Greens looked across the Pacific to New York and its communist mayor, Mamdani, and thought: ‘You know what? We’re going to try to run state run supermarkets.’ That’s always failed badly. And price caps have been another disaster wherever they’ve been tried. At least Mamdani is building his supermarket. The Greens just want to steal Coles’s and Woolies’s existing sites. Mamdani doesn’t open his first supermarket until next year, and already the Greens are declaring the idea a winner. There’s no talk of just compensation, because it’s against the federal constitution, so I assume the Greens will use state governments for acquisition—the same trick John Howard used to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol. Strange bedfellows, indeed! Supermarkets are low-margin operations. Yes, they’re getting greedy, and this is where One Nation would step in, as I mentioned. The $2.1 billion figure is not accurate. The figure includes all divisions: supermarkets, variety stores, pet stores, liquor, property, hotel businesses, and online and loyalty programs in Australia and New Zealand. Coles has funds employed—the investment to build and run supermarkets—of $12 billion on a 12 per cent return on investment. Woolworths has $19 billion invested on a 17 per cent return on investment. Those are healthy returns and suggest more competition is needed—not much, though. The actual $1 billion or so in profit that ‘Colesworth’ makes from supermarket sales comes from around $100 billion in annual sales. A one per cent reduction in prices would wipe that out completely. Are the Greens promising to subsidise their supermarkets with taxpayers’ money? If so, be honest about it. How much will be needed, and whose taxes will you put up to pay for it? The most this idea will save is between one and two per cent. The Greens are promising a 30 per cent saving. It just doesn’t add up.
The Greens are trying to force higher taxes onto Australia’s resource sector and I have to ask: how much is enough?
With the mining, oil and gas industries contributing $45 billion in taxes and royalties last year alone and $335 billion over the past five years, true economic growth comes from expanding, not shutting down, natural resource projects.
A recent meeting with Tamboran in the Northern Territory emphasised the life-changing impact of resource jobs for regional and Aboriginal communities. Providing real skills, stable incomes and financial independence, these projects offer a path out of welfare dependency and toward home ownership and prosperity.
Everyday Australians already see returns in their superannuation from our resource industry, while governments receive critical royalties to fund essential public services, as well as the “free stuff” they love to dish out. The Beetaloo project is already attracting interest from data centres seeking direct access to the Northern Territory’s national internet backbone. With guaranteed gas for power and water for cooling, planning could begin today.
This is One Nation’s approach: maximising resource development for the benefit of all Australians, while maintaining genuine, practical environmental protections. We will focus on our real landscape, not the climate orthodoxy pushed by Labor, the Greens, Teals and globalist Liberals.
Blocking new coal, gas and mine extensions will crush jobs and cripple regional towns. The Federal Court’s recent decision to overturn the government’s ban on the $1.3 billion McPhillamys goldmine reaffirms One Nation’s commitment to sound, responsible resource extraction that delivers long-term abundance for all Australians.
Taxing the resource industry into extinction while expecting it to fund the nation is pure madness!
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for this motion. The first thought I had after reading this motion was simply ‘how much is enough?’ The resource industry, mining, oil and gas paid $45 billion last year in company tax and royalties in Australia. Over the last five years, they’ve contributed $335 billion in tax. If the Greens want even more, there is a simple way to achieve that: more mines, more gas wells, more utilisation of Australia’s immense natural resources to bring in taxation and to create the wealth and opportunity for all who are here, especially in rural and remote areas where the workforce has a large Aboriginal component.
My office met this afternoon with Tamboran, who operate a new gas well in the Northern Territory, and included hearing about their successful Aboriginal employment program. Tamboran are giving Aboriginals breadwinner jobs, training and a future independent of government handouts, empowering Aboriginal workers to break free of welfare dependency. I can see why the Greens don’t like it. Who knows? Once Aboriginals own their own homes, are married with families and enjoying the benefits of resource job brings, they may vote One Nation.
Resources already provide returns into their superannuation funds of everyday Australians, as well as extra royalty into government coffers, to pay for the free stuff that government offers. The Beetaloo project has already attracted inquiries from data centres looking for a location connected to the national internet backbone, which is the Northern Territory. Data centres could start planning today, knowing the gas for power and the water for cooling are available. This is One Nation’s solution: more resource utilisation for the benefit of all Australians while, of course, ensuring the protection of our natural environment—the natural environment, not the sky god of warming as Labor, Greens, teals and globalist Liberals still believe. The green solution is to tax the resource industry while shutting down the resource industry. This is insane. Yes, I know it doesn’t make any sense to me.
Published Greens party policy is no new coal, no new gas and no extensions to coal or gas leases. High taxes will force resource projects out of business and, importantly to the Greens, prevent new developments. Massive job losses will result from this Greens party policy. Huge communities will be cast into poverty, heat and isolation because wind and solar are a useless way to drive air conditioners, transport and industry. Government revenue to pay for all the free stuff goes, and superannuation returns fall, and the Greens celebrated the refusal of a $1.3 billion extension to the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. The reason Minister Plibersek gave for the refusal was the section 10 Aboriginal protection order, as the site hosted a mythical blue-banded bee important to Aboriginal culture, apparently.
Today, the Federal Court officially overturned the mining ban. Justice James Stellios ruled that Minister Plibersek’s protection order was legally invalid due to a procedural failure and a lack of procedural fairness. The company that owns the mine paid $900 million in taxes last year on other projects. The taxes on this mine will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who knows, there may be enough to cover the operating losses of one of Senator McKim’s Greens supermarkets.
This motion shows the stark contrast between the Greens and One Nation. The Greens will use high taxes to force resource companies out of business in the name of social justice virtue signalling while One Nation will encourage environmentally sound resource extraction in the name of providing abundance for everyday Australians for many, many, many years to come. Voters of Australia, the choice is yours.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/EFifNtBTy7w/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-22 15:48:062026-10-22 15:48:12Killing the Golden Goose
The Australia Institute recently claimed that big government serves everyday Australians while small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack One Nation’s “neoliberal” policies. They completely miss our core belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people creates growth and abundance so Australians can be self-sufficient and independent. It’s not about the size of government, it’s about what government actually does.
The left hates economic independence because self-sufficient Australians don’t rely on the state. That’s why the Australia Institute is pushing destructive measures like an inheritance tax on lifetime savings and a 2% wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income – assets! These taxes hit asset-rich, cash-poor Australians hard; our farmers, truckers, fishers and small business owners, which will force many into bankruptcy.
One Nation firmly rejects both wealth and inheritance taxes. The Albanese Labor government has already embraced these left-wing ideas, pushing capital gains tax changes that crashed housing prices, erased billions in national wealth and trapped young buyers in negative equity.
Labor needs to stop pushing ideology over economics.
Bring on the next election so One Nation can put an end to this socialist agenda once and for all.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Last month, the Australia Institute stated that big government serves the interests of everyday Australians and small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack as ‘neoliberal’ policies that One Nation is promoting. It fails to understand One Nation’s central belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people will grow wealth and abundance for all, reducing the need for government support as people take care of themselves. It fails to understand that it’s not the size of government but what government does that counts. The Australia Institute advocates an inheritance tax to target, in their words, ‘the untaxed compounding of intergenerational wealth’. One Nation calls that wealth that parents build up during a lifetime of hard work ‘people getting ahead’. That’s what it is. It’s what parents do: work hard and pass the benefit to their children.
The political left hate people becoming self-sufficient, because economic resilience removes subservience to government. The fundamental difference between One Nation and Labor-Greens socialism is economic independence. Small business is in the Australia Institute’s sights, with a proposed two per cent wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income—assets. The losers from this include farmers, truckers, restaurants, fishers, fast food franchisees and childcare workers. These Australians are asset rich and income poor. Paying a $100,000 annual tax would force them out of business.
One Nation rejects a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. The Albanese Labor government listened to the Australia Institute when they advocated recent capital gains tax changes. The Treasurer needs to stop pushing socialism. Founded on ideology not economics, these changes have caused a housing price crash, wiping billions from our national estate and placing many young Australians who used the five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. Thanks, Treasurer. Now please stop helping. Enough! Bring on the next election so that One Nation can slay the socialist dragon.
Decarbonisation has completely infected our bureaucracy, with dedicated offices and lavish government grants funding a fabricated, calamitous nonproblem at the expense of everyday Australians. From wasting $444 million on the Great Barrier Reef Authority to funding endless research, this pointless transition places an escalating financial burden on taxpayers.
As these costs spiral, future governments will be forced to choose between funding essential services like health, education and social security, or chasing the myth of “saving the planet” from a natural trace atmospheric gas that’s essential to all life on earth. One Nation knows that climate variation is entirely natural.
To stop this madness, a One Nation government will immediately terminate all net zero measures, withdraw from international agreements and suspend all related spending.
Clawing back grants, terminating subsidies and renegotiating contracts will save around $10 billion annually, helping eliminate the deficit.
It’s time to stop this parasitic nonsense and focus on making Australians’ lives better, not harder.
Transcript
The government has advanced a suite of appropriation bills covering an additional $9 billion of spending for this financial year. These appropriation bills provide allocations of taxpayers’ money to maintain the government’s recurring expenditure on operational matters and on the many, many, many schemes the government is using to funnel taxpayers’ money into the pockets of their donors and friends in the net zero scam, the parasitic net zero scam.
Of the approximately $9.2 billion in spending in these bills, $2.9 billion is for net zero measures—one third. Of that, $130 million is for additional departmental expenses and the rest is funding projects. This is on top of the $1 billion allocated in the previous appropriation bills for departmental expenditure and on top of $5 billion for funding projects this financial year. And this is on top of the $24 billion that has been spent so far in off-the-books expenditure for net zero measures and the additional $9 billion which has been allocated to fund projects in the near future, for a total off-the-books spending of $33 billion. For clarity, these figures are to date, not just this financial year.
Off the books is an accounting trick the uniparty has come to rely on. It’s based on the premise that, if the government borrows money and then on lends that money to other people, that is not a budget expenditure and, as such, does not form part of the budget spending or contribute to the deficit. Now, $33 billion is a huge amount of money to have sitting off the books, much of which will result in financial loss to taxpayers when these projects fail and their mates’ projects fail. If these projects were any good, private enterprise would be building them. The fact the government has had to stump up $24 billion so far, with another $9 billion expected over the forward estimates, suggests the private sector knows something the government doesn’t know—that is, that these projects are boondoggles which will never recover their full or lifetime cost.
This includes not only the cost of the solar panel, the wind turbine, the battery transmission line and such like; it includes the installation cost, maintenance cost and replacement cost—batteries last 10 years; solar panels last 15 years, being generous; and wind turbines last 15 years. This means every piece of net zero generation and storage we have in Australia right now will have to be replaced before 2050, some twice, and replaced three times before 2060. The cost won’t end in 2025; it keeps going forever and ever, because these things have to be replaced. They have short, limited lifespans. In addition, lifetime costs include the thing net zero idealists never talk about: the disposal and remediation costs. New wind turbines are massive to tear down. They’re up to 250 metres tall, and the installation cost per turbine is over $1 million. Plus, removing them when they are damaged, catch fire or reach the end of their life costs $1 million each.
If a company wants to open a new mine in Australia, it must put aside money or a surety to cover the cost of remediation: a bond. This bond payment has been law in mining for years, and it should be there. No such law, though, exists for wind and solar installations. I can understand why. Blowing the top off a mountain to create the flat area necessary for the massive footprints these things require is permanent environmental damage. No remediation can fix it. One can’t come along after the projects have been shuttered and glue the mountain back together again. The damage, the vandalism, is permanent. In these appropriation bills, the government has made provision for subsidising the build of these things, although not removing and remediating afterwards.
Nobody has added all these expenditures together to compile a whole-of-government cost of net zero. One Nation has asked the Parliamentary Budget Office for that figure, so stay tuned. The total economic cost of the transition out to 2026, government and private sector, has been estimated at between $7 trillion and $9 trillion. These people in the government do not even know, and these people in opposition did not have a clue when they started this transition. This information is from the independent Net Zero Australia, a project of the universities of Melbourne, Queensland and Princeton. Bloomberg puts the figure at $2.4 trillion out to 2050. Net zero spend is up 400 per cent under this government, between 2022 and 2026. The expectation is that this government will keep throwing money at an imaginary, confected problem for as long as the public think humans can change the weather on a global scale. This is insane.
Decarbonisation now extends right through the bureaucracy and agencies. There are decarbonisation offices in every government department plus the net zero reporting, plus government grants to industry—
The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, you will be in continuation. It being 12.15, we will move to senators’ statements.
This is my exchange with ABC representatives and Minister Green regarding bias, accuracy, and fairness.
I raised a podcast appearance by the ABC Chair where he criticised One Nation’s approach to choosing which journalists and media outlets we engage with, labelling it “undemocratic” and a “dark and dangerous place,” noting that this pejorative phrasing has uniquely targeted my party.
I pointed out that politicians across all parties routinely give interviews to trusted journalists and use written statements or text messages for others, to prevent their words from being manipulated. I questioned why One Nation exercising this standard discretion is treated as uniquely improper.
I confronted officials over biased and insulting commentary from prominent ABC commentators such as Patricia Karvelas implying One Nation is an “illegitimate” political force and guest panellist Niki Savva labelling our party as fundamentally “racist and bigoted” – without any pushback from the taxpayer funded network.
The mainstream media is increasingly being seen by the public as partisan mouthpieces. Why should taxpayers continue to fund a $1.3 billion public broadcaster in an era of abundant independent digital media?
A One Nation government will strip the ABC of public taxpayer funding for its broader operations, pushing it into a subscription-only or commercially funded broadcaster where it’s supported only by those who choose to watch or use it. This does not include regional and rural areas, as local and regional radio provides an essential service to people in these locations.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: This is a slightly long question, although it is important to be accurate as the public’s perception of ABC independence or bias is central to your role as a public broadcaster. Mr Williams, the Chair, on the Poll Position podcast around 23 May this year was asked about an incident when ABC employees were removed from a press conference in the Farrer electorate and a separate incident in South Australia where a staff member continued to shout questions at Senator Hanson after the press conference was over. Your reporter was asked to shut up, for which the party apologised and the staffer involved apologised. The interviewer’s question to Mr Williams included the statement that One Nation were picking and choosing who we let attend our press conferences, calling it pretty undemocratic. Mr Williams’s response was: Well, I would endorse that view—that it’s undemocratic— I think if you’re going to choose who you talk to and who you don’t talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place in democracy. And I think politicians are accountable to the people and they don’t get to pick who’s going to question them. Mr Marks, can we agree that this is an accurate summary so we can move on to the questions?
Mr Marks: I think you referenced a journalist who was told to shut up. I’m not aware that was our journalist.
Senator ROBERTS: No.
Mr Marks: Sorry, I thought you said it was an ABC journalist.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s what I thought. Sorry.
Mr Marks: No, it wasn’t an ABC journalist. I’m sorry; it was my understanding.
Mr Fang: I don’t believe it was either.
Senator ROBERTS: My apologies for that mistake, but I’m getting to the key question, which is Mr Williams’s response.
Mr Marks: I think Mr Williams’s response refers to the importance in a democratic society of informing the audience. The audience must come first. In doing so it’s important that all parties of prominence and otherwise as well—people who have an impact in our political system—are able to bring views, opinions and statements from those parties to the public. We operate on the basis that the public must come first. To the extent that our people who turn up to do the job are deprived of their ability to inform the public, I think that can be a problem. That’s something that we need to keep investing in, the importance of making sure that the public are informed about everything that has to do with what happens in this place.
Senator ROBERTS: Your budget is around $1.3 billion. What’s the exact number?
Mr Marks: Here’s an answer for Ms Kleyn.
Ms Kleyn: Yes, that’s correct. The exact number in FY26 is $1.229 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Value and accuracy—you left out the word ‘accurate’ public interactions?
Mr Marks: Sorry. Accuracy comes first. Accuracy goes to impartiality. Accuracy is the most important standard that we operate by.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re agreed—good. My questions go to value, accuracy and compliance with the ABC Charter. Every day in this place politicians give interviews to journalists they trust and emailed press statements or text messages to those they don’t trust to prevent their words being manipulated. Isn’t it true that One Nation’s actions are about lack of trust in the quality, accuracy and motivation of ABC reporting, a discretion we’re entitled to exercise and is exercised every day in this place by all parties?
Mr Marks: I won’t comment as to the motivations behind any One Nation action. That’s obviously a matter for you and your colleagues.
Senator ROBERTS: I can tell you we think we’re getting reported in a very biased way.
Mr Marks: We have an obligation, as you say, to report matters accurately and we have an obligation to report matters impartially. If anyone has a concern about our performance on those metrics, we are more than happy to have a conversation about that. In fact, I am endeavouring to do that, without much success, at the moment. That also comes with the expectation that policies, people et cetera should be subject to scrutiny. That is the journalistic process. Yes, we have to report accurately and we have to impartially, but also the notion that people should be subject to scrutiny and questions when performing all of the functions that happen in this place, I think, is a really important principle that goes along with that.
Senator ROBERTS: I would agree. Minister, isn’t it true that in this place parties give interviews to journalists they trust and send written statements to journalists they don’t trust?
Senator Green
: It’s not really a question for ABC estimates, but I’ll answer it for you to assist you. Members of both parties of government give interviews to a range of news outlets and they invite a range of news outlets to their press conferences because that public scrutiny is important, particularly if you are promoting yourself as a party that not only has policies that could be formed in government. What we are now seeing is that your party has a primary vote that means you may now be the new opposition. It’s important that every member of parliament is scrutinised by news outlets, whoever they may be. I’m not going to pass a judgement on which news outlets are more trusted or least trusted. I think the judgement of Australians is that, when you turn up to this place and you’re asked a question, you should answer it.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the judgement from Mr Williams when he said that, if you’re going to choose who you talk to, you’re in a dark and dangerous place?
Senator Green: I’m not going to comment for the Chair. I think that’s a question for Mr Marks.
Senator ROBERTS: Doesn’t the fact, Mr Marks—
Senator Green: Are you in a dark and dangerous place?
Senator ROBERTS: No, I’m not.
Senator Green: There we go.
Mr Marks: I think the answer to that question is what I referred to earlier, which is that it is very important that we perform our role accurately and impartially, but with due inquiry, due inquisition and due curiosity in everybody who operates in this environment to ensure that we are informing the public of the things that are important to them and relevant to them and the things that are of interest to them. I have no doubt at the moment with the way that the political landscape is forming that things that are happening within your party are of interest to Australians, and it is important as the ABC that we’re able to inform them, and it’s important that we’re able to engage with your party on the basis that we’re able to serve the public. I think that’s a very important function for us to fulfil.
Senator ROBERTS: The public want fair engagement and impartial engagement. Doesn’t the fact that Mr Williams highlighted us doing that, in terms of responding verbally to interviewers we trust and responding in text messages to interviewers we don’t, without mentioning that other parties do that as well show that he is biased against One Nation? He tried to say we are the only ones doing it; that’s the clear implication of that leading to a dark place for democracy.
Mr Marks: You’re referring to a podcast that I haven’t seen, so it’s difficult for me. I can only talk about the quotes that you’ve referenced and the quotes I’ve seen in the press, and I can’t talk to Mr Williams’s motivations in that particular podcast. All we can talk to is facts, and the facts are the ABC currently is the most trusted media organisation in the country, according to the public. We have strong editorial principles and practices that are very important that we operate; I agree with you on that. We have the most robust complaints handling process that’s available in the media in this market that’s available to people who view they’re not being treated fairly in that process. We can always do better; there is no doubt about that, and that is our constant aim. The principle of informing the public and being very vigilant in doing that is the most important principle we abide by. I think not being able to engage fully with all political parties in that process inhibits our ability to do that effectively and I think that is a problem.
Senator ROBERTS: Again you missed the word ‘accurate’—to inform people accurately. A search of Mr Williams’s media statements shows he has not used the phrase ‘dark and dangerous place’ in previous media comments around any other party, just One Nation. How is using a pejorative like that in keeping with your need to maintain a perception of independence and accuracy?
Mr Marks: Again, I can’t comment on Mr Williams’s motivations. I know he is a passionate advocate of democracy and I know he’s a passionate advocate of informed democracy. I know he’s a passionate advocate for accuracy and impartiality. Maybe he gets some of the words wrong, but they are his motivations, which I think we’re all agreed with in this place. Did he get every word right? It doesn’t sound to me necessarily based on your assessment; because I haven’t seen the podcast or listened to the podcasting questions, it’s hard for me to comment.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to a topic you raised a minute ago, policies. Mr Williams said in the podcast: Perhaps their concern is because they are such a policy-free zone, but I say that objectively, not in any spirit of partisanship. One Nation has statements. It doesn’t have policies. However, our website has many more policy statements than the Liberal or Labor parties. Some of our policies have been copied by both the Liberal and Labor parties and by other parties. In the last election we used fully costed policies and are releasing even more detailed policies at the moment. Why is Mr Williams perpetuating an internet falsity to denigrate One Nation?
Mr Marks: Again, Mr Williams is the Chair of the organisation. I am the editor-in-chief. There is separation of powers between the board and Mr Williams, who represents the board as Chair, and me as editor-in-chief. They were comments made by Mr Williams. They don’t reflect the views of the ABC. As you say, it is important that the policies of One Nation are subject to the same interrogation as every party’s policy and they should be treated equally, accurately and impartially.
Senator ROBERTS: We welcome that. We love it. Our gas policy is getting plaudits everywhere. That’s fantastic. Patricia Karvelas allowed her strong bias against One Nation to show through in the Farrer election program. She stated: It was actually people like Ron Boswell … who campaigned to put One Nation last … you’ve got the most conservative people who believed it was a big and dangerous mistake to legitimise One Nation and to embolden One Nation. She also stated: Here we’ve had … Angus Taylor make a deliberate decision to preference One Nation above the independent, which tonight could really be one of the reasons they get across the line and that will legitimise them. Patricia Karvelas also stated: I used the term earlier on … the permission structure—if they are able to win their first lower house seat, that begins the process of legitimising them. She’s clearly implying that we’re illegitimate. How is this acceptable commentary? It’s clear bias and it’s insulting and denigrating and it’s hurting the ABC and that $1.3 billion that the taxpayers are investing in your corporation.
Mr Marks: I’m going to disagree with you in relation to that particular broadcast, which I’ve gone back and watched a few times. If you watch that broadcast in its entirety, Patricia Karvelas also makes a number of other comments. She says that there’s no better poll than an election. She says that this is the result of 30 years of work by Senator Hanson to lift the party at this stage. She says that this is a major political shift. She says that this is a major win for One Nation. In the comments that you’re referring to, which are a selected part of that whole broadcast, she’s referring to comments that were made by Senator Boswell—I’m not sure in what era or what time—that refers to the politics. Remember Ms Karvelas is a political analyst. That refers to the political decision to preference one party over another and what the outcomes of that might be. If you listen to the broadcast as a whole, I think you can be in no doubt that broadcast was accurate; it was impartial. We would stand by Ms Karvelas’s comments when taken as a whole across the broadcast. Do you want to add anything that I might have missed in that?
Mr Fang: No, I think you captured it. Senator, you read out some more of Patricia Karvelas’s analysis that has been quoted in some other places, including the reference to Senator Boswell. I think Patricia Karvelas was making reference to previous politics around One Nation and around the Liberal and National parties’ approach to One Nation in the past, and that was contextualised across the coverage.
Senator ROBERTS: Anyway, we can all celebrate Senator Whitten, because the ABC has now given us the blessing of legitimacy. The next day on the Insiders program—
Senator Green: I think Angus Taylor did that. Maybe the people of Farrer did that.
Senator ROBERTS: The next day on the Insiders program regular panellist Niki Savva made the statement that the ‘Liberal Party, in preferencing One Nation, was aligning with a party which, at its core, is racist and bigoted’. When comments like this are not corrected—they’re not factual, they’re dishonest—when your staff are not told to keep commentary to factual matters, how can you whinge about us not empowering you to take another swing? This isn’t journalism. The ABC is creating a dark space through political advocacy.
Mr Marks: I’ll ask Mr Fang to respond to that particular instance.
Mr Fang: You’re referring to comments made by Niki Savva on the Insiders program. She’s not an ABC staff member. Insiders is a panel show where various journalists—
Senator ROBERTS: She is being legitimised by being your guest.
Mr Fang: are brought on to express their opinion. It’s pretty clear to the audience that was her opinion and not the opinion of the ABC.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to—
Senator ROBERTS: Last question. A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a retired person who had been a miner in the Pilbara in the 1980s. He said back in the eighties all they had in terms of entertainment broadcasting was ABC Radio and ABC TV. He says nowadays we can go anywhere in the world, get podcasters, get independent news sources, private, government—a huge range. So, why do we need the ABC?
Mr Marks: It’s a really good question and it’s a question that we occupy ourselves with constantly, looking at that changed competitive environment.
Senator ROBERTS: We can give you some help with policies if you like.
Mr Marks: I don’t think we’re here for policy. I think we’re here to create an organisation that should be the universal source of accuracy, that should be the place of due impartiality, because a lot of the context that you refer to is actually an increasingly divisive and more perspective driven media environment. Our role in that environment has to be—and this is why it’s so important that we meet our editorial standards—that we are the place that should be the source of truth, the place where people know, even though they’ve heard a lot, they say, ‘I’m going to go to the ABC and see what they have to say about those facts.’ That’s No. 1 when it comes to news and current affairs. No. 2, why do we need the ABC? When it comes to children’s programming, nobody else in the country or in the globe is servicing Australian children other than the ABC. When it comes to emergency broadcasting, the ABC carries unique responsibilities for ensuring the dissemination of information about emergency matters both through the ABC and through other third-party channels in relation to issues of national importance. When it comes to telling Australian stories, whether that be comedy, whether that be documentary, whether that be adult drama, whether that be entertainment shows, increasingly it is the ABC that is becoming the home of those Australian stories and becoming the supporter of the independent production sector. Many medium and small businesses all around the country rely on commissions from the ABC to function. When it comes to Australian music, we are the one big supporter of Australian music that exists still today. We operate on the basis where our channels cover more than 50 per cent music across Triple J, Classic Country, Double J—various channels, all very focused as big supporters of Australian music. Again, it is an environment where most other music services are very globalised. If we really want to invest in what is the nature of Australian social cohesion, what is the nature of the Australian story, who are our Australian characters, that is our responsibility; we take that very seriously. Without us, a lot of that would be lost and lost forever and subject to a globalised environment. I actually think we have more in common than not. I actually think we’re all in it for the same reason: to ensure that Australian stories are connected with Australian audiences, and that is a big part of my function. We talk a lot in this room about news and current affairs, and there will always be views and perspectives on the quality, editorial strength, accuracy and impartiality of our news and current affairs. We accept that’s part of the exercise, that’s part of our attendance here today, but we do a lot more than that and that lot more, I think, can often be underestimated.
Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to the day when the ABC achieves the standards you’re talking about.
Mr Marks: Wish me good endeavours to achieve the best possible vision of the ABC that we can. We are going to have to reposition ourselves into the competitive environment that you mentioned. It means doing things differently. It sometimes means choosing to do different things. I think it will mean partly being more distinctive at times and partly doing more detail in other environments. We need to be able to be changed to reflect the different competitive environment that you’ve identified.
Senator ROBERTS: I put it to you that the free, independent people’s media is rising because the mainstream media, the mouthpiece media, is now being seen through by people increasingly all over the world.
The Victorian Premier puts the cost of Suburban Rail Loop (SRL) East between $30 billion and $34.5 billion, whilst the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO) estimates the combined cost for both the East and North stages at a staggering $132 billion once loans are repaid by 2084.
When I broke down the numbers based on the business case’s projected traffic (calculating that recovering a total projected cost of $132 billion over 50 years would equate to a ticket price of about $30 a trip or $300 weekly), officials conceded that no urban railway in Australia covers its capital costs from fares, relying instead on heavy taxpayer subsidies.
Shocked at these massive capital costs, I asked what happens if the expensive North stage is dropped and how this project can be justified when it will perpetually drain taxpayer funds.
I contrasted this with the termination of the Inland Rail project, questioning how the government could funnel money into a project like the Suburban Rail Loop while ignoring the accountability of Victoria’s broader infrastructure budget.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions go to the Victorian Suburban Rail Loop. The Victorian Premier has put the project costs for Suburban Rail Loop East at between $30 billion and $34.5 billion. The Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office has put the cost of both stages at $84 billion for the East and $132 billion for the North, by the time that the loans are paid back in 2084. This includes the full cost of construction, interest and operation. Do you agree or dispute the Victorian Parliamentary Budget Office figure?
Mr L Wood: I don’t dispute the PBO figure. When we’re looking at it from an Australian government investment perspective, we look at it from a capital cost point of view, and the total project cost that we’re using is $34.5 billion. That is the total project cost that we’re operating under for SRL East. The Australian government hasn’t committed to SRL North.
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s continue. Following the completion of all stages of the Suburban Rail Loop between Werribee and Cheltenham, the business case puts the traffic at 400,000 trips a day, when averaged across a year. This works out at seven billion trips in the first 50 years. Recovering the $216-billion cost from seven billion trips equals a ticket cost of about $30 a trip, or $300 for a weekly, in 2026 dollars. How is this project financially feasible without billions of dollars in subsidies every year?
Mr Betts: Because, like every suburban train system in Australia, we rely on taxpayer subsidies to make the farebox affordable. There isn’t an urban railway in Australia that washes its own face by recovering revenue and making a profit.
Senator ROBERTS: These are staggering figures though, Mr Betts.
Mr Betts: If you look at the Sydney or Brisbane network, the level of taxpayer subsidization—I don’t have the figure in front me—would be 60 or 70 per cent. As things such as free fares are instituted, that proportion goes up. It’s fairly commonplace.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s the typical fare in Sydney? Averaged out, this is $30 a trip.
Mr Betts: It would be $30 a trip if you were to recover the entire cost of the project through what people pay at the farebox, but there’s no railway in Australia that does that.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my point, though. This is a pretty hefty capital cost and, at $30 a trip, it’s a very hefty allocation of that capital over the years. I accept that we don’t have many unsubsidised suburban rail networks, but this is huge. It’s staggering, and I’m surprised that you’re not falling out of your CHAIR.
Mr Betts: It’s a big project, but then so are the metro projects in Sydney, which normally don’t cover their capital costs from farebox revenue, nor has any railway done since the 19th century.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it $30 a trip in Sydney too? Is that what the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for?
Mr Betts: Taxpayers are already paying a very significant proportion of the cost of running that railway.
Senator ROBERTS: So let’s add more, a huge amount more. Are you aware of this, Minister?
Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel the Sydney or Melbourne lines.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re a minister in the government of Australia.
Senator McCarthy: May I answer, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
Senator McCarthy: I don’t travel those lines, and I don’t know the cost of doing so, but I am listening here to Mr Betts.
Senator ROBERTS: The second stage, the North stage, which includes the airport link, is much more expensive. If the North stage is not built because of cost, what effect will that have on the ticket revenue on the smaller first stage? How much of the $84 billion will taxpayers lose by 2084 or, as you say, $35 billion; how much?
Mr L Wood: The $34.5 billion is the capital cost to build SRL East. That will be completed by 2035, and that’s underway now. SRL North would be a future decision of government if it were to choose to invest in that.
Senator ROBERTS: If SRL North does not go ahead, what would be the impact on East?
Mr Betts: We’ve looked at the economics and associated benefits of Suburban Rail Loop East, and that project continues to offer benefits even if the northern stage is not ultimately built.
Senator ROBERTS: At what cost? Minister, how can you terminate a real infrastructure project, such as Inland Rail, and give the money to a project like the Suburban Rail Loop, which, even if it’s finished at all, will never pay for itself and will always be a blackhole for taxpayers’ money? How can you do that?
Senator McCarthy: In terms of funding, the minister has made the decision and has made it based on advice from the department, so I’ll refer that to the department.
Senator ROBERTS: So what is that advice? What I want to know is how they’re going to do it.
CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. I heard clearly this morning, when we were speaking about Inland Rail, that a certain amount of money—$1.8 billion—would go to existing rail infrastructure, but I hadn’t heard that all the rest of Inland Rail money was going to a suburban rail loop.
Senator McKENZIE: I expect that the department did not advise the estimates—
CHAIR: I’m sorry, Senator. You just touched on this and I’m trying to clear it up for you.
Mr Betts: I’ll have a go at giving you an answer. Unlike the Inland Rail project, the Suburban Rail Loop project was subject to a business case, which was independently reviewed by Infrastructure Australia. That evaluation is on the website. The Commonwealth government’s contribution to Suburban Rail Loop, even allowing for the $3.6 billion, is a capped contribution—
Senator McKENZIE: So was the two.
Mr Betts: whereas the budget for inland rail, established by the previous government and handed to the current government, is a third of the cost of building that project, and that would be sheeted home entirely to the Australian taxpayer.
Senator ROBERTS: In other words, there’s nothing to see here. Snowy 2.0, Inland Rail, all missed. Minister, will you suspend funding for the Suburban Rail Loop, until you find where the missing $15 billion from Victoria’s Big Build went, or are you happy to fund criminals ripping off the taxpayers?
Senator McKENZIE: You’re copying my questions.
Senator McCarthy: Senator, isn’t it my understanding that you did not support the Inland Rail?
Senator ROBERTS: Not where it was, but we’re supporting it now and we have been supporting it. Pay more attention, Minister, because we have been vigorously supporting it and we’ve been connecting it to the east-west northern line.
Senator McKENZIE: Yes.
Senator McCarthy: They’re having a good laugh there, Senator McKENZIE, but we know what your previous Leader of the Nationals thought about all of that as well. But I’ll take your question on notice, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you answer it now?
Senator McCarthy: I’ll take your question on notice, Senator.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ihGgIioM7cM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-15 16:39:052026-10-15 16:39:11The Price Tag of the Suburban Rail Loop
I spoke in support of the Born Alive Protection Bill and called on all parties to allow a conscience vote.
My challenge is simple.
If no child is suffering this fate, pass the bill and let it gather dust. But if Parliament refuses to do that, it raises an obvious question – why oppose protections for babies born alive?
This should not be a partisan issue. If a baby is born alive, that child deserves the same care and protection as any other newborn.
Why is that up for debate?
Transcript
As I speak, outside Parliament House is a gathering of Christians and humanitarians, called to support Mr Llew O’Brien MP’s introduction of the Human Rights (Children Born Alive Protection) Bill 2026 in the House of Representatives. One Nation supports this bill. Our leader, Senator Hanson, and our deputy leader, Barnaby Joyce, are addressing the rally.
There’s no disagreement on the number of babies who are born alive from a failed abortion in Australia. The disagreement goes to the viability of the baby. Health authorities would say all these babies—around 70 a year—were not viable and lived fleetingly. Evidence from healthcare workers, though, would say as many as one baby a week was viable—a healthy human life extinguished, allowed to die alone on a cold steel kidney dish or in a biowaste container. The Left challenge this, although there’s no logic to their argument.
Dr Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, has stated there’s no medical reason for a late-term abortion, a position that has not been disproven. In the event of a medical threat to the life of the mother, an emergency C-section is faster, safer and more effective than an abortion. Late-term abortions exist because the mother is demanding the killing of her baby, the death of her baby. It’s that simple.
The political Left mindset says any compromise on abortion risks all abortion. To these people, if one healthy baby a week has to be cruelly sacrificed, then so be it. If no child is suffering that fate, then pass the bill and it can gather dust. No, you prove my case. One Nation speaks for the infertile couples who will praise God for the gift of an adopted child, a life saved, a family created, a community enriched, a species enriched. I call on all party leaders to declare this matter a vote of conscience.
