Screen Australia’s DEI Targets

I questioned representatives from Screen Australia regarding their Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) agenda. DEI requirements are not mandated by legislation or the Screen Australia Act, instead they are management-driven KPIs.

I challenged their Gender Matters and inclusion targets, which aims for at least 50% female and non-binary representation in key creative roles, arguing that exceeding 50% disadvantages more meritorious men and ignores true merit-based selection.

Taxpayers are contributing $86 million in the 2026-27 budget, yet Screen Australia’s recoupment of equity investments remains low (ranging from 12% to 32%), indicating poor commercial performance.

I pointed out that overall audience numbers have dropped significantly since 2021-22, questioning whether their focus on ideological targets is failing to deliver what audiences actually want to watch while giving taxpayers less value for money.

One Nation will dismantle government-backed DEI initiatives and equity-focused programs that divide rather than unite, ensuring all citizens are treated equally under the law based strictly on merit.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. My questions go to the DEI agenda of Screen Australia. A producer that used a polite Facebook post to raise the gender imbalance in favour of women in your approved productions and in your management was blocked. These questions are apparently not allowed. Happily, you can’t block me, so we’ll ask some questions. From your corporate plan 2023-27: Screen Australia’s funding guidelines include an Inclusive Storytelling Statement that highlights our commitment to diversity equity and inclusion. The agency has developed a series of programs to provide skills development opportunities for diverse practitioners traditionally under-represented in the Australian screen industry … Screen Australia also has a long-standing commitment to gender equity through its Gender Matters program and KPI. Can you show me where in your enabling legislation this DEI requirement was mandated, or is this a decision taken by the management, the board, the government, the minister, KPIs?  

Ms Brunsdon: The screen sector in Australia and globally has traditionally been very white and male. The population in Australia is slightly more than 50 per cent women. That’s not the case in terms of the representation in the screen sector. There are generally equal numbers of men and women in film schools who finish those studies, but they’re then not represented and their stories don’t get told, and stories from a female perspective are not always told. Stories from culturally diverse parts of the country are not always told. Our research tells us that Australian audiences value authentic representation of Australian stories, and that goes right across the community. A lot of the research we’ve done on seeing ourselves, which goes into the representation of parts of the community on screen and behind the screen, tells us that there are parts of the community that are very severely underrepresented, including people with disability, where one in five people in the community identify as having a disability but we don’t see that on screen. We do have programs, like most of the state screen agencies, to develop new stories from different parts of the community. They’re stories that travel. They’re stories that get audiences in Australia and internationally, and that’s one of the reasons that we do that. People like to see themselves, their experiences and their lives reflected in the stories they watch on screen, whether that’s on TV or whether it’s in cinema. The Gender Matters taskforce has been disbanded. The corporate plan that you mentioned has been updated, and we released a new corporate plan last year in April. Our purpose is about supporting a vibrant and viable screen industry that reflects the diversity of stories and the depth of stories from across Australia. So we’re just working with and trying to reflect the community of Australia in the stories that get supported and that get shown.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I didn’t ask you to justify your following of DEI. I just wanted to know if your enabling legislation requires DEI—if it was mandated—or if it’s a decision taken by the management, the board, the minister or the government? Who set your KPIs on this, you or the government?  

Ms Brunsdon: We set the KPIs.  

Senator ROBERTS: So who set the DEI requirement? Was it mandated?  

Ms Brunsdon: There isn’t a DEI requirement mandated, but the functions of Screen Australia under the Screen Australia Act are to support and promote the development of a highly creative, innovative and commercially sustainable Australian screen production industry and support the development, production, promotion and distribution of Australian programs and the provision of access to Australian programs to support the development of screen culture in Australia and undertake any other function conferred on it by the law of the Commonwealth. There are a number of ways that we do that. We’re also required to place an emphasis on documentaries and programs of interest or relevance to children and programs with a high level of artistic and cultural merit, promote the open market as the primary means of support for projects with commercial potential, promote the development of commercially focused screen production businesses and promote the effective, efficient and ethical use of public resources. There’s no DEI component in there. We interpret reflecting these stories to ensure that there is a diversity of stories on screen.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me, on notice, your evidence from your research that says DEI improves your capability in all those areas?  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you—and any peer reviewed scientific studies would be appreciated as well. It seems that you’re setting them In looking at your KPIs, the first KPI for 2016-19, at least 50 per cent of production funded projects are to have women in more than 50 per cent of key creative roles. This was achieved at 56 per cent. Is your KPI really ‘at least’ 50 per cent? Surely anything above 50 per cent means less meritorious women are being favoured over more meritorious men. Surely the merit ratio is 50 to 50—or, in your universe, are women better than men?  

Ms Brunsdon: Are women better than men? It’s a KPI that we measure over three years, so it’s not that every project has to have women in key creative roles. It’s over the breadth of the projects that we support that we are aiming for that target. And it’s a target; it’s not a rule. It’s something that moves depending on the projects that come in and depending on the creatives already attached to those projects. It’s a target that’s harder to achieve in feature films because they often come with a writer-director from their origination. A lot of TV series that come to us don’t necessarily have all their directors attached, so there’s room for things to move at those times. So it really depends on everything. The population isn’t quite fifty-fifty.  

Senator ROBERTS: Slightly more females.  

Ms Brunsdon: Slightly more females. That target is about the representation of women relevant to the population and to the community.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you done any work on why that used to be lower? There are some amazing female producers, directors, actresses—or actors, whatever you want to call them these days. In the past, surely for commercial interest, people would have wanted to jump on to make sure that women were involved. They provide a more varied and diverse approach. So why were they underrepresented?  

Ms Brunsdon: For a variety of reasons—in the same way that they’re underrepresented in many parts of the economy and many parts of the sector and, indeed, leadership positions more broadly. A lot of women take time out to have children or have other caring responsibilities. It can be more difficult to get back into the sector if you’ve taken time out for those caring responsibilities. That’s certainly one thing. There are a number of research papers that detail this. People find it more difficult to get jobs when they have children because of the hours that this industry takes when you’ve got a project in production. So there are a number of barriers there for people to do that. We’ve recently done some research looking at different methodologies for production—that might be a nine-day fortnight or shorter working hours or eight-hour days and that kind of thing—to try and encourage better working hours for everybody. It’s not just for women or people with caring responsibilities but actually for the whole workforce.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think most people would agree from their own experience—it’s not just me—that women are generally better carers. Most families make the decision that their children will be cared for by one of the partners if they can afford it, and that’s increasingly unlikely, sadly, these days, but generally that’s the woman because women are better carers.  

Ms Brunsdon: I couldn’t comment.  

Senator ROBERTS: I wasn’t fishing. The second KPI from 2019 to 2023 was ‘more than or equal to 50 per cent of key creative roles across development and production held by women’. That was achieved at 55 per cent. Again, tough luck men, because this is all about the women, right?  

Ms Brunsdon: Well, the KPI is about female representation, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Having achieved the earlier targets, rather than holding them there and looking for projects with merit, you increased the targets. For 2023 to 2026, the KPI requires the female mandate to be expanded to include non-binary, gender-diverse people for a target of more than 50 per cent of key roles of writer, producer or director across funded projects for a three-year average. Is women at 50 per cent a hard floor? Is bringing in transgenders, men living as women, taking jobs off women, or is ‘transgender’ a new protected class to add on top of the 50 per cent reserved for women?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not. The 50 per cent is for women and/or non-binary or gender-diverse people. So it’s an inclusive target of 50 per cent.  

Senator ROBERTS: So it should be 50 per cent or more?  

Ms Brunsdon: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You must be treating it as additional because the latest data shows that female and trans et cetera producers are now at 62 per cent, writers are up to 55 per cent and directors are still down at 49 per cent—almost 50. Apparently, that’s not close to being equal. Overall, it is 56 per cent across all KPIs. Are you going to stop now and start approving projects on merit again?  

Ms Brunsdon: We do approve projects on merit. That’s absolutely the very first thing. The target is about tracking the projects in terms of who the key creatives are and making sure that we’ve got that information as we’re going through the year. The results of the target also change every year depending on the projects that come to us. Because we don’t commission projects, we can only respond to the applications that we receive.  

Senator ROBERTS: ‘Merit’, do you say? Well, it’s not really, is it? Because there’s a line item in your account for ‘recoupment of equity investment’, REI, which is taxpayers getting a return on our money. If your investment decisions were being made on merit, your commercial returns would show that. I note your returns over the last six years on recoupment of equity investment have ranged from 12 to 32 per cent. Some variation may occur as costs are in one year and returns are in another, so we understand that. Your numbers may be more accurate. Why did the projects you fund fail commercially so frequently? Even when you’ve had a hit, the best year was only 32 per cent of your money back.  

Ms Brunsdon: It really depends on the projects, and they’re subject, obviously, to global headwinds and the contraction in the global marketplace for screen content. It depends on the box office, if they’re theatrical feature films in Australia, and it depends how well they sell internationally. Over the last couple of years, it’s become much more difficult for projects to sell, certainly into the US, which used to be a much more stable market, certainly for Australian content. It can’t be relied on because of the contraction of some of the big media players there. It’s very much subject to market conditions, and the market has changed significantly and continues to move fluidly, and that’s not something we have any control over. Some projects do incredibly well. The feature film Talk to Me, which was released a couple of years ago, has recouped many times over what its budget was.  

Senator ROBERTS: It was a very good one.  

Ms Brunsdon: A very good one. We want more like that. And there are things that perhaps are less commercially focused but still play very well with audiences. There’s a real range of projects that we support and a real range of returns, because the return on investment is not just about the commercial financial return; it’s also a cultural return and an influence return, in terms of whether it is something that’s going to influence people to change their behaviour. There are different reasons that we watch the shows that we watch, that we go to see films that we see, and our reactions to them and our behaviour is a result of that.  

Senator ROBERTS: I understand systems change behaviour and language changes behaviour. Could you tell me the behaviours you’re seeking on behalf of the Australian taxpayer?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not seeking—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re basically changing behaviours, which I understand. So what behaviours are you trying to change?  

Ms Brunsdon: We’re not trying to change behaviours. It will depend on the show. There may be documentaries that seek to give people a better understanding of a certain issue or group of people, and to have more empathy around things or just understand their community better.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is changing behaviour one of the criteria or one of the KPIs for selecting investment grants?  

Ms Brunsdon: No, it’s not.  

Senator ROBERTS: How do you do that, then? How do you make sure they change behaviour?  

Ms Brunsdon: That’s not something that we can do. We don’t distribute the shows, we don’t market shows and we don’t commission shows.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. A common measure of a hit screen production is one that returns 2.5 times its production cost. Two times breaks even, including distribution, and the 0.5 on top of two is profit. By that measure, your last hit movie was the movie Talk to Me in 2022, which cost $4 million and returned a whopping $140 million. A great result, but it was unexpected for a small horror film. Nonetheless, it was a good result. It made your results for 2023-24 look good. The next previous hits we can see in your returns are: Lion way back in 2016; The Sapphires in 2012; and Red Dog in 2011, which must have been a very big hit. That was a long time ago. Is this move to DEI in more recent years creating projects that people don’t want to watch?  

Ms Brunsdon: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2024-25, your total audience was 101.8 million; let’s say 102 million. That’s up from last year, but it’s down on 2020-21, and on 2021-22, which was 140 million. So you’re way down—that’s almost one quarter down. I acknowledge that the platforms are changing from theatre to streaming, and now to TikTok. Can you provide an accurate figure for your audience each year over the last five years, broken into screen, television, streaming and social media, please.  

Ms Brunsdon: I’ll have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your 2026-27 budget is $113 million, with $86 million from the taxpayers. What is your projection for grants and for recoupable investments in 2026-27?  

Mr Reid: Our budget for 2026-27 is the total expenditure for 2026-27 on page 526 of the Portfolio Budget Statement.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much?  

Mr Reid: It is $95.9 million in total expenses, and our recoupment budget for 2026-27 is $3.8 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: How much from taxpayers?  

Mr Reid: From taxpayers, we receive revenue from government of $86 million.  

Senator ROBERTS: So that’s the same.  

Mr Reid: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got figures of grants of $34 million and recoupment of equity investment of $59 million.  

Mr Reid: You’d have to point to where you’re—we do do grants and equity investments. For 2026-27 we’re projecting $34 million in grants and $33.6 million in what we call the write-down in impairment of assets. That’s the equity component that we provide to recipients.  

Senator ROBERTS: The first figure, we agree on. What was the second figure?  

Mr Reid: It’s $34 million and $33.6 million in investments.  

Senator ROBERTS: If your primary objective is to fund Australian content, then the figure in your budgets for grants and REIs, inflation adjusted, would go up each year, but it doesn’t. Wages go up every year, but money going back into the industry is down from a high in 2020-21 of $99 million, which is $118 million in today’s dollars, to $86 million this year. Taxpayers are paying more and getting less out of Screen Australia. Why is that?  

Mr Reid: I’m not sure that I agree with the premise of your question, but taxpayers are paying less and we are delivering a lot for the Australian public.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you convince me that taxpayers are not paying more and getting less?  

Mr Reid: Your own figures were that, in 2021, we were paying out $90 million and now we’re paying out less. But Australian stories are being produced and watched at a very high rate.  

Senator ROBERTS: But the figures don’t reflect that—the profit figures and the returns.  

Mr Reid: As my colleague mentioned, Screen Australia does not make all of its decisions based on commercial return.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

/0 Comments/by

CSIRO’s Energy Bias

, ,

These questions pertain to the GenCost 2025–26 consultation draft, a collaborative report used to estimate the cheapest levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) for various energy technologies.

This report assigns shorter financial lifespans to baseload and firming technologies (30 years for coal, nuclear, and hydro) compared to their physical capabilities, which artificially inflates their per-megawatt-hour costs while favouring wind and solar.

The report incorrectly excludes brownfield site advantages for coal and nuclear generation, putting them at an unfair cost disadvantage against greenfield wind and solar.

And battery backup costs are separated rather than bundled directly into wind and solar expenses, masking their true total cost.

I asked whether the government had directed agencies to produce “fraudulent costings” to support net-zero targets, an assertion strongly rejected by the officials and Senator Tim Ayres.

Dr Mayfield from the CSIRO defended the GenCost methodology as a consistent, independent and robust process developed in consultation with industry and technical experts. Because he didn’t have the specific draft on hand, Dr Mayfield took detailed questions regarding capacity factors, exact asset valuations and cost adjustments on notice.

Senator Ayres strongly defended the government’s energy transition, dismissing my position on this as “imported talking points.” He argued that the GenCost framework reflects modern economic, engineering and technological realities, such as falling battery costs and said that attempting to revive old baseload models would weaken the economy, driving up costs.

One Nation will scrap Australia’s Net Zero by 2050 policy target along with all associated legislation, mandates and subsidies. We will withdraw from all international climate commitments like the Paris Agreement and back cheap base-load energy sources like coal, gas, hydro and nuclear energy.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. I’d like to go to your GenCost 2025-26 consultation draft. The purpose of GenCost is to show the different costs of each type of generation when all factors are taken into account—in essence, industrial wind and solar as compared to nuclear, coal and hydro. Do you think the assumptions made in this report around assessment periods for each type of power are conducive to producing an accurate cost of full life cycle generation? 

Dr Mayfield: The latest consultation draft—so our final report—is not out at this point in time—  

Senator ROBERTS: No, I meant the consultation draft.  

Dr Mayfield: It is the same methodology, as we’ve discussed many, many times—so, yes, we think it’s an appropriate methodology that’s being applied.  

Senator ROBERTS: One of the most common uses of this report is to show Australians, the media and the government which is supposedly the cheapest levelised cost of electricity. This in turn informs the debate around which type of generation is cheapest and accordingly should be the focus of the government’s energy plans. Does this draft report make the right assumptions in the economic life of each type of generation?  

Dr Mayfield: We’ve been through various assumptions; if you want to be explicit about some, that might help. We’ve talked about coal-fired power in the past. The assumptions that we have been using either are based on work that sits with AEMO or come out of the consultation process done with industry representatives as we develop the report.  

Senator ROBERTS: Your answer is yes?  

Dr Mayfield: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The life of the project makes a huge difference to the cost of the electricity it puts into the grid. Coal, nuclear and hydro have higher construction costs than wind or solar. They also last much longer than wind and solar, so the higher cost can be repaid across a much longer period, which makes a huge difference to the final cost of electricity. Your draft sets the life span of coal, nuclear and hydropower stations at 30 years, with industrial wind and solar at 25 years. That’s the absolute limit of cheap Chinese solar and wind installations. I would call 25 years fanciful, based upon what’s happening around the world. This draft appraises coal, hydro and nuclear over less than half their life. Wind and solar are appraised over their entire life. Can you explain that to me, please?  

Dr Mayfield: If you go back to previous estimates, Mr Graham has explained all those assumptions. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you to explain it. This is the latest draft.  

Dr Mayfield: I will take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: You haven’t got the answer here?  

Dr Mayfield: I haven’t got the draft here with me, but I’ll take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coal power stations last 50 years, which the draft acknowledges before using the shorter figure anyway. You show hydro at 100 years but use 30 years anyway. You show nuclear at up to 80 years but use 30 years anyway. You are saying the decision has been taken based on the financial decision-making, which is based on risk mitigation. It’s an unrelated metric to the actual cost of building out these power stations and makes coal, hydro and nuclear artificially more expensive. Is your argument simply designed to inflate the cost of baseload power and reduce the cost of wind and solar?  

Dr Mayfield: We’re technology agnostic. The assumptions are consistent across all the technologies. You’ll appreciate there’s reinvestment required during the lifetimes of all of those technologies, in various aspects. They’ve been done on a consistent basis.  

Senator ROBERTS: Wind and solar reinvestment—you’re absolutely right—is after about 20 years; let’s go with 25. Coal is after 50 to 60 years, nuclear is after 60 years and hydro is after 100 years. Snowy Hydro has been going how many years—80-odd?  

Dr Mayfield: You’ll have to reinvest in turbines during that time.  

Senator ROBERTS: Turbines. Snowy.  

Senator Ayres: All these technologies require reinvestment.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not completely—  

Senator Ayres: That’s not new news.  

Senator ROBERTS: Maintenance is not replacement of capital.  

Senator Ayres: It’s the same old argument. You don’t like the numbers provided by Australia’s experts; I understand that. There’s nothing credible about the approach that you bring to these questions. We’ll endure the same imported talking points again. Go through it; we’ll do our best to answer the questions. You will find that Dr Mayfield and others will have to refer you back to the same answers to the same questions that you insist on asking. I know you don’t like the result, but that’s science, that’s engineering and that’s economics right there.  

Senator ROBERTS: And I’m all about protecting the taxpayer and the Australian citizen.  

Senator Ayres: Sure. There’s not much evidence of that either!  

Senator ROBERTS: In any event, your assumptions are still wrong. Nuclear is being financed over 15 years to 20 years, hydro over 15—which is crazy for a 100-year asset—and coal is under 10 years. If this was to try and make GenCost accurate, you’ve failed. Your basic assumption of the life of the asset is wrong from a financial perspective, and it’s certainly wrong from a reality perspective. Why are you making such a fundamental mistake repeatedly?  

Dr Mayfield: If you can put your questions to us, I’ll take them on notice and let the experts answer those.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve got it. If a One Nation government were to issue 50-year infrastructure bonds or ones for a shorter period with a rollover option to fund nuclear, coal and hydro, what would that do to your report assumptions? You would have no reason to use the life-of-project figure you use, and you would then have to use the real life one. The government issuing financing in return for owning the generation would completely ruin this core assumption of GenCost, wouldn’t it?  

Senator Ayres: In the event that there was a ‘One Nation Liberal National’ uniparty government—  

Senator ROBERTS: I said a One Nation government.  

Senator Ayres: then you would bankrupt Australia with that kind of approach. You would drive manufacturing offshore. You would make us weaker and less secure. I know that doesn’t suit the imported talking points that you insist on running through. It’s a matter for you if you want to indulge that kind of perspective, but we are dealing with the real issues in a real economy for real firms—  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what worries me.  

Senator Ayres: and real generation. You are in an imaginarium of your own making.  

Senator ROBERTS: If a One Nation government chose to fund the construction from consolidated revenue and own the generation, that would destroy your core GenCost assumption, wouldn’t it?  

Senator Ayres: You would bankrupt the government as well as the economy in that instance, Senator. You’ve got the right to put out the funny dodges and all that sort of stuff that you guys do—that’s fine. We’re going to deal with the real things in the real economy.  

Senator ROBERTS: The draft GenCost figures are large-scale solar photovoltaic, $52 to $88 per megawatt hour; onshore wind, $78 to $129 per megawatt hour; black coal, $121 to $195 per megawatt hour; large-scale nuclear, $200 to $328 per megawatt hour. The capacity factor here is important. The more power that’s generated out of the nameplate capacity, the cheaper the power. What reliability figure have you used in the lower range and higher range figure for coal and nuclear?  

Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice and refer you back to previous answers. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did the experts produce this?  

Dr Mayfield: The techno-economic people that we employ have produced that report in conjunction consultation with industry and with guidance through that process. It’s a well-used process. We think it’s a very robust process. We’re very happy to provide those answers on notice. We’ve provided many of them already.  

Senator ROBERTS: What capacity figure have you used in the lower and higher range for large-scale photovoltaic and onshore wind?  

Dr Mayfield: I’ll take that on notice again. I don’t have the report with me today.  

Senator ROBERTS: I look forward to your answers, On notice, please, what change would assessing project life for coal at 50 years, nuclear at 60 years and hydro at 80 years have on your draft levelised cost of electricity?  

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that all on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: We’re getting through this pretty quickly, CHAIR. Coal power stations would likely go into a brownfield site, or the existing generation would be replaced with modern clean generation with higher capacity. This reduces the cost, whereas wind and solar are all greenfield—the highest cost—especially to the environment. Senator Whish-Wilson has been trying to shut down the Robbins Island wind turbines! Why have you removed the issue of brownfield versus greenfield from the calculation? It makes coal and nuclear look artificially bad, doesn’t it?  

Dr Mayfield: The whole basis of the GenCost report is to look at greenfield, new generation, costs; it’s not looking at brownfield.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t consider brownfield at all?  

Dr Mayfield: Not for GenCost—not for the purposes that AEMO are looking at.  

Senator ROBERTS: Battery—  

CHAIR: Senator, you’re at 10 minutes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve just got two more.  

CHAIR: Okay.  

Senator ROBERTS: Battery backup is shown as a separate levelised cost of electricity. It’s only needed to firm wind and solar, so it should be shown against the cost of wind and solar. Showing it separately will produce a misleading, much lower, figure for the cost of wind and solar. Why have you chosen this misrepresentation— omitted the cost of battery backup to make wind and solar look cheaper?  

Dr Mayfield: Again, I’ll take it on notice. We’ll get the experts to give you detailed answers to your questions. As I said before, it’s a robust process. We’ve provided many of those answers before.  

Senator ROBERTS: Transmission lines appear to be included against wind and solar. Can you provide the annual cost here? What appears to be a $10 per megawatt hour charge would factor in how much in transmission line construction and maintenance? And will it be enough?  

Dr Mayfield: Again, we’ll take that on notice and provide you with a detailed answer.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you received any instruction or direction from the government to produce fraudulent costings to justify the net zero agenda? Yes or no? It’s a simple question.  

Dr Mayfield: I don’t agree with the premise of that question at all.  

Senator Ayres: Senator, I can assure you this is an independent process that is robust—and it deals with the with the technology changes, and the lowest possible cost of electricity. Battery costs, for example, have fallen by 91 per cent since the 1990s—that’s the truth of it. Now, you want to take the country back to a sort of weaker, more expensive system? Really! We’re trying to build a modern electricity system. You want to put people back in the caves, basically.  

Senator ROBERTS: Senator Ayres, are you not aware that Australia had the cheapest—  

Senator Ayres: We are getting—  

Senator ROBERTS: coal-fired power station in the world?  

Senator Ayres: In the olden days, Senator—in the olden days— 

Senator ROBERTS: And we’re now amongst the highest in the world—  

Senator Ayres: when it was the only—  

Senator ROBERTS: with solar and wind?  

Senator Ayres: technology that—  

Senator ROBERTS: Are you not aware of that?  

Senator Ayres: was available for Australia—  

Senator ROBERTS: These are basic things for manufacturing.  

Senator Ayres: And, back in its day, coal was terrific—it was terrific. But the world has changed and technology has changed. These are lower cost, for a good environmental outcome. They are lower cost and they will make Australian industry more efficient. Our job, as electricity use expands, is to provide addition into the system and build a modern system. You want to take the joint backwards? Make that case. Go your hardest!  

Senator ROBERTS: China burns more than 53 per cent of the world’s coal consumption every year, and manufacturing is going to China.  

Senator Ayres: If you want to argue that Australia should go backwards—  

Senator ROBERTS: Manufacturing is going to China.  

Senator Ayres: and get weaker and poorer—which is the outcome of your kinds of policy prescriptions: less secure, weaker and poorer—then go for your life! But you’ll get the same answers from experts—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re taking us backwards on standard of living already.  

Senator Ayres: and from proper, robust processes.  

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, do you have any more questions?  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it. Thank you very much. 

/0 Comments/by

Talking Points v Bank Accounts

,

The number don’t lie – the bills are going up!

Why is the Labor government deceiving Australians by claiming electricity prices are falling when the reality is that electricity bills are RISING?

I pointed to the facts.

Connection charges have surged from 26 cents a day to as much as $1.46 a day over the past decade, adding around $530 a year to household power bills.

Solar feed-in tariffs have fallen to as little as 5 to 15 cents per kilowatt hour, while households are being charged 25 to 45 cents per kilowatt hour for the electricity they buy from the grid.

Australians with rooftop solar are getting less for the power they generate while paying more in fixed charges and connection fees.

When I asked why Australians are being told electricity prices are falling while their bills keep rising, the government did what it does best – blame someone else and avoid the question.

Australians don’t care about Labor’s talking points. They care about what leaves their bank account every quarter.

If electricity is supposedly getting cheaper, why are Australians paying more?

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Energy, Senator Ayres. In the early 2000s, electricity companies were allowed to charge a special solar metre fee to customers with home solar. Over time, it morphed into a daily connection fee. In 2025, the Australian Energy Regulator reduced electricity charges, and energy companies responded, increasing the connection fee—in one case, up from 26c a day 10 years ago to $1.46 a day, $530 a year, 15 times the inflation rate. Minister, are the energy companies profiteering, or is your government trying to hide the real cost of electricity? 

Senator Watt interjecting — 

Senator AYRES (New South Wales—Minister for Industry and Innovation and Minister for Science): I was giving some thought to that as I got up, actually, Senator Watt. The idea that you would, as the minister for energy, conceal from Australians anticipated price rises in electricity that you had been provided and that you would make all sorts of administrative arrangements to cover that up until after an election—that dubious honour only belongs to one bloke. I can tell you he’s not a comedian, this fella, Mr Taylor, from the other place, who was the minister for energy under the Morrison government. He did share that honour with Mr Morrison for a period. You asked you asked about concealing— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts? 

Senator Roberts: On a point of relevance, I asked about the current government’s policy, not someone else in the lower house. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I’ll draw the minister back to your question. 

Senator AYRES: If there’s anything we can provide you in addition to that answer in relation to the relationship between connection fees—these things are very clear. We have just provided, for example, starting yesterday, three free hours of solar power, which are required to be produced for the 455,000 Australians who have solar panels on their roofs and have now got a home battery, who will pay zero in electricity costs because of the support of this government. These are not people in inner-city suburbs, I can tell you, but, overwhelmingly, people in the outer suburbs and in the regions of Australia, who are benefiting from low or zero cost and delivering benefit to the rest of the electricity system. (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Electricity feed-in tariffs—the price energy companies pay people for rooftop solar electricity fed into the grid—have fallen. Retailers pay 5c to 15c per kilowatt hour on new contracts while charging 25c to 45c for additional power plus $530 a year just for connection. Minister, did you deceive Australians into installing rooftop solar to save money when the benefit is being ripped away in increased connection charges and reduced feed-in tariffs? 

Senator AYRES: Senator, I know that One Nation doesn’t like solar electricity. I know. Australians have benefited from this. Many, many households, pensioners and working Australians are benefiting from having solar on their home. Many hundreds of thousands of households are benefiting from batteries. Now, I know you don’t like it. I know One Nation doesn’t like it. I know you’ve led the National Party into not liking it—they don’t like it any more—and, of course, dragged the Liberal Party into this far-right vortex and into taking wilder and wilder positions that have got nothing to do with the experience of suburban and regional Australians who have benefited from solar on their roofs, benefited from batteries in their homes, benefited— (Time expired) 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why is your government deceiving everyday Australians, telling them electricity prices are falling when, owing to connection fees, electricity bills are actually rising and rising quickly? 

Senator AYRES: It will be a source of disappointment. Every time Australia succeeds, it’s a source of heartache and misery over there, isn’t it? You feel sad when Australia does well. 

We are making progress. There are 22 gigawatts of new generation capacity in the grid. Default market offer shows that the Albanese government’s work in this area, after a decade of disinvestment and decay in the electricity system—it was utterly irresponsible, what Mr Taylor did. He wrecked our fuel refineries. He wrecked our electricity system— 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts on a point of order? 

Senator Roberts: It is on relevance. Why are electricity bills rising? I didn’t ask about someone in the lower house. 

The PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator Roberts. I will draw the minister back to your question. 

Senator AYRES: He wrecked our electricity system, wrecked our fuel refineries, didn’t invest in transmission— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres. 

Senator AYRES: and did more to damage Australian energy security— 

The PRESIDENT: Minister Ayres! 

/0 Comments/by

When Taxes Build Black Markets

My long-held warning has been proven true. Excessive tobacco tax hikes haven’t stopped smoking; they have simply fueled a violent black market, enriching organised crime and endangering local shopping centres.

Despite Minister Watt denying the obvious connection last December, criminals are the ones firebombing buildings and maiming people, proving this is a crisis of law and order, not just smoking.

Minister Plibersek’s claim that cutting the excise will cause more children to smoke ignores reality. Illicit shops don’t check IDs and wastewater testing shows smoking rates have surged 150% over seven years.

While the government blindly follows World Health Organisation demands, UN bureaucrats in Geneva and New York enjoy cheap cigarettes and easy access to vapes with far lower taxes and freedoms than what they force upon Australians.

Treasury data shows revenue plummeting from $16 billion to $3.5 billion as the black market wins. Following Canada’s past success, we must slash the tobacco excise by 75%, eliminate the criminals and tell the WHO to get stuffed.

Transcript

This week the Liberal Party promised an 80 per cent reduction in tobacco excise after One Nation promised 75 per cent. One Nation first called for a reduction in excise in June 2024, in a Senate debate where I said continuous tax increases would not stop people smoking and would instead fuel the black market, shifting revenue from the government to organised crime, endangering shopping centres and small businesses. And that’s exactly what happened. 

In estimates last December I asked Minister Watt to at least accept that high excise was driving law-abiding citizens into the hands of organised crime. He denied that was the case, a position that flies in the face of reality and truth. Cigarettes do not maim and murder innocent people. They do not firebomb buildings, nor do they destroy innocent businesses. Criminals do all of that, criminals the government are unable to control. This isn’t an argument about smoking. It’s an argument about crime. 

For Minister Plibersek to say that our policy to cut the excise will lead to more children smoking shows just how out of touch this government is. Children are already smoking because illicit tobacco cigarettes are already cheap. Do you think a criminal tobacco shop will ask a child for ID? Of course not. They’re criminals. 

The quit smoking lobby are, of course, opposing the measure. These are the people the government funds to hold the line, despite smoking and vaping rates reaching 17.4 per cent and rising—data from Roy Morgan. Recent wastewater testing from the University of Queensland shows smoking rates have increased 150 per cent over the last seven years. This is a combination of new smokers and increases from existing smokers. The only responsible, sensible course now is to reduce the excise, eliminate the criminals and get back to harm cessation. The latest budget has tobacco excise down from a peak—of revenue, that is—of $16 billion in 2019 to $3.5 billion this year, which is lower again over forward estimates. Even the Treasury thinks we’re going to lose the fight against organised crime. 

Years ago, Canada reduced their excise by 65 per cent to combat crime, and government revenue went up, not down. People did the right thing and moved back to the legal product, so will Australians. The World Health Organization first demanded these obscene taxes, and the quislings in government and the health bureaucrats jumped to their command. Meanwhile in Geneva, WHO bureaucrats, World Health Organization bureaucrats, can buy cigarettes with half the duty you have in Australia. Loose tobacco is a quarter of the same excise One Nation are proposing. UN bureaucrats in New York pay just $6.85 a pack in excise. That is less than Australians would pay after our 75 per cent excise cut. Vapes are available in both countries. Those UN hypocrites can access vapes as a smoking cessation, yet we cannot. 

I call on the government to cut the tobacco excise and tell the UN World Health Organization to get stuffed. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Real Wages on the Decline

,

The number of underutilised Australian workers (unemployed or underemployed wanting more hours) rose from 1.35 million in June 2022 to 1.68 million in June 2026.

The Albanese government has permitted high migration levels when there is an insufficient amount of work for the 1.68 million underutilised Australians.

Minister Gallagher defended the government’s economic record, pointing to over a million jobs created, low unemployment and record-high participation rates.

She noted that the government has reduced net overseas migration by about 45% from its post-COVID peak and added that industries and businesses have raised concerns about our immigration policy.

She went on to say that wages are rising, women are working more hours due to childcare support, and the government continues to support economic opportunities for workers.

I pointed out that high underutilisation suppresses wage growth and that the Wage Price Index shows real wages have fallen by 1.5% since the Labor government took power.

Further, the government’s immigration policy of creating a labour glut that lowers real wages is undermining workers’ pay.

Minister Gallagher responded saying that the government consistently supports higher wages (including minimum wage increases and pay rises in female dominated industries like aged care and childcare), whereas opposition parties frequently vote against these measures.

Over 70% of new jobs are in the taxpayer-funded care economy (health, NDIS, aged care, education) rather than the private sector. This is nothing but a “Ponzi job scheme.” I asked if the Labor government would admit immigration is a disaster for taxpayers and workers.

Minister Gallagher strongly defended care economy jobs (such as in hospitals, aged care, disability, and childcare), noting they are difficult, emotional and vital services that an aging population and working families rely on, rather than jobs to be trivialised.

I was not “trivialising” these valued jobs – this was just another Question Time of Labor dodging the hard questions.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. The Australian Bureau of Statistics produce a measure called the ‘underutilisation rate of Australian workers’, which is people without a job or those who have a job yet need more hours than are available. In June 2022, at the start of the Albanese government, there were 1.35 million Australians underutilised in the workforce. In June 2026, this had increased to 1.68 million Australians. This is a significant increase on both an actual and percentage basis. Minister, why has the Albanese government brought in so many new arrivals when there is already insufficient work for 1.68 million Australians and rising? 

Senator GALLAGHER (Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): This government is all about increasing employment opportunities for Australians, and I think the last figure I saw was over a million jobs which had been created under this government. Unemployment has remained very low, and participation rates are at record highs. That is our record on employment across the economy. Your question I think links to migration and some of the debates that you’ve been having around this in One Nation. You would know, Senator Roberts, that we have reduced net overseas migration by about 45 per cent compared to the post-COVID peak. We did see a pull forward after the COVID years, essentially after the borders reopened, and net overseas migration has been tracking down since then. 

We are a country that relies on migration to support the economy and have historically, and indeed in recent months, in response to some of the policies that you’ve been outlining, we are seeing more and more businesses and industry raising concerns about those policies and the impact they would have on our economy. We have unemployment sitting in the low fours. We’ve got jobs created under our government the most that we’ve seen in government over a sustained period of time. We’ve got participation rates at record highs. We’ve got wages up. Women are working more and working more hours because of some of the work we’ve done to support wages in the feminised sector and to ensure that the childcare system works for them. On all of those metrics, Senator Roberts, I think you can see where we stand, which is about making sure that there are choices and opportunities for Australian workers in this country, and we’ll continue that approach. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary. 

Senator ROBERTS: Underutilisation predicts wage movement. The more workers desperate for extra hours to keep their head above water, the less employers need to pay to secure that labour. The wage price index, an ABS measure, shows Australian workers have gone backwards 1.5 per cent since this government came to power backwards. The data is in. Your policy of mass immigration is creating a glut of labour, pulling down real wages. Minister, why is your government undermining Australian workers’ wages? 

Senator GALLAGHER: I think there is only one party in this chamber that supports increasing wages for working people. You can see that in every test that’s brought to this chamber. In every single test that’s brought to this chamber where you get a vote on it, more often than not, you all vote together over there to oppose working Australians getting good and reasonable wage increases. That is what we’ve done in government. We have supported increases to the minimum wage, increases to highly feminised low-wage industries like aged care and child care. When we have had those debates on this floor, those who sit on that side of the chamber have tended to oppose them. I think Australians know that it’s this government that will always argue for better wages, better conditions and better protections, including through superannuation for Australians. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary. 

Senator ROBERTS: Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector. This statement is deceptive. Over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Minister, 1.68 million underutilised workers, 1.5 per cent fall in real wages and now a Ponzi job scheme—will you admit your immigration invasion is a disaster for taxpayers, workers and their families? 

Senator GALLAGHER: I want to distance myself from the content and the language used in that question, for a start order. In relation to jobs in the non-market economy, Senator Roberts, if you need any kind of care in a hospital, aged care, disability or child care, those are legitimate jobs. They are hard jobs. The people who work in those jobs put their body on the line. They are physical jobs. They are emotional jobs. They are difficult jobs. I have worked in that sector. I don’t know whether you have, but I don’t think you would be trivialising them if you had worked in those sectors. They are legitimate jobs, and more and more our community relies on them. We have an ageing population, and we have parents with children who have a disability, who expect their child to be cared for and provided support in the way that any other parent would. We have working parents who need child care. These are legitimate, good jobs, and they should be valued. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Questioning the Murray-Darling Strategy

, , ,

This Estimates session is with representatives of the Commonwealth Environmental Water Office regarding the management of environmental water in the Murray-Darling Basin.

I asked is there a specific target for “lotic flow” to improve river health. Dr Banks clarified that they do not operate on a rigid velocity target; instead, they work with available South Australian entitlements and return flows to design hydrographs that achieve outcomes like native fish movement and Lower Lakes connectivity.

Referring to historical CSIRO and South Australian environment reports, I pointed out that the Murray-Darling Basin naturally experienced extreme boom-and-bust cycles and was not historically perennial. Dr Banks acknowledged this natural variability while emphasising that they must operate within a heavily modified and regulated system designed for irrigation and town water supplies.

I referenced a 2023 report that states that environmental water extended flowing water habitat by 46 days into autumn. I argue that this makes the river unnaturally wetter than its pre-settlement state. They explained that these flows aim to improve native fish movement and health as systems transition out of summer, taking upstream and downstream benefits into account. Specific details will be provided on notice.

In my opinion, maintaining high, constant river levels or “toppings” saturates hard clay banks and causes severe erosion, tree root collapse, and siltation. Why was water-level variability reduced by 10% in 2022–23. Officials responded to this saying that reducing variability was primarily aimed at “slowing the rate of flow recession.” Mr Johnson stated that scientific analysis on the Goulburn River indicates environmental water has provided a net benefit to riverbank health rather than causing erosion.

I pointed out that the Murray-Darling Basin Plan requires a minimum of 2,000 gigalitres (GL) per annum on a three-year rolling average, claiming that actual flows over the barrages reached 5,200 GL in 2024 and 4,400 GL in 2025. I asked why water velocity and volume sent out to sea are vastly exceeding targets? Is environmental water being wasted at the expense of farmers?

The Department maintains that barrage flows are minimum requirements necessary to maintain critical connections between the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, manage salinity, and allow fish passage from the sea. While exact total barrage figures for those specific years were taken on notice, they did say that Commonwealth environmental water contributed roughly 700–900 GL to South Australia barrage flows during the 2024–25 period.

Transcript

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you had one more block. I would very politely encourage brevity. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to. David Farley was here just four days after being elected to represent Farrer in the recent by-election. But this line of questioning—it’s very, very important to him—is on water. These are our questions, but I’m prepping for David to get here. This line of questioning goes to the effectiveness of environmental water as against alternative uses, like growing food and fibre to feed and clothe the world. I want to compare your performance over time and raise important issues to form part of the next Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Two publications I’m referring to are the Lower Murray 2022-23 summary report: Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder science program (flow monitoring, evaluation and research), commonly called the Flow-MER program, dated July 2024, and the Lower Murray 2019-24 summary report on the same program, dated July 2025—the most recent version. On the Lower Murray, I’ll start with the concept of flowing water habitat called ‘lotic flow’. This is the concept that improving the velocity of water—something above 0.3 metres per second—improves river health, producing environmental benefits around fish spawning, oxygenation, nutrient levels and connectivity. What is your target for lotic flow, expressed as a target velocity on how many days of the year? 

Dr Banks: We don’t have a specific target. We basically work on the volume of water that is available within the Lower Murray—our South Australian entitlements—and the water that we have available that comes from return flows. What we do is we’ll design a hydrograph, working with our state partner agencies to achieve a whole range of different outcomes for the environment. That includes native fish—trying to increase flow through a period of time, which then will get the fish to move—as well as other targets down in that area, like the level of the Lower Lakes and trying to ensure connectivity between the Lower Lakes and the Coorong, which is a really important part of the health of that system more broadly. 

Senator ROBERTS: So your targets are volume? 

Dr Banks: Not so much. We have a volume of water available to us which comes through the allocation frameworks that are set up by the states. Then, based on the volume of water that we have available in our accounts, we will then design hydrographs, working with South Australian government officials to achieve the outcomes that we’re aiming for. As I say, that might be a pulse flow, which not only provides that flow habitat that native fish rely on but also increases the likelihood that native fish will start to move through the system and improves productivity within the system, which also helps them build condition. 

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the heads of power you’re using for this volume metric? Is it specified in the Murray-Darling Basin Plan or regulations? 

Dr Banks: Basically, my role as the Commonwealth Environmental Water Holder is to manage the Commonwealth’s environmental water holdings to protect and restore the environmental assets of the MurrayDarling Basin. Like irrigators, we have allocations that are made available to us through the state allocation frameworks, and that varies from year to year. We go through a planning process each year where we will produce a water plan for the year, and then we’ll adaptively manage our water through the water year, which will depend on conditions and what’s happening both in the upper catchments and in the lower Murray and the Lower Lakes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is this explanation that I’m about to read of the ecosystem along the MurrayDarling basin before Western settlement accurate? It came from the CSIRO, and Environment South Australia has a similar page. ‘The Murray-Darling system, especially its lowland and lower sections, was naturally highly variable and often behaved like a semi-arid or dryland river system before European settlement and regulation. It was not reliably perennial like many European or North American rivers. Ecosystems and species evolved with extreme boom-bust cycles driven by climate, not constant flow.’ Is that accurate? 

Dr Banks: I think it is a reflection of the boom-and-bust cycle within the Murray-Darling Basin more broadly, where we’re reliant on rainfall to generate flows in the northern basin, for example. But I think we’ve also got to recognise that we’re working in a highly modified system, a highly regulated system which has been modified to support irrigation and town water supplies, and that’s happened over many decades. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve tabled a paper here: ‘Australian non-perennial rivers: global lessons and research opportunities’. The Murray and Darling rivers were never perennial rivers. I’ve circulated the paper to that effect. The annual flows were highly variable along the Murray, starting with flooding during the spring rains and thaw from September through to November and then falling to low levels depending upon local rains. By autumn, the period when you unnaturally flooded recently, the river would have been very low. These are called pulse flows. Can we agree on that aspect of the science, which informs my next question? 

Dr Banks: We certainly try and reinstate those pulse flows. We know that there are some systems—the Goulburn River, for example—where much of the flows has been reversed. The seasonality of flows has been reversed. So you’re getting higher summer flows to meet the demands for irrigation, and then what we do is try and improve those flows during the winter-spring period, which is the more natural timing for environmental water or water to be flowing down that system. 

Senator ROBERTS: Could I have the scientific basis for that on notice, please. 

Dr Banks: Sure. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

Dr Banks: You referred to a number of our Flow-MER research reports. We’ve been supporting that research for well over 10 years now, and it’s very comprehensive. All the reports, including annual synthesis reports, are available on the website for everyone to review. 

Senator ROBERTS: I note your 2024 release claimed credit for the following. It said: … from late March to early May 2023, Commonwealth environmental water extended the duration of flowing water habitat by 46 days. This extended the summer flow period well into autumn, when the flow would naturally have slowed dramatically. What’s the logic of extending the flow into autumn when the river would have naturally slowed in the period before Western settlement? Your remit is to restore the habitat, not make it wetter than it was naturally. Why? 

Dr Banks: I don’t know the specific watering flow that you’re talking about, but, like I indicated earlier, what we certainly aim to do is, within a highly modified and regulated system, try and use the environmental water that we have available to us to try and reinstate some of those more natural flows. The flow heights that we can achieve go to the timing, the duration and the constraints within the system. It’s all focused on achieving good outcomes for native fish, in particular, but also to maintain those lower lake levels as we move down the system. I might just ask my colleague to add to that. 

Mr Johnson: I can’t remember that specific flow event, but it’s probably very similar to a flow that we’ve done just this past autumn. For example, we’ve just provided a pulse flow down the Goulburn River in autumn. That was primarily around targeting outcomes within the Goulburn Valley itself—being able to support native fish movement and generally improve the health of that system as it comes out of the summer period. Those flows then continue down into the lower Murray and then can provide that benefit further downstream. It is not necessarily always the case that we’re delivering water purely for a downstream outcome. It can be that we’re targeting that upstream valley and then having that flow continue down to provide benefits further downstream. 

Senator ROBERTS: This question is on notice, please. How much of your environmental water was used to create that 46 days of unnatural man-made flow in March to May 2023, and, in any year since then, where there’s been an attempt undertaken to extend the period of high flow. 

Dr Banks: Yes, we’ll take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: The next aspect of the success criteria you’re using is river-level variability. You claim to have reduced water-level variability by 10 per cent in 2022-23. Your 2023-24 report doesn’t provide data for the 2023-24 report. This is a significant area of debate. It’s One Nation’s position that maintaining the river at a commonly called ‘topping’ at the top of the riverbank has led to saturation of the hard clay shell that protects the bank from erosion, and this causes erosion. You’re actually causing erosion. We’ve been listening to the farmers down there. I’ve visited the areas myself. Letting the flow drop to allow the riverbank to dry and harden is an essential, natural process to protect the bank in times of flood. Why are you pursuing a constant river flow target when the Murray-Darling was never constant, and, in so doing, you’re contributing to bank erosion? I’ve got photos here showing tree roots and trees collapsing. You’ve probably heard of it. 

Dr Banks: I think a really key feature of the use of Commonwealth environmental water is that we can introduce variability. We’re not looking to meet constant flow heights for long periods of time. We’ll generate a flow to a particular height for a period of time, and then we’ll have a nice gentle recession on the back of that. So— 

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you reduce variability by 10 per cent in 2022-23? 

Dr Banks: Again, I don’t know exactly what piece of information you’re referring to, but what I can tell you is that there’ll be certain instances where, for example, for river operations in some of our rivers, the river will go up and down to meet irrigation orders within the system. What we do there is we do try and smooth out those flows, and, the reason for that is you can send a false cue to native fish. The river starts to rise, the fish might start moving and then it suddenly drops again. What we do is smooth out those flows to try and minimise the interruption of those sort of behaviours of the native fish— 

Senator ROBERTS: The banks are being destroyed and the river is being silted. 

Dr Banks: In terms of erosion, I’ll get my colleague to go through the Goulburn because we’ve got really good scientific evidence that shows that the water we deliver in that system is not contributing to erosion. It’s actually that change in the seasonality of water, where there are low flows during summer—and constant flows—that is causing that erosion. 

Mr Johnson: Specifically on the matter you raised, Senator, Commonwealth environmental water reduced water level variability by 10 per cent, but that was mostly aimed at reducing the rate of flow recession. The idea of that is, again, not to have the water levels drop away too quickly, because it’s that rapid decline in flow rates that often relates to the bank remaining wet and subsequently slumping. If you can slow those rates of recession, that means you’re going to reduce the rate of erosion, or bank slumping. As Dr Banks said, we have seen that in the Goulburn River as well. We’ve got a whole series of very detailed scientific analysis on the riverbanks, which shows that Commonwealth environmental water has actually been a net benefit to riverbank health.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m getting to the core of this bracket of questions. In your push for unnatural environmental water outcomes, one statistic stands out: the flow over the barrages and out to sea. The plan calls for a minimum of 2,000 gigalitres per annum on a three-year rolling average, with a minimum of 650 gigalitres in any one year. How much water was sent out to sea in the last three years, please? 

Dr Banks: We’ll have to take that on notice. Certainly, maintaining connection between the Lower Lakes and the Coorong is really important. It supports a number of fish to move from the sea into the river to breed. Again, what we’re doing is working within a highly modified system and maintaining those connections. There was a period between 2014 and 2021 where it was only because of Commonwealth environmental water that those connections between the river and the Coorong, or the sea, were maintained. It was like three out of a seven-year period. So a really important part of improving the salinity in those systems, and in the Coorong as well, is ensuring that we retain that connection between the Lower Lakes and the Coorong. 

Senator ROBERTS: This is the one target that has actually been set by the Murray-Darling Basin Plan, and you don’t know what it is—or do you not want to say what it is? The figure I have for 2024 is 5,200 gigalitres. That is more than 2½ times the target; it’s 2.6 times the target. For 2025 I have 4,400 gigalitres. Now, remember the target is 2,000 gigalitres on a three-year rolling average. In two years, the flow to sea was almost five years worth of flow. Why have you chosen to increase water velocity beyond natural pre-Western-civilisation levels and beyond planned specs? Why? 

Mr Johnson: Maybe I will go back through the numbers. We don’t have them for every year, but I do have them for the 2024-25 water year: Commonwealth environmental water contributed more than 700 gigalitres of flow through the barrages to the Coorong. 

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total going out the barrages? 

Dr Banks: The total barrage flows for the 2024-25 year were around 900 gigalitres. I can get the exact figure, but it’s around that 900-gigalitre figure. I think the other thing to note, on that, is that they’re minimum requirements. It’s not a focus on what the maximum flow is. That’s the minimum requirement for flows into the Coorong. 

Senator ROBERTS: We have the figure here. For 2024, 5,200 gigalitres was measured going over the barrages. For 2025, it was 4,400 gigalitres. 

Mr Johnson: That doesn’t— 

Dr Banks: We can report on what Commonwealth environmental water went down there. As my colleague— 

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total water? 

Dr Banks: We’ll take that on notice. What I can say is that, in 2024-25, about 975 gigalitres of Commonwealth environmental water was provided down into the South Australian Murray, and, to 31 March this year, about 741 gigalitres of environmental water has been delivered to South Australia. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know the total water going out of the barrages out to sea. 

Mr Sullivan: We’ll take it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. This is my last question on the Murray-Darling Basin. The Murray-Darling Basin Authority is now buying back more water for the environment despite the huge amount of water you’re already sending out to sea. Has water for the environment turned into water to waste so farmers don’t get it? 

Senator Watt: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I ask one brief set of questions on the grid? 

CHAIR: Which grid? 

Senator ROBERTS: The national water grid. 

CHAIR: Are you able to put them on notice? We are trying to get on. Is that okay? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/0 Comments/by

Public Trust in the BOM Is Fraying!

Chief Financial Officer Mr Lyons of The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) stated that their total budget/revenue for 2026–27 is $723,346,000, which includes a capital component of $100,846,000. The exact expenditure figures for the current year are still in development.

The BOM’s budget has nearly doubled since 2017–18 (when it was under $400 million). What caused this “massive cost blowout?” What is the comparison of staff numbers between 2017–18 and the present?

As they did not have the historical figures on hand, they have taken the question on notice.

I then questioned BOM officials about an incident in South-East Queensland where a severe weather warning predicted up to 200–300 mm of rain (leading to local council flood activations), but only 30 mm actually fell in Brisbane. The BOM frequently over-forecast and their predictions are so often wrong.

Dr Minchin responded that rainfall forecasting is not a perfect science and involves significant uncertainties and probabilities. While acknowledging forecasts will sometimes be incorrect, she maintained that on average, the BOM is accurate.

I disagree! BOM data consistently overstates rainfall, so I asked if this was done deliberately to “perpetuate myths about climate.” Dr Minchin strongly denied this, while Michael Logan added that their probability forecasts are well-calibrated based on validation data.

I asked – why do farmers often find third-party services like Weatherzone to be more accurate? Are BOM’s algorithms leaning towards predicting hotter and drier conditions?

Dr Minchin again defended the BOM’s accuracy, explaining that third-party providers simply package and present data differently to suit diverse user preferences. They said that the Bureau freely shares its data with partners like Weatherzone.

The BOM is filtering its forecasts through an ideological lens, and this is costing farmers money and the economy food production.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again. Please confirm your expenditure for 2025-26, which would include operating expense, special purpose allocations, your own revenue and capital expenditure. What is it?  

Dr Minchin: I will pass to Astrid Heward, my chief operating officer, to answer that question for you.  

Ms Heward: Can you repeat the items that you were looking for?  

Senator ROBERTS: What you spent totally—operating expense, special purpose allocations, own revenue and capital expenditure.  

Ms Heward: I’m actually going to call the chief financial officer up for this one.  

Mr Lyons: In the recently published public benefit statements in the May budget, the overall revenue for the bureau will be $753 million. That makes up both our operating and capital components. The actual expenditure for this year is still in development. That’s our revenue that we’re working towards for both. Capital is $100,846,000.  

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the budget for 2026-27?  

Mr Lyons: Sorry, that’s the 2026-27.  

Senator ROBERTS: What the total amount for budget? 

Mr Lyons: It is $723,346,00.  

Senator ROBERTS: In 2017-18, your budget was under $400 million. Now it’s $723 million. What’s causing the massive cost blowout in the Bureau of Meteorology. Why? I’ll ask another question. How many staff did you have in 2017-18, and how many now?  

Ms Heward: We’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: You don’t know?  

Ms Heward: We don’t have the 2017 and 2018 figures in front of us, I’m sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s one of the key figures. Has anyone been fired for wasting $96 million of taxpayer money?  

Dr Minchin: We don’t believe $96 million was wasted, so no-one has been fired.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. In February, the BOM predicted—the Bureau of Meteorology has defended its warnings—a weekend deluge in Queensland, leading local councils to activate major flood response measures, only for as little as 30 millimetres of rain to fall. Meteorologist Angus Hines said on Thursday: … some of those higher-end numbers could certainly exceed 200mm, but I wouldn’t rule out one or two locations getting 300mm in the next few days … Brisbane ultimately measured just 30 millimetres of rain across the entire weekend, with the Sunshine Coast hinterland recording up to 60 millimetres. This is becoming a joke in South-East Queensland: ‘catastrophic floods imminent’, and we get 30 millimetres. How did the forecast get it so wrong and how does it happen so often?  

Dr Minchin: I think one of the challenges that we have with perceptions in the community is that people think that forecasting rainfall is a perfect science. It’s not. It comes with uncertainties—significant uncertainties. So, when we provide a forecast, we provide a range of probabilities, and we do our best to ensure that the public have the best information that they can rely on for their decision-making. There are always going to be times when our forecast is not correct. I want to be clear on that: there will always be times when our forecast is not correct, but, on average, we will get it right.  

Senator ROBERTS: I have this graph, from the BOM website, I believe, on ‘rainfall range reliability’. You repeatedly overstate the rain—repeatedly. If it were natural variation, some would be below, some would be above. This is repeatedly overstated. Is that to perpetuate myths about climate, because of our water shortage?  

Dr Minchin: Absolutely not. We have a rigorous program of assessing the accuracy of our forecasts, and I’ve asked Michael Logan, who’s a general manager in our forecasting area, to provide a little bit more explanation of the validation that we do for the accuracy of our forecasts.  

Mr Logan: That’s correct—that is posted on our website, and we are talking about the probability forecasts for rainfall and the rainfall ranges that we do provide on there. We are finding that we are honing those, over the years, as they go on. For example, when we looked at the last financial year and the probabilities for the next day rainfall, when the bureau forecasts indicated a 25 per cent, 50 per cent or 75 per cent chance of exceeding a certain amount of rainfall, observations showed that that forecast rainfall was exceeded 19 per cent, 49 per cent and 80 per cent of the time, respectively. So the forecasts are pretty well calibrated, but we are absolutely constantly working to make sure that they are as calibrated as we can possibly get them, and, over time, we’re focusing on making sure that is for the higher end rainfall. But all rainfall is very important.  

Senator ROBERTS: Last question, Chair; I’ll put the rest on notice. I still don’t have an explanation for why farmers tell me Weatherzone is more accurate than the BOM—when they take your data, then reanalyse it themselves. Is there something in your algorithms that leans towards predicting hotter and drier conditions than Weatherzone do? Elders Weather actually adds Weatherzone data to their own rural stations, to produce accurate forecasts in the bush—more accurate than yours. Have you thought of licensing Elders’ own station data to make your data more accurate?  

Dr Minchin: There is no doubt that there are a range of different ways that the Australian public, including farmers, can access weather data, not just from the bureau’s forecasts. We stand by our accuracy, as has been identified by Michael, about the way that we assess that. There is always the ability for other providers to package data in a way that is more accessible to different audiences, and we encourage that third-party engagement. We provide our data to partners like Weatherzone to ensure that they’re able to deliver to their audiences the information that they want. That’s not a reflection of our accuracy or lack of accuracy. This is about different preferences. The challenge we have is that we have 28 million customers in Australia and they all have slightly different preferences for how they want to receive their weather information. We are trying our best to meet all of those needs at all times. The farming sector is a key sector for us that we treat very seriously, and we try and get our information as correct as we can through that process. 

/0 Comments/by

Taxes, Traps and Tactics in the 2026 Budget

,

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 represent a cynical, ideological attack on everyday Australians under the guise of intergenerational equity. Instead of fostering wealth creation, Labor is driving a strategy of division to fund social engineering and buy votes.

We support the modest tax cuts and the $1,000 deduction placeholder. What we don’t support is the harmful capital gains tax and negative gearing measures.

Labor relies on “poison pills” — packaging toxic tax grabs alongside popular measures to deceive the public.

One Nation is committed to fighting for smaller government, protecting essential services and allowing Australians to keep their hard-earned money and secure their financial future.

Transcript

The 2026 Chalmers-Albanese budget was a victory of ideology over decency. The fundamental ideology of this Labor government is one which ignores wealth creation in favour of wealth redistribution and division, otherwise known as buying votes with other people’s money. This is a deliberate strategy of division or, more accurately, a strategy of ‘divide and conquer’. Implicit in this strategy is a simple maxim: ‘It doesn’t matter how much hate you get from those whose votes you don’t need.’ It’s callous policy, cynical, dishonest and in the end self-defeating, as every communist government in history has found out the hard way. When you take people’s stuff, they stop creating new stuff and the nation descends into poverty—time after time after time. 

Despite the lesson of history, here we are with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, which rakes in $1.38 billion in additional taxation in the first full year, 2027-28. This is a tax grab. This is before the $350 million backdown announced last week. How badly does this government need that money to take the electoral criticism they’ve received over a measure which is 0.2 per cent of budget revenue? 

This bill takes from those who have created wealth to buy votes from those who have not yet created wealth—our young. And yet, according to the Productivity Commission and updated JBWere financial modelling, an estimated $3.5 trillion to $5.4 trillion in assets will pass from Baby Boomers to younger generations through to 2050. The speed of the transfer is increasing. Inheritances have more than doubled since 2002. Wealth passing between generations has risen from roughly $120 billion per year to an expected $500 billion per year in 2045. This government is trying to buy votes amongst young people with money they would have received anyway. That’s the fatal flaw in this bill—the lie, the deceit. It’s these trillions of dollars in inheritance that have become the grand prize of this communist Labor government’s theft. 

Labor wants to steal more of everyone’s money, including from the young, and lock the young out of building assets for later in life. Lock you out! Labor’s intergenerational equity and intergenerational wealth transfer lies will in fact really create intergenerational poverty—a veritable gold mine of money from taxing everyone for Labor and its bureaucrats to use to bankroll Labor’s social engineering and to buy votes from their target demographics, which, for the record, are ABC journalists, university academics, immigrants from any country as long as it’s not a Christian country and union bosses, although only the militant kind. Not only will our young people receive less in the long run, they will receive less in the short term, owing to changes in the capital gains tax. Previously, any capital gain was discounted 50 per cent and then taxed as part of your normal income. This meant young people just starting out did not pay a lot of tax, especially those trading while at uni or TAFE. Not anymore. Now the full value of the profit will be taxed and at a minimum rate of 30 per cent, not your marginal rate. Even worse, more value trades and assets like trading cards or parts of a bitcoin over $500 are now treated the same for compliance purposes as large stocks portfolios. Do you have a $500 Pokemon card? Congratulations! Here’s the compliance you’ll need to meet, including valuations and notifications for a Pokemon card, you evil capitalist you. Off to the re-education camp you go. There will be none of this ‘trying to get ahead’ under this Labor government. The deceit of this government to pretend this bill is about intergenerational wealth when the real impact will be to make it harder for young people to get ahead—that’s why the budget has been called the worst in living memory. Not only were the key measures toxic, the justification for taking those measures was a lie. It doesn’t add wealth and opportunity for young people. It takes it away. Everyone except rusted-on Labor diehards saw straight through it. Our young have seen through it, and baby boomers are furious. They didn’t work their whole lives to create wealth just so the government could come along and take a massive chunk to fund social engineering. 

One Nation’s response to these measures is simple: don’t do it. Let Australians create their own wealth and use that wealth to benefit their children. For many Australians, the bank of mum and dad is in play to help young people get their own home. Assistance from parents has risen from 15 per cent of new mortgages in the 1980s to 40 per cent of new mortgages today. I know when I mention family that a lot of our constituents will be thinking, ‘I don’t have a family, since my parents got divorced and my parents lost their house in the divorce. What do you have to pass on?’ I acknowledge those who are in that position. Your feelings and concerns are real. One Nation understands that, which is why our low-start mortgage will allow your personal superannuation account to provide a large share of your home deposit. This will allow you to get into your own home once you have a job, a work history and proven capacity to repay. 

When it comes to the broader policy environment, including taxation and regulation, the response to Senator Hanson’s amazing speech at the GetUp! press club in Canberra last week carries a warning. Our opponents will spin One Nation’s policies and words so far, so tightly that Pauline Hanson could knit a sweater with them. Our policies do take a moment of serious thought to grasp. On one hand, One Nation policy does contain measures which need to be funded through some level of taxation. We will support and defend Medicare, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, aged pensions and the National Disability Insurance Scheme for those who are actually disabled, along with unemployment benefits for those looking for work and sickness benefits for those who legitimately can’t work, amongst other measures. These are what make Australia a civilised society. 

On the other hand, our campaign for smaller government is based on an overarching principle of allowing Australians to keep more of their own money and providing an economic environment that encourages people to get ahead through their own hard work and endeavour. This is not an absolutist argument. It’s one of degree—a balance between a government of decency and a government of waste. The Chalmers-Albanese government has crossed over the line out of decency into waste and hypocrisy and deceit, and, as a result, One Nation ranks are swelling. Labor obviously feel that entrepreneurs are not their demographic. You show that repeatedly. Interestingly, a large number of small-business people coming into One Nation are saying the same thing about the Liberals. ALP arrogance has been on display in the development of these proposals. No open consultation occurred and no white papers. The measures were drawn up behind closed doors and then dumped on the public, vomited onto the public. The committee stage for this bill was a farce engineered to manipulate a favourable report—deceit yet again. 

This Labor government has made a mockery of the committee system across legislation, referrals and Senate estimates to the point where a review is needed to find a way to stop this abuse from ever happening again. The government has been forced to remove some of the worst elements of their tax grab. Great—now remove the rest! 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026 includes a provision to limit negative gearing to new properties only. Negative gearing allows someone on a wage or salary to buy a second property, or more, and claim the net cost of that property against their tax. Any net profit is considered taxable income—it’s taxed. Many Australians have used this method to get ahead. It’s most common in retirement, with couples purchasing their retirement home near retirement and then renting it out to help pay it off until they’re ready to move in. Then they rent out their family home to fund their retirement. 

It’s true that this is a concession which tends to be used at higher-income levels. Here are the facts. The top 20 per cent of wage and salary earners own 40 per cent of investment properties and claim 60 per cent of the tax deductions. Before this bill, there was no limit to the number of homes that a person could negatively gear other than the ability of their income to cover the cost. 

One Nation believes—our policy has shown this before today and shows this right now—that a large property portfolio is not something that should be set against a salary. It’s a business, and the person should have a corporate structure which is appropriate for that business. One Nation will limit negative gearing to two properties. This is enough for Australians to invest in real estate and lift themselves up without misusing the tax system. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Tax Reform No. 1) Bill 2026, though, cancels negative gearing on existing homes entirely, and it allows unlimited negative gearing on new builds. So that older couple I mentioned before, buying their retirement home and renting it out to help pay for it—they can’t negatively gear. Yet a high-income earner can buy up a whole new block of flats and negatively gear that. Where’s the justice? How is that fair? How does that advance intergenerational equity? It doesn’t. It drives intergenerational poverty. 

There are two other measures in this bill. One Nation will support the $5-a-week tax cut. Although $250 a year is nothing towards offsetting the rising cost of living, it’s money better off in workers’ pockets than in the government’s pockets, where it’d be eaten up before it even gets into play in 2027. As a reminder, One Nation policy will put a lot more into the pockets of everyday Australians. We will index the tax thresholds to ensure nobody is forced into a higher tax bracket because they got a pay rise to make up for inflation. That’s the stealth tax. I’ve tried twice to amend Treasury bills, once under the Liberals and once under Labor. Both times, both parties said they loved the idea—but not now. 

One Nation will leave schedule 4 in the bill. That is the no-documentation-required $1,000 for tax deductible expenses. I’m concerned that people who are entitled to more than $1,000 will lazily tick that box to save time, although opposing what is a benefit for the many on the basis of what it could do for the few is the wrong decision. 

One Nation is moving an amendment to remove schedule 1, capital gains tax, and schedule 2, negative gearing, from the bill. If that amendment fails, we will oppose this bill. 

The Labor Party have taken to using a deceitful trick to make it look like One Nation opposed pay rises for workers, which is false. Instead, this is to add a measure to a bill which they know One Nation will not support. In this case, it’s the capital gains tax and negative gearing changes hurting the young and the old. It’s called a poison pill. It’s not their idea; the parties of globalisation around the world are using it to frame conservative parties as hateful of workers when the reverse is true. Tricks destroy trust and kill truth. Prime Minister Albanese gives so much material himself to the Fire the Liar campaign across the nation. Poison pills allow their fake ‘independent’ websites like They Vote For You to lie and say One Nation voted against tax cuts, for instance, when, in fact, the Albanese government wrapped the tax cuts in legislation that could not be supported—it had to be opposed. Labor refuses to put the measures separately. Had they put the measures separately, we would have supported the tax cut, minuscule though it is. Another Labor lie is its claim this bill is tax reform. It’s not. Instead it increases tax complexity, which leads to increased fees for accountants, lawyers and valuers when preparing tax returns for which the people pay. Taxpayers pay even more when doing their return. This is not reform; it’s a rip-off for which you, the people of Australia, pay—including the young. Anyone interested in honest political discussion should treat the OpenAustralia Foundation and their propaganda arm They Vote for You with utter contempt. Their subscribers apparently do, because their most recent report admits a $50,000 loss. It’s not working—perhaps try impartiality and honesty next time—nor is it having any effect. 

The growth of One Nation is proof the public are breaking what has been a lifelong allegiance to the tired old parties—yes, you two—and are instead embracing One Nation policies that will restore wealth and abundance for all Australians. Labor’s dirty tricks and lies will not stop One Nation from voting in the best interests of everyday Australians. We want to make Australia a land of abundance and opportunity again for the old and the young. 

/0 Comments/by

Fuelling the Future

,

One Nation supports the bill to extend the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) decision-making window to June 2036, putting it on a stronger operational footing to help cut through bureaucratic red tape.

While we support northern development, we strongly oppose the inclusion of net-zero transition goals and special-treatment identity politics in the NAIF investment mandate.

One Nation advocates for equal rights for all Australians without special racial categories, proposing direct grants to local and Indigenous councils backed by proper Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) accountability.

We believe taxpayer funds should not back net-zero measures; projects like wind, solar, or batteries must stand on their own financial merits without government subsidies.

We champion critical infrastructure to unlock real wealth, including the Great Australian Infrastructure Network (GAIN) transcontinental railway, major water and dam projects and regional transport links.

I moved an amendment to ensure NAIF prioritises productive economic growth, directly finances extraction of coal and natural gas and explicitly blocks funding for net-zero measures, which was defeated by Labor, Greens and Teals.

We need to rebuild our country, cut out the bureaucratic and ideological interference, and leave a legacy of wealth, abundance, and opportunity for all Australians.

Transcript

The north of Australia is Australia’s future. One Nation supports the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, commonly known as NAIF, was established as a Commonwealth corporate entity in 2016 with bipartisan support. It was tasked with a $5 billion financing mandate to drive a 10-year mission to provide economic and social growth across northern Australia through the provision of concessional loans and financial support to private and public infrastructure projects. The NAIF has been upgraded, amended and fiddled with in 2018, 2021 and now 2026. Hopefully this bill is third time lucky. 

Since 2016, NAIF has handed out over $3 billion of the original $5 billion, with a total of $4.5 billion committed. The government has extended the pool to $7 billion. This bill extends the investment decision-making ability for the NAIF from June 2026 to June 2036. It adds additional requirements for the NAIF to report to the minister if there’s any deviation in compliance with their investment mandate. It implements the joint ministerial oversight model, which will see increased joint responsibilities for NAIF board appointments between the Minister for Northern Australia and the Minister for Finance. It establishes statutory reviews every five years. It requires NAIF to align with existing provisions in the legislation of other Commonwealth investment vehicles. In short, this bill puts NAIF on a stronger footing to carry out their mandate. 

It is, though, the mandate that One Nation objects to. The Albanese government changed the mandate in 2026 to include economic development in the north—that’s fair enough—and alleviating social or economic disadvantage in northern communities—fair enough. However, the mandate also included improving First Nations outcomes and achieving Australia’s net zero transition goals. 

One Nation’s policy is to improve outcomes for Aboriginal communities through improving all communities right across the Top End. To One Nation, it doesn’t matter if a community is Aboriginal or white or any colour in between. We care about Australians equally. We will advance policy based on equal rights for all—special rights for none. Our policy is to provide grants directly to local government, including Aboriginal councils across northern Australia, so that ANAO, the Australian National Audit Office, can audit where the money goes and what benefit the community derive from that money. Accountability in the Aboriginal industry—now there’s a concept. 

As for making NAIF about net zero, that’s not happening under a One Nation government. We will require NAIF to support any project which represents value for money for the taxpayers while meeting a real need. If that’s wind or solar or a big battery then so be it, but the numbers must add up without taxpayer money. We don’t propose to change the investment mandate other than to take the woke back out. 

Let me give you some examples of how Australia will restore wealth, prosperity and opportunity for all who are here. These are not One Nation projects. There’s no taking credit here. It’s about building the nation from the Albanese government, state governments and private industry for the good of our whole nation. Funding for these projects is provided through private financiers, with the possibility of a public-private partnership to ensure Australia’s interests are looked after. NAIF is required in the early stage to show the government is serious about investment. 

For too long, major projects have been held up through bureaucratic and political indecision, sometimes caused by environmental laws, but mostly just incompetence. This has led to trust issues between investors and the government. This is not a reflection on the Albanese government per se; this problem has been going on under successive Liberal, National and Labor governments for 20 years, which is why the NAIF is essential to providing early-stage funding and guiding these projects through the bureaucratic jungle expeditiously. After all, if the Albanese government is going to flood Australia with new arrivals as it is, we must generate new wealth to share with them, or else everyone goes backwards, which is what is happening right now. 

Projects One Nation will be strongly supporting include the great Australian infrastructure network, GAIN, which involves a railroad crossing across northern Australia, linking iron ore projects in Western Australia with Queensland metalliferous coal in the Bowen Basin. Steel mills will be located at each end to provide sovereign capacity in steel and steel by-products, including cement, fertiliser and ammonia, which is the material from which pharmaceuticals are made. This development will use water from Lake Argyle in Western Australia and from a new weir where the Urannah dam was to be located. 

The railway will include a multifunction corridor bringing town water, electricity and an internet backbone connection. The internet connection is of utmost importance for national security. While the old offshore copper connection between Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth has been upgraded, it’s not capable of carrying Australia’s internet traffic. I’ll just say that. It’s not capable, as it is, of carrying Australia’s international traffic. It needs duplication. For a signal to get from Brisbane to Perth, it must travel via a jump-off point in Brisbane up to Asia, often as far as China, then back down again to Perth. What could possibly go wrong with that? This proposal has had a long history going back more than 100 years. The current proponents have assembled an impressive team, capitalised their project sponsor vehicle and have already exceeded any development conducted in the past through previous sponsors using all new and unencumbered intellectual property—all new on a proven concept. 

Project sponsors have advanced proposals to complete Inland Rail from Parkes in New South Wales to the Port of Gladstone, using what’s been called the forestry route. A second proponent is advocating a route due north from Goondiwindi via Moonie to Dalby and on to the Port of Gladstone, where a major container handling facility is currently out to tender. I look forward to the Crisafulli government fast-tracking this amazing proposal to take Australia’s container handling into the 21st century. 

One Nation will also build the Big Rocks Weir, Emu Swamp Dam and the Hughenden irrigation project, and complete the reconstruction of Paradise Dam. There are other projects under development. Once again, these are not One Nation projects. We are promoting them and would be happy to promote any other project that will restore wealth and abundance for all. The NAIF has an important role to play in that process. We need to rebuild our country and leave a legacy for our children and for the descendants of all in Australia right now. We need to restore Australia and make it magnificent again. I move: 

At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that: 

(a) the Investment Mandate for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility must prioritise productive infrastructure which will grow the Australian economy and provide breadwinner jobs for everyday Australians; 

(b) financial assistance should be encouraged under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 for measures which: 

(i) directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas, 

(ii) directly finance the construction of pipeline infrastructure, including for the extraction of natural gas, and 

(iii) directly finance the mining of natural resources, including coal; and 

(c) financial assistance must not be provided for net zero measures”. 

/0 Comments/by

Spousal Super Transfers: A Win for Families

,

When I first saw the title of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I assumed it was just more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals and was ready to throw it in the bin. It turns out the title is misleading. The bill itself isn’t woke at all; it’s a sensible measure that allows spouses to transfer superannuation to even out their accounts, helping smaller balances grow faster. It works both ways, which makes good financial sense, especially as women are now earning more university degrees than men and female earnings are bound to outstrip male earnings in some households.

Supporting families is a key plank of One Nation policy and one of the essential building blocks for human progress, alongside freedom, the rule of law, secure property rights, fair taxation, cheap energy, and honest money.

While Labor opposes this bill because they only want to tax, tax, tax and waste money while crushing the middle class, One Nation is proud to support it because it helps families.

Transcript

We support this concept in One Nation because One Nation supports families, but I’ll get on to that more in a little while. When I saw the title of this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I thought: ‘This one is going in the bin. It’s more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals.’ But the bill title is false; it’s misleading. Why? Is it because the Liberal Party needs to appease the Liberal moderates? Is it to attract the Greens vote? Is it because the Liberal-Nationals have become woke, continue to be woke? Oh, by the way, Liberal and Labor are exchanging barbs about females and looking after females. There’s only one party with a female leader, and that’s One Nation. 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, that’s right; you’re correct—the Greens. 

Senator O’Neill: What about Senator Wong? Women are invisible to you. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O’Neill, you should not be interjecting—on your feet particularly. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure why the Liberals would feel the need to give this bill a woke name when the contents of the bill are nothing of the sort. This bill allows a spouse to transfer some of their super to their spouse’s superannuation account, to even them out. That makes sense. Small super accounts grow more slowly than larger accounts, so lifting up your partner’s account is a sensible exercise in financial management. The bill is well worded. The calculation on how much of a person’s balance can be transferred is clearly expressed and fair. 

In an era where women are earning more university degrees than men, 58 per cent to 42 per cent female to male, it’s inevitable that female earnings will outstrip male earnings in some households. This bill works both ways. It builds on our superannuation income-splitting policy of lowering the tax rates for a family with at least one dependent child and one partner not working so he or she can look after the child, splitting the income and reducing the tax to give more after-tax income, to encourage families. We introduced that concept. We also introduced tax bracket indexation to get rid of the stealth tax on income tax. 

Families need support. That’s a key plank to One Nation policy. There are eight keys to human progress. They include: (1) freedom, which is being destroyed in this country under the uni party; (2) rule of law, which is being destroyed by making feelings part of law and ignoring the truth and contradicting the truth; (3) constitutional continuation for the stability of governance; (4) secure property rights; (5) strong families—strong families are essential for human progress. Families are one of the building blocks, one of the two key structures. The other is the nation state rather than a globalist approach. No. 6 is fair, efficient taxation to pay for government but to minimise that taxation, to minimise the size of government; (7) is to have cheap, affordable energy; and (8) is to have honest money. All of these things are being destroyed by the Labor and Liberal uni party. 

One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor’s tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill. 

/0 Comments/by