How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
Despite decades of warnings, Australia has been exposed to an incredibly dangerous situation.
We have 20-ish days of fuel security, much of it hosted offshore, and all of it draining away as war escalates in the Middle East.
As for a backup plan? That doesn’t exist.
‘In a time of conflict, this government is running a ‘she’ll be right’ attitude.
‘There is no need to panic-buy petrol…’ insisted our reckless, over-spending Treasurer, Jim Chalmers.
Chalmers was simultaneously trying to blame the war in Iran for his dodgy budget accounting while pretending there’s ‘nothing to see here’ with the fuel situation.
Prime Minister Albanese’s Energy Minister, who has forgotten about carbon emissions, backed Chalmers’ comments, insisting that panic buying would ‘just make the situation worse’.
It’s impossible for Australian taxpayers to make the fuel situation ‘worse’ after successive Labor and Coalition Unitparty governments left us in a catastrophic position. We import 90% of our liquid fuel – this includes our requirements for domestic transport, industry, agriculture, and military defence.
To save money on storage, the vast majority of these imports come as ‘just-in-time’ deliveries.
Even the fuel we import from Asia is sourced largely from the Middle East – and we can expect China to lean heavily on this supply now that its import network is severely disrupted after what happened in Venezuela, Iran, and the wider Middle East.
Other nations are forced to rely on dicey international transit routes, and Australia has chosen to do the same. This is a monumental political failure.
Over 20 years, six of our eight refineries were closed or substantially wound down with ‘competition from Asia’ cited as the reason. Two of these critical refineries met their demise under the watch of the then-Energy Minister Angus Taylor, who now seeks to present himself as the salvation of conservatism.
At the time of ExxonMobil’s decision to close the Altona refinery (constructed in 1946), Angus Taylor said this ‘will not negatively impact Australian fuel stockholdings’.
This was simply wrong. It was wrong then and it’s wrong now.
Successive Coalition-Labor governments have sold Australia’s national security off to free up cash in the budget or because they could not be bothered to argue the case of national security when it mattered.
We still have minimum reserve supply rates, which are designed to buffer against natural disasters and temporary disruptions – they are not satisfactory for extended periods of global conflict nor do they make provisions for the fuel-guzzling behaviours of our geopolitical partners. This means that earlier war-gaming by the government, which insists Australia can buy its way out of a shortage, lack the real-world probability that nations will protect their own needs above our contractual arrangements.
It’s a cold, hard reality that if Australia were to be cut-off from its fuel deliveries, the wheels of our nation would fall off in early April.
A 2018 report commissioned by the government suggested Australia maintain domestic refinery capabilities. It did not foresee simultaneous disruption to Asian, Middle Eastern, and South American fuel markets. It did not foresee conflict zones and regime changes in Europe, the Middle East, and South America. It did not foresee the largest refinery in the Middle East going up in flames, or Iran deliberately targeting the entire energy structure of its neighbours. And it did not foresee the oil politics taking place between Russia, Ukraine, and neighbouring nations such as Hungary.
In other words, the government report failed to properly gauge future risk and assumed a world that no longer exists.
…even after US President Donald Trump gave everyone the hint with his, Drill, baby, drill! push to bolster domestic supply.
As the Maritime Union of Australia said earlier this week:
‘This is not a distant geopolitical drama, but a direct threat to Australian workers, families, and industries.
When a fifth of the world’s oil moves through a single maritime corridor and that corridor is shut by war, the consequences are immediate.’
It’s in this environment that our party leader, Pauline Hanson, put forward a proposal for an immediate inquiry into fuel security. To this we would also request full transparency on how long it would take and how much it would cost to construct domestic self-sufficiency in fuel refineries.
These are things we need to know.
And what did Labor and the Greens do?
They voted it down.
They put party politics ahead of Australia’s security and your future survival.
Their dislike of Pauline Hanson, who they wasted time censuring for a second time, overrode their responsibility to the people of this nation. This is the type of politicking that must end.
While we take fuel security seriously, there is evidence mounting that Labor and the Greens intend to use public panic as a means to prop-up their dying ‘Net Zero’ industry.
The Climate Catastrophism narrative has well and truly worn off, with most Australians – and nations around the world – realising that it was a scam designed to line the pockets of mining operations and foreign energy companies with public money. A lot of politicians found very rich private sector jobs after legislating in favour of all things ‘green’.
Now, ‘national security’ has become the next unquestionable buzz word that can be invoked by the Prime Minister, Treasurer, and his Energy Minister to justify another pivot toward decarbonisation.
The outrageous propaganda is already starting.
News.com.au ran a story at the beginning of March, Why your next car is a matter of Australia’s national security.
It was one of many pieces caught up in the ‘EV to save us from the Iran war’ frenzy.
If you wouldn’t drive an electric car for yourself, would you do it for your country? Conflict in Iran is a stark reminder: an EV is more than a personal choice – it’s a matter of national security. Choosing an EV makes you, me, and our wider community less reliant on fossil fuels.
The Australian Electric Vehicle Association also put out a press release: EVs have always been about fuel security. Really? I thought they were about ‘saving the world’?
AEVA argues that the full electrification of transport remains the single most effective strategy the nation can enact to improve fuel security.
Of course, there is no explanation as to how relying on communist China – which uses Middle Eastern oil to build EVs and Middle Eastern diesel to ship them to Australia – solves any of our problems.
Nor is there a reliable answer to the transport industry, which is incompatible with electric trucks. And there isn’t even a faint ‘nod’ to where China sources the materials for the construction of our renewable grid – those being volatile African nations which operate under a mixture of debt-trapping and despot corruption, abuses of human rights, and traversing regions of the world prone to terrorism and war.
Even if we were to replace our domestic fossil fuel energy grid with solar, wind, and batteries – there is nothing more vulnerable in a time of conflict than a giant solar industrial complex or thousands of kilometres of transmission lines running through undefended forests and open ocean.
Strategically, it’s madness.
In reality – it’s impossible.
Yet attempting to achieve this lunacy is a ‘national security’ narrative with which the Prime Minister and his mates will likely try to appease the Greens.
The Greens have come out in open defiance in recent weeks and their voters will see it as an ideological victory and anti-war protest. Their support will join huge corporations already gorging on taxpayer dollars and unions protecting Net Zero-inclined funds.
Money and opportunism are about to hijack public fear over the war to revive the Net Zero industry.
And it will do so at the expense of Australia’s national security.
One Nation believes this to be one of the most dangerous fake news narratives an Australian government has ever sold. A short-sighted, selfish political move that could leave Australia open to a very real logistic catastrophe.
We call on the entire Parliament to put fuel security at the top of the agenda, and to restore Australia’s energy grid to self-sufficient network as a matter of urgency.
One Nation will immediately buy whatever supplies we can obtain in the market, which the Albanese government is still not doing. Then we will work with fuel companies to get new oil refineries in Kurnell and upgrade the Lytton plant in Brisbane, and Geelong in Victoria.
We will immediately start construction on gas-to-fuel plants and legislate a domestic gas reservation so we have cheap Australian gas to convert to fuel. We will build the missing link in the national gas network – a pipeline to connect the East coast and West coast gas networks.
This violation of national security can never be allowed to happen again.
‘Running on empty’ by Senator Malcolm Roberts
How Labor is turning fuel security into another Net Zero scam under the banner of ‘national security’
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.
On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.
Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.
On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.
These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.
Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.
These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.
As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.
To panic people.
To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.
An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?
Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?
Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.
The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.
This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.
Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.
Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.
An inhuman, uncivilised society.
Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.
The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.
They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.
And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.
They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.
They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.
And cruelly treats its own citizens.
Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?
You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.
What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.
It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.
As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’
I look around and think how far the left have fallen.
This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.
It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.
The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.
This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.
If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.
We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.
This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.
I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.
After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.
This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.
It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.
As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.
And yet we do NOT use those laws.
Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?
We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?
If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?
It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.
Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.
Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.
Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts
This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.
They called it ‘a stunt’.
They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.
The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.
Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.
Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.
Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.
When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.
Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.
Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.
Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.
The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.
When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’
‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell
‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.
When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.
When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.
Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.
‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.
Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.
This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.
The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.
Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.
It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.
When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.
They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.
Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.
Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.
To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.
They probably agreed with her the first time too.
Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.
Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.
A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.
As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.
It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.
Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.
We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.
Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.
One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.
And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.
Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.
Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
Host – Damian Coory: The latest news poll by The Australian newspaper shows that what we predicted on this show for some time now in terms of what would happen to the mainstream conservative parties in this country, the Liberals and the Nationals, is in fact happening. Instead of the Coalition’s push to the left flank and Susan Ley’s insistence on a modern approach helping them pick up voters and pick up young people, it’s had the complete opposite effect. The Coalition parties have seen men running a mile and younger Aussies abandoning the party in droves. It’s worst in the eastern states. Only 25% of voters in NSW now support the Coalition. Remember, at the end of last year, Peter Dutton’s conservative, strong approach had the Coalition on 40% primary vote and rising on track for victory. The party’s weaklings on the left moved in and asked for the message to be toned down to save unwinnable inner city seats that had fundamentally changed forever anyway, and with muddled messages and bad campaign leadership, Dutton looked weak, inconsistent, rudderless and as a result he of course lost. Blind Freddie could have seen it coming. There’s no gender gap in who likes the Coalition either. They’re equally disliked by both genders. It’s 29% of men and 29% of women who say they’ll vote for them. Joining me now to discuss all this is long time One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, thank you for coming in and joining us on The Other Side.
Malcolm Roberts: Thank you for having me, Damian.
Damian Coory: So all this bad news for the Coalition, It’s been somewhat good news for One Nation. The Australian reports that One Nation’s increased its primary vote since the federal election from 6.4 to 9%. That’s a almost a 50% jump. In NSW you’re on 10%. Other conservative and libertarian leaning parties and independents have also seen their primary votes jump as well. I think in NSW the collective is 20% now, which is almost at the level that the Coalition is at. I mean, interesting times for you.
Malcolm Roberts: Very interesting and really satisfying. There’s a global move, there’s a national move, there’s a conservative move and there’s a One Nation move. They’re all need to be factored in. Actually, some of the polls we’ve seen have actually been higher than the numbers you’ve quoted, Damian.
Damian Coory: OK.
Malcolm Roberts: Which is marvellous. NSW, for example, I think One Nation is at 16%. But internationally people are tired of the fake conservatives – the Tories, the Republicans or the those – well the Republicans are a bit different because the party has quite a bit of variety across it, same as the Democrats. Some of the Democrats will vote with Trump, you know, so that’s understandable. But Trump is not really a Republican, he’s not really a Democrat. He’s an independent and they have to be registered as a party, in one of the two parties to get in. So he’s there. Nigel Farage is there in Britain, Pauline Hanson’s been here for a long time. So that’s the first thing. Globally, people are saying we’ve had enough. We’ve had a gutful of the lies from the from the pseudo conservatives. We want the real conservatives.
Damian Coory: I think people can see through the fakeness too.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely.
Damian Coory: The lack of authenticity. One of the things that supporters, non supporters of Trump said initially was, you know, I don’t agree with Donald Trump, but I like the fact that I know where he stands and what he stands for and he seems authentic, and I can believe when he says something, he pretty much means it. Even if he’s a bit fast and loose on the factual side of the truth, they know that he’s genuinely coming from a place of consistency. And you know what you’re buying? You know what …
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly Damian. I’ve got more grey hair than you have by a long way, so I’m aware of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I was in my early 30s in Ronald Reagan – no, no, late 20s-mid 20s in fact was Reagan and Reagan and Thatcher, and I’ll always remember comments from more than one person, former Brits who’ve moved out here and they used to vote Labour in Britain. And they told me that they voted Labour until Thatcher came along. They said she – they didn’t like all her policies, but you knew where you stood. And it’s the uncertainty removed. So, the global trend, the trend within the country because of what you said with the fake Liberals, I think what happens when you get conservative, whether it be Abbott or Dutton, is that the wets in the Liberals undermine him. It makes it very, very hard. So I don’t put the blame with Dutton, I put to blame with – well, he should have called them out, but anyway, with the party itself. And the third thing is that Pauline’s been around almost 30 years, 29 years and people have seen her – what she said back in 1996 is coming true. Everything she said and she’s been so consistent. They tried to jail her.
Damian Coory: They did jail her.
Malcolm Roberts: That’s right.
Damian Coory: She actually served a couple of months or something.
Malcolm Roberts: She got out on appeal. They infiltrated her party, destroyed her party, destroyed it from within. That’s Labor and Liberal. They also called her racist and other labels which are completely false. I mean you’re not one nation because you have division. You’re One Nation because you believe everyone has the same entitlements. So she’s far from racist, but what they did was they called her racist in the hope that people would not vote for. And that worked for a while, but now people are saying she’s not racist. They realise that and they’re saying I want someone who’s truthful and accurate. And so they’re moving to Pauline because of that. And also quite frankly, our policies, and I mean this sincerely, are the best I’ve ever seen of any political party in this country. They’re comprehensive, holistic and they’re targeted.
Damian Coory: Now the News poll analysis reveals that particularly male voters seem to be moving away from the Coalition under Susan Ley and if, you know, if Peter Dutton and Scomo had a women problem, then Susan Ley’s got a men problem. Not that you care that much about that though, but anyway, the gains that you’ve made though, as opposed to the gains of other independent and minor right parties, they seem to have picked up men, but you’ve got gains from both genders. You’re doing something right in terms of appealing to women as well. How do you read that?
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it’s not because we’ve got a female party leader, it’s because what we say – we go out and listen, and I mean really listen. The Coalition and the Labor Party pretend to listen, but people know they’re not listening. They can’t listen because they’ve already got their policies stitched up and the policies are almost identical between Labor and Liberal. And we’ve been calling them the UNI Party because that’s what they are. Pauline is the only opposition to the UNI party and people can see that. So that’s something. But with regard to men, it’s older people, younger people. Older people are probably saying my grandkids have got no chance of getting a house. The younger kids are saying, in their 20s, are saying where do we get a house? How do I get a house? How do I even rent a house? How do I find a house? How do I rent it? How do I have children without the house?
Damian Coory: And women are concerned about the future of these young people, obviously. So, moving from gender to age breakdowns, if we look at those, the Liberal and National Party votes have fallen the most among older voters, which is surprising. It’s very grim, though, among people aged 18 to 34. So, I think in March, it was 28% of that group, that age group, and now it’s only 18% – six months later.
Malcolm Roberts: Less than a fifth.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s incredible.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. These policies are appealing to everyone right across the board, all ages. But they understand the energy problem has been manufactured and what do the Liberals do? Instead of – and I talked with Tony Abbott, I talked with John Howard, I talked with Corey Bernardi when he was a Liberal. And other people are saying why the hell don’t you just tell the truth? We know you’re a sceptic. Why don’t you come out and just say it? They can’t mount the argument. Whereas we’ve come out and said climate change is a scam – it’s rubbish and demolished it, and now it’s coming true.
Damian Coory: Well, I think they let the other side set the agenda and then they follow …
Malcolm Roberts: Got it.
Damian Coory: in a frightened way. They’re not leading. And if you don’t lead, if you don’t have a strong position, then you can’t really get people to follow you. And I think this sort of fear of trying, or trying to play the middle all the time on issues where, you know, maybe there’s not a middle and people need an alternative. Strongly put.
Malcolm Roberts: People want the truth and we have been calling out the truth forever – since I’ve been in politics, and Pauline, ever since she’s been in politics. When we’re very – we’re not afraid to say the truth and what we do is – Pauline’s insisting on this and I’ve always insisted on it because in my past people’s lives depended upon me getting the data. So we get the data and then we open our gobs.
Damian Coory: Another thing that’s interesting too is your share of people aged over 65, which has doubled from 5 to 11%. So you’re doing very well with the the older demographic and people say “oh, well, they’ll be dead soon” forgetting the fact that of course more people come into that demographic that demographic doesn’t go away. The people in it change, but the demographic doesn’t go away. And so it’s important, I mean this is an important part of our community. These are the elders. These are what we used to think are the wise ones and that we shut up and listen to. We don’t do that so much anymore. We listen too much to the young. But isn’t that a – is that a sign that people are maturing into One Nation, I guess or maturing into more conservative ideas still as they get older?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And that’s always been the case. We’ve been particularly high amongst the aged people over 60 / 65 for quite a while. But what we’re seeing now is grandparents coming to us and saying, my kids, my grandchildren cannot get a house, cannot get a future. They’re paying ridiculous energy prices for this scam on climate change. Property rights are being stolen. They’re concerned. Retired people have more time on their hands and they do the research and older people, you know, I’m a grandparent now, we’ve got one grandson, but I don’t mean this in a negative way, but I’ve got more time, more interest, more focus on my grandson than on my own children – when at the same age.
Damian Coory: You’ve got more time.
Malcolm Roberts: So I’m very concerned about his future. And then that applies – that’s what grandparents are telling us. Where do their grandkids get a house?
Damian Coory: Yeah, well, I mean, you know, it’s funny because I often think doing this show and I know you, in politics is like – we swim in a sea of left wing assumptions, right?
Malcolm Roberts: We don’t.
Damian Coory: Personally we don’t, but I mean the country does. And we think that just because these people have got the microphones and the television cameras and you know, that they control what people think and they have a great influence over it. There’s no question of it. But ultimately, I think people do – are waking up. I think we are seeing a shift. I think it’ll be like America where that shift comes politically before it comes through the media or you know, but I think there’s something being missed by our talking classes, our chattering classes in relation to what is really going on with the grassroots level and what people really care about. Right?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re absolutely right. I’ve agreed with everything you’ve said so far. The chattering classes – they’re a manifestation of the left. They’re a vehicle for the left. I don’t like calling them left and right because the terms are confusing.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s simplistic – have to have some way of …
Malcolm Roberts: I use the terms control versus freedom. And the right is usually free and the left is usually control. All of the major control freaks throughout human history, well with very few exceptions, have been lefties – have been have been controlled side of politics, communist, socialist. That’s you look at Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Hitler was a was a lefty, he was a socialist. So they’ve mostly, all of them come, have come from the left side of politics, the control side of politics. And, and they weave a very attractive tale because it’s emotionally based, It’s not factually based. And what they do is they create victims, they set up victims, whether it be transgenders or whatever. And then they appeal to those victims. And what they do is essentially cripple those people. Damian, those people are made to be victims. And they’re in victimhood. That means they’re dependent on the government. And I don’t mean just financially, I mean morally and in their own, in their own psyche. So it’s really very crippling what they do.
Damian Coory: They want to create a welfare state.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly.
Damian Coory: They want the dependency on government.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly.
Damian Coory: Control people.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. And in my first speech in parliament in 2016, September, I- we’re not supposed to in our first speech, criticise people, not not directly anyway. So I didn’t, I refrained. But I looked across at the Greens when I said part of the agenda in parliament is anti human. And I looked specifically at the Greens and then my second speech, I labelled them as anti humans. So the lefties are very much anti human. If you look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Maurice Strong lefties, all of them lefties and they’re anti human.
Damian Coory: Malcolm, just I want to ask you, what is One Nation’s plan to build on this momentum? I mean, you’ve got this great sort of turn around happening now. Could this be the moment that we- because a lot of people keep asking me, “when are we going to see a great party emerge that’s going to dominate the the conservative side of politics in Australia?”
Malcolm Roberts: How do we keep the momentum? We keep doing what we’re what we are doing. We go ahead and listen and then we speak accurately as representatives of the people. That’s our basic job, to serve the people by putting in place policies and actions that meet people’s needs. But above all, listen to people so we can understand their needs. That’s the first thing. The second thing is keep telling the truth. We’re known to be outspoken, but factually correct and data-based. So we’ll keep doing that and keep developing good policies. Our policies are resonating with people of all ages.
Damian Coory: I think that’s a very important point. You know, keep it fact based, keep it as truthful as you can. At least you know, you’re putting a consistent message out, consistent story out and people can see it and they can trust you more than any other comment I get, and you probably hear it too, is, you know, “why don’t the minor right leaning parties all join?” You know, why don’t they all join?
Malcolm Roberts: There are there are subtle differences sometimes mark differences between the between us and the micro-parties. So that’s one thing. And in democracy you keep people, you keep parties, ideologies, positions alive. You don’t try to bury them.
Malcolm Roberts: So
Damian Coory: it doesn’t hurt to have a bit of variety. We’ve got that preferential voting system. So that helps because people can, you know, use it to kind of vote in the order
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. And so the way to work together, and we’ve said this for for years now, is to recommend that our voters who vote for us vote, vote for the other the micro-parties 2, 3, 4, put them ahead of them, the conservatives, the fake conservatives, the Liberal/Nationals and the Labor Party. So that’s the same. That’s one way of doing it. But the other thing it’s very important to remember is we reached out to all the micro-parties and they all said, “yeah, yeah, that’d be great preference, you know, give- recommend our party be preferenced.” “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” Where did they put us? Rennick put us 6. In the seat of Rankin he put us behind the- behind the- No! behind the Labor Party.
Damian Coory: Oh, OK. That’s not-
Malcolm Roberts: And on the Senate, he put us #6. We put him #2 same with the other micro-parties. And the reason is, and we said this before the election, Damien, that we were the only party that was capable of getting a senator elected in every state. And we came, we got three states senators elected. We came very close in each of the other three, two incredibly close. And so-
Damian Coory: Instead it might not know who watched this show. There’s that in Queensland. The Senate race was very tight for the last spot between you and Gerard Rennick.
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it ended up not being tight at all. We didn’t even rely on his preferences-
Damian Coory: Right. So you you cleanly won.
Malcolm Roberts: And he merged with Katter’s. So when you look at his personal vote, it was very small as a party. But the other thing to remember is that it’s just-
Damian Coory: That division is not helpful, though. I think a lot of people would say, you know, that we’d like to see you and Gerard working together. But, you know, we understand that people have different views in politics. Obviously, your decision to put him second is a signal that you stand by your values, that it’s not about the political game in the end.
Malcolm Roberts: Correct
Damian Coory: Right. And I guess that’s where, you know, he’s probably going to consider where he where he stands. And I’ll give him the opportunity to come on and talk to that again sometime, I guess. But yeah, no, I get it. It’s tough. And well-
Malcolm Roberts: He also told some lies about One Nation, and kept them going even though I pointed them out and he motioned that he agreed that they were lies, that he kept them alive. So Pauline doesn’t do that. I don’t do that. We tell the truth and that that’s what we’re famous for.
Damian Coory: OK, well, good. Keep it up. That’s we need more truth in politics. There’s no, no question about that. I want to just play a clip of Donald Trump speaking at the- we haven’t talked much about the issues, but I do want to discuss quickly with you immigration. We’ve got time to do that.
Malcolm Roberts: Sure.
Damian Coory: I’d like to play this clip of Donald Trump’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Malcolm Roberts: Oh, fantastic.
Damian Coory: Yeah. In which he said- well, he was talking about the question of of immigration and open borders and where the United Nations is sort of- or the ideas of the United Nations permeating through national governments are sort of led us. So let’s have a listen to that one, John.
Video – Donald Trump: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them. In the United States, we reject the idea that mass numbers of people from foreign lands can be permitted to travel halfway around the world, trample our borders, violate our sovereignty, cause unmitigated crime and deplete our social safety net. We have reasserted that America belongs to the American people and I encourage all countries to take their own stand in defence of their citizens as well. You have to do that because I see it. I’m not mentioning names, I see it and I can call every single one of them out. You’re destroying your countries, they’re being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before. Illegal aliens are pouring into Europe. Nobody has ever- And nobody’s doing anything to change it to get them out. It’s not sustainable. And because they choose to be politically correct, they’re doing just absolutely nothing about it. And I have to say, I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor. And it’s been so changed. So changed.”
Damian Coory: Yeah, this- the idea that anybody talking about immigration is a racist or anybody suggesting that, you know, that’s got to shift it’s. And he says there, you know, we’ve got serious social problems emerging in places like London now that anybody can see, that are the result of trying of too fast, too much immigration and trying to ram cultures together that don’t really coalesce, right.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, there are a number of problems with mass migration. I’m a migrant. I was born in India, OK? My mother was in North Queensland and my dad was Welsh, so he’s a migrant as well. So we’ve got nothing against migrants. Migrants have built this country literally, especially in the early days. But we’ve used to have standards on who could come in. Now we don’t have those standards. We’re letting terrorists in and we’re condoning them, keeping them here even when they break the law. So #1 is the problem is mass migration. He called it an invasion. And so it is. And it’s a deliberate invasion and it’s orchestrated by the UN and the World World Economic Forum. So that’s the first one. That’s-
Damian Coory: I think that sounds like a “wacky conspiracy theory”, Malcolm. But the World Economic Forum is real. It’s a global think tank if you like, or meeting every year of the top 1500 corporate leaders and the top 1500 government leaders from around the world. They meet in Davos every year. They have other meetings, but that’s the main one, and agendas are set.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, correct
Damian Coory: Stuff is directly- it might not be, you know, Klaus Schwab in his little room with his hat. Well, it could be, but I hope it’s not. But it’s certainly a subtle, you know, there’s a subtle message that’s sent out about, you know, like the United Nations. And the reason we criticise the United Nations is because they’ve strayed from what they’re supposed to be about into this territory of, you know the sustainability goals, which are quite left wing when you look at them, right? They shouldn’t be doing that stuff. And the WEF does the same thing. “Here’s some guidelines, you might want to follow. Ooh, here’s some capital to follow those guidelines.”
Malcolm Roberts: There are two things to remember about the UN. It was created to be a vehicle for transferring wealth from we the people around the world to the globalist billionaires and the globalist corporations. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State, they’re interconnected. So that’s the first thing. And that’s been stated by many, many senior UN bureaucrats, particularly Maurice Strong. The second thing about the UN is that it’s a vehicle to put in place an unelected socialist global governance. Now, we haven’t got time to unpack that, but I can unpack that, I’ve unpacked that in writing many times. Their model for unelected socialist global governance, they’ve stated is the EU, which is a unicameral parliament where the bureaucrats do the dictating and the rest of it, the parliament, is the façade.
Damian Coory: They’re not elected. Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts: So these are actually what’s going on. The second thing is that it’s destroying our culture, mass migration, and that’s deliberate because then, when individuals- basically there are two ways of structuring, just two basic structures for society, human society, family and nation-state, and both are being destroyed deliberately by the United Nations. These are campaigns, their social, their sustainable development goals, SDG’s are just ways of getting parliaments and, and unfortunately our parliament is complying with it, passing legislation to put in place those controls. The third thing is it’s the quality of the people coming in. We used to have migrants coming into this country who immediately went to work and improved our productive capacity. We’ve got grifters coming in, terrorists coming in. We’ve got people coming in who are saying that they want to kill us. I mean, what the hell are we doing!?
Damian Coory: Yeah, its crazy.
Malcolm Roberts: And the fourth thing is multiculturalism. The the strongest nations in the world are not multicultural. They’re monoculture. They tolerate other religions, they tolerate other races, they tolerate other nationalities. But above all, they’re proud of themselves. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South Korea, China, Singapore, United States. People said in the early days, Bob Hawke did it and especially John Howard. “America is multicultural.” Rubbish. America above all, in America you are American. You’re very proud of your Polish ancestry, your Asian ancestry, your Indian ancestry, but you put them to the side because number one, you’re American. This is- what we’re doing is having our culture and our cohesion destroyed in front of our eyes. And it is deliberate because that way the nation-state falls into the background. Borders being smashed in Europe and the strong leaders like Orbán and Hungary and then the new president in Poland and others are saying :”no, we’re closed, our borders.” And that’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve got- and we’ve got to send home around 100,000 people here illegally. 100,000, and that’s just the start. We need to get into remigration, send people back to where they came from.
Damian Coory: All right, Malcolm Roberts, thank you very much.
Malcolm Roberts: Unless they’re productive.
Damian Coory: Unless they’re productive. Yeah, well, that’s a reasonable ask. Productive and peaceful and, you know, willing to integrate and assimilate to a certain extent with Australian culture. Yeah. It didn’t come out of nowhere. All right, Malcolm, thanks so much for your time. I’d love to have you back on the show and talk more. Senator Malcolm Roberts there from One Nation in QLD.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/DamianCoory.jpg?fit=1414%2C688&ssl=16881414Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-11 11:38:342025-11-11 11:38:49The Other Side Podcast
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
Australia has a Sex Discrimination Commissioner who isn’t sure what we mean by ‘biological men’ and a Race Discrimination Commissioner who refuses to attribute unprecedented levels of mass migration to the housing crisis and cost-of-living nightmare.
Both these individuals are paid roughly $400,000 + super.
At last week’s Senate Estimates I was able to question these commissioners on their recent dealings as part of my role holding the bureaucracy to account to you, the taxpayer.
What I heard in response was not only frustrating, it begs very serious questions about their standard of work.
‘What do you mean by biological males?’ – Dr Anna Cody, Sex Discrimination Commissioner
Here are some highlights from my questioning of Dr Anna Cody, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner in the context of the Giggle vs Tickle case and, more generally, the interference of sex-based protections in law through the inclusion of trans individuals.
Roberts: So, what sort of chromosomes does she [transwoman Roxanne Tickle] have – XX or XY?
Cody: I can’t answer that, Senator.
Roberts: You can’t?
Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Roberts: Wow. [headshake]
Roberts: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle vs Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Cody: What would you like me to explain, sorry Senator?
Roberts: What your position is.
Cody: On which issue?
Roberts: The position on biological males in female spaces – could you please explain the Human Rights Commission – your position on that?
Cody: What do you mean by biological males, Senator?
Roberts: Can someone who was born on XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes? A male change to female?
Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist.
Roberts: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex? If born a man they are a man. If they are born with XY chromosomes they’re a man and they stay a man?
Cody: No, I would not a agree.
Roberts: You don’t agree?
Cody: No.
Roberts: You talked about XX / XY you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Cody: The issue that I’m saying around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Roberts: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Born female is XX.
Cody: Not always, Senator.
Roberts: No?
Cody: No.
Roberts: Someone who was born a man – a boy – has XY chromosomes, cannot change to have XX – is that correct?
Cody: If they are born – if their chromosomes are XY then their chromosomes, I don’t believe they can change, but as I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change.
Roberts: So, you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Cody: Um, I’m not taking a side within a court case, our role is as amicus so that is to provide a clarification – help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Roberts: So, how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Cody: The – the – what – I – I – understand the law, what I don’t understand is the science around the XX / XY unless the evidence is before the court.
Astonishing! This is reminiscent of the Department of Health taking on ‘notice’ the definition of a woman.
The situation was not much better with the Race Discrimination Commissioner, Giridharan Sivaraman. Previously the former Chair of Multicultural Australia and Member of the Queensland Multicultural Advisory Council, he seemed particularly reluctant to address the economic, social, and cultural impact of mass migration.
Roberts: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?
Sivaraman: In of itself? It doesn’t have to be. No. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.
Roberts: Okay, thank you. Mr Sivaraman, there are currently 4 million people in this country – our country – who aren’t Australian citizens – are not Australian citizens – taking up beds while Australians are homeless. Record homelessness – after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived. That’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospitals, dams, transport, and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?
Sivaraman: Um, Senator, I think the first issue is to simply to – connect – in a very linear way migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve-
Roberts: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?
Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to like housing, the cost of living – are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with. And it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, Senator, and I think that can be problematic.
Roberts: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants when I am one, and can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?
Sivaraman: Because it is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems.
Roberts: I didn’t say there was only one cause – it’s just a significant factor.
Sivaraman: Even that in itself is a simplification, Senator, that it could be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.
In both cases, the commissioners reject simplicity.
The biological norms which underpin human gender are simple. ‘Progressive politics’ is the first movement in history to regress ideologically to such a point that it struggles with the definition of men and women. This self-inflicted ‘confusion’ has jeopardised the protection of women, made a mockery of women’s sport, and a laughing stock out of what was once the greatest civilisation on Earth.
Australia’s first female Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has a lot to answer for on this topic. After all, it was under her watch that the amendments were made to the Act. Consider the irony of a female leader making Australia less safe for women.
Meanwhile, the undeniable reality of mass migration is a simple mathematical principle that creates a complex forest of problems downstream of the initial mistake. These additional issues are being used to talk-around the primary cause even though the average Aussie on the street has a clear view of what went wrong. Ask them. They know.
I have found that simplicity is often rejected because it allows us to identify the policy error at the heart of these tragedies befalling Australian society.
If we know which policy is causing the problem, we know who wrote it, who voted for it, and how to fix it.
In these cases, we have sex discrimination policies that have been erroneously modified to remove accurate biological qualifications of sex to suit the trending ideological movement of the day, rather than upholding the protection of biologically segregated spaces – as was their intention.
For migration, the problem is the Big Australia Ponzi scheme being run by Labor (and the Coalition in the past) to cook the economic books and obscure the per capita backwards economic trend taking place. Doing so would mean admitting that migrants are being used to prop up political parties, bureaucratic structures, and the interests of developers while the immediate needs and rights of Australian citizens are torn to shreds.
Yes, we can still ask questions about these topics – but the quality of the answers we receive speaks volumes about the ingrained nature of the bureaucratic double-speak quagmire we need to dismantle before real change can be made.
Questioning the commissioners by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Putting biological reality and mass migration under scrutiny
UK Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, doesn’t know Anthony Albanese particularly well. It was clear from the outset, despite their embraces on stage.
Opening his Renew Britain speech, Starmer confused the room by saying the Australian Labor Party won ‘a landslide victory earlier this Summer’.
The fact-check: Albanese attracted one of the lowest primary votes in recorded history during an Autumn election.
‘A key part is standing up to the divisive politics of the Right…’
Starmer’s complaint about division loosely translates as ‘anything that divides public opinion from government policy’.
Leaders frightened of public opinion are redefining debate as divisive. If the ghost of Churchill so-much as side-eyes Starmer, he wraps himself in the Online Safety Act like an infant dragging its blanket around.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Screenshot-2025-10-01-100329.jpg?fit=824%2C736&ssl=1736824Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-10-01 10:26:592025-10-01 10:27:02What are they Plotting this Time?
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
Australian banks are the world’s most profitable, raking in $30bn in profits last year. Much of this was sent overseas to their foreign shareholders, including the usual suspects – Blackrock, First State, and Vanguard. In total, Australian banks paid $27 billion in dividends, of which 26% or around $7 billion was sent to foreign-owned corporations.
Every dollar which goes overseas in dividends is a dollar Australia never sees again, reducing our GDP and making us all poorer.
In this Parliament, One Nation will introduce legislation to create an Australian People’s Bank, with 100% Australian ownership and a Banking Code of Practice which gives customers rights and protections that have been removed from the code being used by Australian banks.
Rural and Regional customers will benefit the most, with many Australian towns no longer having a single bank branch.
Banking greed, dishonesty, and profiteering is something I have been working on since coming into the Senate in 2016.
In 2017 One Nation were successful in creating a Select Committee on Lending to Primary Production Customers. It was obvious to the Senate the banks were screwing over the bush.
Specific issues raised by the Inquiry have been substantially addressed although remediation has not occurred. The big banks are behaving more responsibly in their lending practices as a result of this Inquiry and the Royal Commission that followed.
While lending practices have improved, the banks have turned to other schemes to make their excessive profits.
One area of great concern, one which will be corrected by a People’s Bank, is the closing of bank branches, forcing customers online.
In the last 10 years 2,500 bank branches have closed
I have written about the effect this has before. Today there is a new scam I want to alert you to. I thank the fearless journalist Dale Webster for her work on this topic: link to her article titled “Burning Down the House”.
The culprit this time is the Bendigo and Adelaide Bank, Australia’s fifth largest bank.
Bendigo are refusing to give home loans to any town or region which hosts a mine. This includes any mine, no matter the purpose – gold, coal, iron ore, bauxite, rare earths needed for the technology – everything.
Yes, the Bendigo Bank is black-banning towns where the very materials are mined that are used to make the computers that run their bank. What folly.
Anyone applying online for a loan to buy property in a mining area is immediately denied. Home lending in all of Queensland’s mining regions – from coal, oil and gas to opal mining – is knocked back by Bendigo Bank. Yes, even opals.
Distinct areas separated from others by favoured postcodes include Moura (4718) in the Bowen Basin coalfield, home to the Dawson Coal Mine, Mount Isa (4825), site of one of Australia’s largest copper and zinc mining complexes, and the world-renowned opal fields surrounding Quilpie and Longreach.
Coal centres Moranbah, Dysart, Clermont, Emerald, and Blackwater are no home-loan zones, as is the Roma-Miles-Dalby district, the site of Australia’s first oil and gas discoveries. Weipa, built by Rio Tinto to house bauxite mine workers in Far North Queensland, gets an instant knockback as does Tieri, built to house coal workers north of Emerald.
In the course of this investigation, more than 1,000 locations across Australia have been run through Bendigo Bank’s online loan process to verify whether this is truly a mining blacklist or if these postcodes are part of a bigger cohort focusing on general risk.
The Australian Taxation Office’s 10 lowest earning suburbs in every state and territory for 2021-22 were reviewed. The top 100 riskiest suburbs to purchase housing in for 2024 according to Realestate.com were reviewed. Climate Valuation’s top 30 suburbs by ‘number of high-risk properties from all climate change hazards by 2030’ were reviewed. All were approved.
Bendigo Bank will lend for housing in the poorest, riskiest, and most isolated places in Australia rather than a mining area.
This is not about risk, this is about social engineering.
Bendigo and Adelaide bank are publicly-listed Australian companies. They have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders to act in their best interests, not indulge their own prejudices.
As Dale points out, the embarrassing thing is that Bendigo, the city from which Bendigo Bank takes its name and where it has its head office, was built on gold mining.
If people cannot finance their home purchases these towns will die. This is a deliberate and possibly criminal attempt by the Bendigo Bank to destroy mining in Australia by destroying the towns that support the mines.
Once an area loses housing credits and mortgages the bank in that area can be closed, using the lie that there is no longer the demand for the branch. The truth is the banks are creating the lack of demand by withdrawing key banking services and engineering the closure.
Do you hear a peep out of the leadership of the Nationals or the Liberals about this? No of course not.
Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Nationals Leader David Littleproud take their orders form the same predatory merchant banks that Bendigo Bank does. The Liberals, in particular, have overseen this destruction of retail banking in Australia since the time of Prime Minister Howard.
Only One Nation will fix this profiteering and control agenda by creating a People’s Bank.
Mining towns debanked by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Bendigo and Adelaide Bank deny home loans to mining communities
2GB Radio Interview with Ben Fordham: Our flag is a symbol of national pride, unity, and identity. Burning it is not protest — it’s desecration. Like Trump, I believe there must be serious consequences.
Transcript
Ben Fordham: The US president has just signed an executive order which makes it a criminal offence. Donald Trump has told reporters if you burn our flag, you get one year in gaol, no early exits, no nothing. And there’s a similar push happening here in Australia. Pauline Hanson wants to criminalise the burning of the flag. The One Nation leader has launched a petition calling for laws to be introduced to protect our national flag. Malcolm Roberts, the One Nation Senator from Queensland, is on the line right now. Malcolm, good morning to you.
Senator Roberts: Good morning, Ben. It’s nice to hear you being so cheery.
Ben Fordham: Yeah, well, there’s no other way to do it, mate, at this time of the morning. So let me kick off first of all, with Donald Trump. I think this will be a popular move. I mean, regardless of what you think of any politician, people are very protective when it comes to their country and their flag.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s wonderful to see the protests coming on the weekend, you know, because people in Australia can feel or sense something slipping away, mate. There’s a national identity that’s deteriorating and that’s linked to personal ID – personal identity – and Australia has an identity crisis and similar in America, and the globalists have pushed this agenda that’s destroying national boundaries, national sense of pride and Pauline can see that and I can see that, and what we need to do is restore what it means to be Australian.
Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting should happen to someone who desecrates the Australian flag?
Senator Roberts: Well, that’s a matter for the parliament. I haven’t done too much thinking of that. But there be serious punishment. It should be a breach of the law and punishable, you know, and Donald Trump’s gone for a year in gaol. Why can’t we do that?
Ben Fordham: 30,000 people have signed the petitions so far, and we’ve seen some of these incidents recently and in the past when you have a protest and then someone thinks – I know what I’ll do, I’ll pull out the Australian flag and then start lighting it on fire, and always Australians are very defensive when it comes to that, so that would outlaw such a practise.
Senator Roberts: Well, you know, I’m delighted to see Australians taking back our country. I understand and I can empathise very much with people’s frustration and annoyance and anger. The government surrenders. It won’t stand up for Australia, it won’t stand up for Australians, it won’t stand up for a flag. Australians witnessing every protest on Palestine and other protests, with hundreds of people carrying foreign flags and taking homes from us Aussies. They see the Hamas flag, which is banned – it’s a terrorist flag – they can see that being hauled along and nothing done. And yet people have frowned upon if they carry an Aussie flag. It’s crazy. You know, a nation is not just a shoreline – we’re an island nation – but it’s not just the dirt that we’ve got here, it’s the sense of culture, national spirit – it’s the glue. You know, you can’t touch it, but you can feel it and you can’t see it, but you can feel it. It’s the glue that gives people cohesion and the culture is very, very important and people know that one of our – well it’s the most important thing in any organisation, whether it’s a football club, Ben, or sporting club or nation or a corporation or a business, the culture is what’s so important. It’s vital for productivity, security, on safety and people can sense it slipping away and the government’s a part of that – the cause of that. So people are standing up and they want action.
Ben Fordham: You mentioned the August 31 protests. They’ll be happening this Sunday and there’ll be lots of Aussie flags out for that. And very important Malcolm Roberts, that everyone keeps a cool head this weekend when they’re at those demonstrations.
Senator Roberts: Absolutely, Ben. And what happens at some of these protests in the major capital cities is that people come along – plants from the left wing – and they come along and pretend to be Nazis and stir things up and then the protesters are given the blame. It’s actually very, very important that people be cool, be calm and just step for Australia and our flag and our nation. That’s all we need to do and just behave peacefully.
Ben Fordham: We appreciate your time. Thanks for jumping on the line.
Senator Roberts: You’re welcome, Ben. Keep going.
Ben Fordham: Good on you. Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
Thousands of proud Australians have now signed the petition to ban burning of our flag. Burning our flag isn’t free speech—it’s anti-Australian. Respect our flag. Respect our country.
I joined 2SM Radio to discuss a serious breach of Australia’s visa system – 23,000 international students have obtained fraudulent qualifications.
This widespread abuse undermines the integrity of our education sector, accelerates unsustainable immigration, and places additional strain on housing, wages, and public infrastructure.
The Albanese Government must take decisive action and should include deportations and full accountability from this government.
