Australia faces a serious crime problem. Many Australians believe our crime rate is low compared with countries like the United States, yet sadly that myth stems from misunderstanding statistics about how crime is measured.
Media coverage reinforces the myth and the real questions are why that misunderstanding persists and what can be done about it.
Consider a simple example. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that only about 19 per cent of rapes and sexual assaults are reported to police, while in the United States about 45 per cent are reported. Obviously, simply comparing reported crimes therefore dramatically understates the extent of the problem in Australia.
Both countries try to address this gap using large-scale surveys that estimate total crime, not just crimes reported to police. The Australian Bureau of Statistics runs such a survey annually. In the United States, the Bureau of Justice Statistics conducts the National Crime Victimisation Survey, which surveys about 240,000 people each year.
When we compare these broader estimates, Australia’s rape and sexual assault rate is roughly three times higher than that of the United States. Australia’s assault rate is about twice as high, and its burglary rate is about 2.5 times higher. Robbery is the only category where the two countries report similar rates.
Whether people report crimes depends a lot on whether people think the criminals will be caught and punished.
Although, key methodological differences still affect these comparisons. Australian data count the proportion of people or households victimised at least once during the year, while US data count the total number of crimes. If someone in Australia is robbed twice in a year, the survey records only one victimisation. In the US, the survey counts two. This difference means the figures still understate how much higher Australia’s crime rates may be.
Image: Pexels
Earlier international comparisons reinforce this pattern. The International Crime Victimisation Survey used consistent definitions and methods across countries. Even in 2000, it found Australia’s violent crime rate (including robbery, sexual incidents, assaults, and threats) was 104 per cent higher than in the United States. Robbery was 150 per cent higher, sexual assaults 167.9 per cent higher, and assaults and threats 72.3 per cent higher.
Australia is clearly safer in one area: homicide.
Latest data show Australia’s homicide rate at about 2 per 100,000 people in 2024, compared with roughly 4 per 100,000 in the United States in 2025. But homicides make up a tiny share of overall violent crime – less than 0.1 per cent in Australia and about 0.3 per cent in the United States – so they do not reflect most people’s risk of victimisation.
In the United States, murders concentrate heavily in very small geographic areas. Just 2 per cent of counties account for about 56 per cent of all murders, and within those counties, roughly two-thirds of killings occur within areas spanning about ten city blocks. Gangs drive most of these murders, and about 90 per cent of offenders already have prior violent criminal records.
In contrast, 52 per cent of counties report zero murders, and another 15 per cent report just one.
Reducing crime is straightforward: policymakers must raise the risks criminals face. Three ways that can be done are to increase arrest and conviction rates, to lengthen prison sentences and to allow victims to defend themselves.
Yet the Australian Bureau of Statistics does not collect data on arrest or conviction rates for specific crime types. This glaring omission prevents direct comparisons with the United States.
Another major difference separates the two countries. In practice, Australians cannot use guns for self-defence. In the United States, in contrast, people use guns defensively far more often – roughly five times more frequently to stop crimes than criminals use guns to commit them.
Those who benefit most from owning guns are often the most vulnerable – people who are physically weaker, such as women and the elderly, and those who face the highest risks of violent crime. In the United States, that risk falls disproportionately on poorer Black residents in high-crime urban areas.
The National Crime Victimisation Survey provides detailed breakdowns that highlight these patterns, unlike the more limited data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. In most cases, a man commits the crime, and when a man attacks a woman, the strength disparity is typically greater than when a man attacks another man. A firearm can significantly offset that imbalance and increase a woman’s ability to defend herself.
Additionally, research shows that women who respond passively face much higher risks. Women who do not resist are about 2.4 times more likely to suffer serious injury than those who defend themselves with a gun.
The issue goes beyond guns. Outside of Western Australia, Australian law prohibits people from carrying pepper spray or mace for protection. It also bars individuals from carrying knives for self-defence – and in any case, knives offer limited help to women, since using one requires close contact, where a male attacker can more easily overpower them.
Australians cannot address crime effectively if they underestimate its scale or ignore how measurement differences distort comparisons. Policymakers should focus on raising the risks to criminals – through higher arrest and conviction rates – and on giving law-abiding citizens more ability to protect themselves.
Until Australia confronts these realities, it will continue to misdiagnose the problem and fall short on solutions. Australian lives will continue to be endangered more so than in the USA.
Australian and American data point to the solution needed to reduce Australian crime rates and improve Australians’ safety.
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr. is an economist and a world-recognised expert on crime. He is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center in the United States. During the Trump administration, he served as the Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics in the Office of Justice Programs and then the Office of Legal Policy in the US Department of Justice. Lott has held research or teaching positions at various academic institutions, including the University of Chicago, Yale University, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, UCLA, and Rice University. He was the chief economist at the United States Sentencing Commission during 1988-1989. He holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/06/5e6c9019-f874-4f7d-8db9-a83823f4d721_3888x2592-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=117072560Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-06-16 11:00:282026-06-16 11:00:36The Shocking Truth About Australian Crime Rates
The UN’s dire financial situation could save Australia a fortune.
The United Nations is in a state of ‘imminent financial collapse’.
Apparently.
Their decline is moving at a glacial pace. Nations are drip-feeding them cash while the UN negotiates for structural change to how they handle money. Essentially, they want to keep more of it. No thanks.
Since its establishment in 1945, justified with a view to ‘maintain international peace, security, and develop friendly relations among states’, I believe the project has become an expensive failure that inflicts genuine harm on the world.
Far from solving the endemic social and economic problems besieging third-world nations, the presence of the UN – and its credit card – has turned misery and corruption into a sustainable industry further weaponised in the hands of powerful nations that govern themselves in contradiction to everything the UN claims to stand for.
Besides, if the goal is to gather all the nations together to ‘talk about things’ in a neutral space – they can hold a conference, like everyone else.
This is the modern world. We no longer require an Earth-sized bureaucracy to babysit dialogue.
Why is the UN in trouble?
The UN’s recent claims of economic strife come as a direct result of America protesting against its aggressive anti-capitalist, anti-democratic goals and dubious projects. In response, the US has withheld funds and exited key UN bodies.
President Donald Trump successfully sold the point to the American people that they should not pay for the comfort of those seeking the demise of the US hegemony.
That said, much like the fabricated Climate Crisis, the deadline for this UN economic disaster is poorly defined and frequently used as a donation rallying call.
Which is a shame, because the UN can’t collapse fast enough.
We may never be able to convince the ‘it’s just a piece of paper’ Coalition to pull out of the Paris Agreement or unsubscribe from the overreach of the World Health Organisation. If it were to fall apart on its own, the work would be done for us. Freedom is freedom, and we’re not about to look a gift horse in the mouth.
Still, there does seem to be some truth to the UN’s economic strife.
Everywhere you go, the global bureaucracy is shaking its charity tin next to politicians’ ears.
Unfortunately, an emotionally and morally weak Labor Party – along with a skittish Opposition – govern Australia. They are likely to reach into the pockets of Australian taxpayers to save this ideological failure that somehow dragged itself into our century.
To be clear: Australia must not save the UN.
Let it die. Let it rot.
Allow global politics to heal.
Is the UN really going bust?
Back in October of 2025, Secretary-General António Guterres penned letters to member states complaining about ‘the worst cash crisis in nearly a decade’. A month later, just over 70% of nations had coughed up their dues. The United States, which is unfairly carrying the burden of cost, owes something along the lines of $4 billion. President Donald Trump has little interest in giving them another cent. In response to the collapse of finances, the UN has threatened to shut down their headquarters in New York. Given New York is under communist occupation, it’s unlikely to bother anyone of significance.
Unfortunately, the UN still enjoys five-star travel, first-class flights, buildings occupying the most expensive real estate in European cities, and armies of bureaucrats that would make Stalin weep with envy.
This monstrosity is a long way from ‘tightening its belt’ and even further from dying.
It is sending out desperate cries for help to keep the status quo rather than presenting its financers – us – with a slimmed-down program of essential services. At no point has it tried to show us where genuine benefit can be found or assessed itself for situations where it poured a fortune of money into a situation only to make it worse. Despot nations don’t stop their genocides because the UN frowns in their direction. Indeed, we have seen crimes against humanity rewarded with some of the highest positions of power.
Hillel Neuer, Executive Director of UN Watch, told Fox News Digital, ‘The UN elected Beijing’s and Tehran’s loyal agents as “human rights experts” – without a ballot, without shame. These regimes persecute minorities, jail anyone who speaks freely, and rule through fear and censorship. The committee that once drafted the UN’s anti-racism convention has now been captured by those who embody racism, repression, and the silencing of truth. It’s an inversion of human rights – and a stain on the United Nations itself.’
And more to the point, the UN does not believe it did anything wrong. This isn’t even its first moral catastrophe.
Do we need the UN?
If we are going to be completely honest, Australia and all of its Western allies would be significantly better off if the UN were to collapse completely.
Economically, socially, democratically, regionally, militarily – we stand to benefit.
Not only is the UN an expense, it has allowed third-world, communist, and despotic states to band together under the protection of a few like-minded states to wield very real global power they never would have achieved on their own.
Why does Hamas have influence on the streets of Sydney? It is absurd. And yet the thread of causality can be followed straight to the UN’s mass migration demand that forced nations like Australia to open its borders to individuals whose views and loyalty remain seated in foreign regimes that, in their free time, chant ‘death to the West’. And we can’t send them back, even if they swear allegiance to international terror groups or threaten to behead Australians in broad daylight. Far from repenting and offering to help Australia regain control of its national security, the UN actively restricts and obstructs our democratic efforts to protect innocent Australians. This is not okay.
UN rulings, policies, and programs have directly disadvantaged Australia, and we have no ability to stop them.
And contrary to what Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said in his recent pitch to place Australia on the UN Security Council, Australia has never had less influence as a middle power.
The organisation designed to hold world peace by stopping the influence of socialists, communists, fascists, and criminals has become a proxy for their goals.
China’s complex debt-trapping across the third-world, and other networks of influence, leave many of these nations voting as obedient blocs or the West’s most dangerous economic and cultural advisories. Meanwhile, members of other international alliances – Shanghai Cooperation Organisation etc – have already sworn to defy UN rulings. As some of their members hold veto power at the UN, these orbiting structures that circle the UN override its decisions without anyone noticing.
For example, if a nation decides slavery or child marriage is acceptable in defiance of the UN, the veto nation prevents the UN from acting against it. In return, that nation – almost always despotic – promises the votes and support of nations in other alliances. It’s like a disease holding the world’s tyrannies together that no one wants to talk about because they’re frightened Western power will evaporate if the curtain is pulled away.
Donald Trump has effectively asked why the West pays roughly 80% of the UN’s operational costs for the privilege of losing its strategic grip?
Have human rights advanced as a result of the UN – or does the organisation stand around and watch the Caliphate of Islamic terror creeping through African nations where Christians are tortured and executed?
It is not controversial to say that human rights are declining.
Part of the problem is that the UN spend all their time ‘monitoring’ like they ‘monitored’ the Rwanda genocide. Like they would monitor an attack on Australia or Taiwan. Always monitoring. The UN presents themselves as powerless, passive observers after tugging on all the strings.
When the fluffy language of ‘peace, nature, and aid’ are stripped back to the cold mechanics of the UN, it becomes a despotic, wasteful, dangerous, and bloated machine housing our rivals who watch our collapse while drinking champagne we paid for.
Australia receives no benefit from its membership – only punishment.
And if it were to collapse, every Western ally would find their hold over world power significantly strengthened. Trade, culture, and the threads of the Enlightenment would once again form the spine of power. Influence would hold on its merits, not shadowy backroom handshakes.
As for the money… It is difficult to feel sorry for the UN.
It has not occurred to the UN that the member states it’s trying to fleece might have more money for their bureaucracy if the UN hadn’t forced first-world countries into trillions of dollars of ‘climate expenditure’ which has eaten away their treasuries.
You can have Net Zero or a gravy train. Not both. And the UN might end up being a casualty of its own greedy policies.
Indeed, Trump coyly shrugged, indicating he didn’t know the US had slipped behind on its payments … then questioned if other nations could solve the problem ‘very quickly’ via paying their share. It is the same lesson he dished out to Nato.
It was then that the US Secretary of State, Macro Rubio, cocked an eyebrow and asked, ‘What is the purpose of the UN?’ Bewildered journalists stared back dumbly.
‘The UN is supposed to be a place where you can peaceably resolve global conflict … right now you have [Iran] who unlawfully, criminally, and illegally taking possession of an international waterway.’
Looks like the US might want something tangible for the tens of billions they’ve poured into the UN over the years.
Donald Trump was far harsher a year or so ago when he spoke from their own podium:
‘Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should – too often – it is actually creating new problems for us to solve. The best example is the number one political issue of our time: the crisis of uncontrolled migration. It’s uncontrolled. Your countries are being ruined. The United Nations is funding an assault on Western countries and their borders.’
And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.
The US has since withdrawn from 31 UN agencies to ‘end American taxpayer funding and involvement in entities that advance globalist agendas over US priorities’.
Australian politicians are still begging at the door, trying to get in.
Something tells me Trump will watch the financial collapse of the UN with a smile and it may go down in history as one of his greatest victories over the undemocratic institutions that have manipulated, impoverished, and damaged Western nations.
They have created a class war between nations and a true global ‘democracy’ free to oppress without the safeguards of a constitution, bill of rights, or benevolent monarch. The UN is merely one of many national ‘collectives’ of negotiating blocs where individual leaders, who often came to power without real elections, shape the future of a world where no citizen has a say over the direction of global politics. In short, terrifying.
What does the UN cost the nations of the world?
Its core bureaucracy operates on a (slimmed down) budget of $3.5 billion while ‘everything with a UN tag on it across the world’ sits between $66-75 billion depending on the year. This is an estimate. The true cost is largely unknown.
Then there is the other question … what costs did the UN’s existence create to domestic budgets?
Those are costs so terrifying and vast, they have settled around Australia like a heavy sea fog clinging to the coast. Since 1950, AI estimates the UN has cost global budgets $150 trillion in UN-inspired projects or direct funds. How much of this money benefitted the taxpayers who had it taken from them? I would go so far as to say the UN is the chief culprit in Australia’s present state of economic anguish. It is certainly the reason our business landscape was torn apart during Covid hysteria and our rainforests are being blown up for wind turbines and solar panels.
Generations of Prime Ministers were either scammed, pressured, enticed, lured, or tricked into adopting UN policy goals that have thoroughly screwed Australia.
Worse? They’re not even sorry about it.
Too many of these political leaders continue to protect the UN as some international moral touchstone and would throw money at its collapsing infrastructure knowing full well that cash forms a slush fund for despots, dictators, and terrorists in the third-world.
As we speak, Western money – in the billions – is being poured into Islamic terror states or regions under occupation. Afghanistan, under control of the Taliban, not only receives humanitarian aid while it abuses women and girls with ever more disgusting policies, Azerbaijan invited a Taliban contingent to COP26, COP27, COP28, and COP29 to hunt around for hundreds of millions in ‘climate finance’. In Gaza, UN-branded aid workers were confirmed as either taking part or assisting in hostage-taking and terror activities while unknown amounts of aid either kept terrorists alive or helped furnish their armouries. Yemen, Syria, and Iran all have similar problems with 80-90% of aid hitting the bank accounts of terrorists.
These regimes are effectively farming their own people for poverty to cash in on Western aid. They have no incentive to fix their countries. Indeed, the UN actively encourages them to make the situation worse.
Politicians with an ideological commitment to multilateralism wrap the UN in virtue to protect a narrative of global governance that is just as fake and cynical as the climate apocalypse.
They will stand before voters and preach ‘world peace’ while money they donate from the Treasury lines some violent thug’s palace with gold and our own citizens sleep on the street.
Australian taxpayers subsidise foreign terrorists while hosting Royal Commissions into terrorist acts that are themselves prevented from reaching the truth by the UN ‘social cohesion’ guidelines that ensure people remain peaceful while they are picked off by ‘lone wolves’ with ‘no motive’. Many of these politicians expect to exit politics and personally benefit from the UN platter of job offers. Protecting the UN is in personal interest – a paddock where politicians graze for a few years to fatten their bank balances.
The hypocrisy of the UN goes on… At the height of the ‘climate panic’, reports released showed UN officials spending tens of millions flying around the world first class while staying in five-star hotels. Employees and bureaucrats were living the high life on money that was meant to be spent on ‘world peace’.
In 2017, it was even reported that World Health Organisation staff broke the rules with their combined travel costs exceeding some of their disease budgets. In another corner of the UN, one former head spent half a million on travel.
As always, the people most concerned about the ‘climate crisis’ are least concerned about their so-called ‘carbon footprint’. It’s no wonder no one says anything about the superyachts or private jets arriving for conferences. This behaviour has been normalised.
When the UN Secretary-General says, ‘We simply must find a lasting solution for recurring liquidity problems!’
My reply would be: ‘Shut it down – forever. Problem solved.’
How government greed turned citizens into criminals …
As a government, if you wish to stop a destructive public behaviour – you punish it. This can be through fines, incarceration, or economic coercion (taxes).
If you want to turn a public behaviour into a permanent cash-cow that props up the Budget – you tax it carefully.
Somehow, uniparty greed has found a way to implement a ‘worst of both worlds’ policy surrounding tobacco and nicotine products which has turned smoking into a criminal underworld gold mine.
Between 2010 and 2026, tobacco excise has increased in the order of 490% and returned half the revenue in real terms. People didn’t quit. If anything, there is evidence of Australia’s 30-year trend of decreasing smoking being reversed.
After reaching its lowest level with Millennials, smoking has become ‘cool’ again for Gen Z and Gen Alpha. Excessive taxation has destroyed all the good public health work done in this field.
Economically, this is not only a concern for the estimated $11 billion lost excise tax for tobacco.
It also involves the loss of general revenue associated with the full cost of tobacco which previously paid wages, kept stores open, and was re-invested in local communities.
Tens of billions is now being given to the black market where it funds violent crime. This tears apart Australian suburbs and has a follow-on health and economic impact that lowers the quality of life for everyone, not only those directly involved in illegal tobacco. Everything from personal safety to house prices are being affected.
Police have warned that this money, often funneled into crypto, has also been used to expand drug trafficking, firearms offences, worker exploitations, and property damage through activities such as coordinated firebombing.
Worse, if that is possible, the quality and safety of illegal tobacco and vapes is a matter of acute concern. Australians are now exposed to a considerably more dangerous product that was once strictly regulated for safety. And it’s dirt cheap. We are hearing reports of those who gave up smoking previously falling back into the habit because it’s only $10… As for kids, how likely is it that illegal traders are checking them for ID?
Every single feature of the system has been undermined.
It’s clear to me that public health, citizen choice, and the Treasury are in conflict.
And yet they should share the goal of a profitable, legal, regulated industry.
Our current incoherent approach to nicotine products is often referred to as ‘thoroughly broken’ by those trying to petition the government to act.
As Professor Ron Borland said, ‘We are worse off in every conceivable way.’
Tobacco isn’t quite Australia’s re-run of American Prohibition. However, it does share similarities. As with Prohibition, the first question we have to answer is: Should smoking tobacco (and other nicotine products) be legal?
Like alcohol, if the answer is ‘yes’, then any civil penalty or pseudo ban (vaping doctor certificates), should be discontinued.
The second question is: Do we consider smoking tobacco a health risk that costs the state money and which the state actively seeks to discontinue in the long-term?
If ‘yes’ – and this is what we were told for decades through school programs and public advertising campaigns – then the government cannot expect to use taxation on tobacco as a permanent feature in their Budget spreadsheet.
As Clive Bates said, ‘If you push it too hard – the taxes are too regressive, too brutal – then people will defect from the system and they will move to illicit trade and illicit suppliers will come in because there are enormous economic gains to be made.’
The Treasurer must have a replacement plan for tobacco revenue that does not entail continuously raising excise to the point criminals take over distribution.
Experts have suggested alternatives, such as using public information campaigns and alternate products, to wean society off tobacco long-term rather than smacking Australians with tax hikes on an addiction exasperated by economic stress.
To that point, there may never come a time when tobacco and nicotine products exit public use.
As with alcohol, they require a legally and economically stable environment that protects as many people as possible, dissuades new users, and yet does not create opportunities for crime. The most effective measure so far involved banning smoking from bars, clubs, restaurants, and residential balconies which turned it into a social inconvenience rather than a cost burden.
And here sits the heart of the problem.
Tobacco was a huge part of society until earlier suspicions of health risks were confirmed in the 1960s. Community anger and government complicity in a public health catastrophe created a lot of guilt and revenge.
Those days are almost gone. People who choose to smoke today do so knowing the risks and great lengths have been taken to contain those risks to the individual smoker. And so the conversation becomes one about public health costs similar to obesity. How is it fair, it’s said, that the public pay for the self-inflicted health problems of smokers? The numbers strongly suggest that this was never the case. Revenue on tobacco is widely held to cover the health bill. Until now.
The situation today reveals a growing smoking population with a more dangerous product and decreased revenue that doesn’t cover the cost of health, let alone the huge cost of policing the illicit trade. Economic arguments for the current excise level do not hold up to reality.
Scroll through the crime releases…
Permanent surveillance and enforcement on hundreds of tobacco shops. Thousands of online ad takedown orders. Monitoring nation-wide criminal distribution networks. Raiding shipping deliveries. Prosecuting and incarcerating those responsible. Storing and destroying the product. It’s an open-ended revenue drain. And then you have to include illegal vapes, of which the market is in the billions.
If you’re wondering how much policing this costs, the answer is, ‘we don’t know’. No full-cost figure is published. It’s estimated in the hundreds of millions just for policing itself at a state and federal level, while the government admits to investing approximately $350 million specifically for the ‘fight against illicit tobacco and vapes’.
Whatever the number is, it came out of your pocket.
The Australian Federal Police reported that 2.66 billion illegal cigarettes, 510 tonnes of loose-leaf tobacco, and 7.5 million vapes have been seized since 2016. Operation PRINTWALL saw the Australian Border Force intercept 998.5 tonnes of tobacco.
Just this year 20 million illegal vapes worth $1 billion were seized by the Australian Border Force since 2024. The Therapeutic Goods Administration removed another 2.2 million valued at $110.5 million in the same period. They also reported a 300-fold increase in requests to remove online ads for illegal vaping products.
These are not victories so much as temperature readings offering a glimpse at a thriving market.
We must sit down and soberly confront the truth.
Government informs the public that tobacco costs the taxpayer money through the healthcare system, and yet it desperately wants Australians to keep buying tobacco and funding the Treasury. When vapes entered the market, and people began to organically switch products due to health, convenience, and cost – government all-but banned the product. A cynic may say this had little to do with health and a lot to do with an absence of lucrative excise tax. The Treasury saw tobacco revenue evaporating and instead of taking the public health victory – they panicked. This raises serious questions about the government’s motives and ability to solve the current problem.
Listening at length to experts in the industry, it seems clear that we require a carefully timed approach.
The legal market must be restored before law enforcement can come down on the black market.
To do this in the wrong order risks wasting money and encouraging citizens to protect a criminal underworld to facilitate their smoking habit. This would entrench the behaviour we’re trying to resolve. As one expert said, in some communities, illegal tobacco sellers have reached a ‘Robin Hood’ status actively supported by locals. A path back to legal markets must be seamless as it would in any competitive business environment.
The suggestions that I have heard from a variety of people from within the industry include:
Setting the tobacco excise at a level that keeps cigarettes competitive against black market alternatives.
Removing the ban on vapes and adding the same location restrictions as smoking.
Considering an excise on vapes to recoup some lost revenue.
Ensuring that the tobacco and vape products on offer include a wide variety to ensure maximum customer return from the black market to legal channel.
And then…
Severe and serious penalties for black market traders and the criminal gangs involved.
Mandatory sentencing to simplify the process of cleaning up crime.
Reporting channels to allow people to alert police to continued criminal activity.
And as I have said publicly in front of the Panel of Harm Reduction Experts at the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, the solution will not be simple.
The cost of living is very high and will naturally lead otherwise law-abiding citizens toward illicit markets – in general. They don’t want to break the law. Any solution must deal with lifestyle measures right across our economy.
People are suffering and nicotine products are part of their lives.
All measures must be enacted with a least-harm approach to Australians who were pushed toward the black market due to government-enforced economic pressures.
And we absolutely must support the legal businesses who wish to help rebuild the market – this will include protecting these shops and owners from crime gangs. For example, insurers say it has become almost impossible to find cover for tobacconists after arson attacks…
Once the legal and government approach is fixed – the criminal infrastructure will have to be dismantled – rapidly – or it will adopt a new product such as alcohol – which is experiencing an almost identical problem.
Make no mistake, excessive alcohol excise has already started to push people toward extremely dangerous black market product. This is even more concerning than illegal tobacco.
No one can solve a public health problem for a product owned and distributed by the criminal underworld.
No, Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan, it is not just ‘a piece of paper’.
We’ve heard it before. A cataclysmic policy or international agreement disguised as performative, symbolic, or ‘a piece of paper’.
Anthony Albanese used this underhanded trick during the Voice to Parliament when he claimed the Uluru Statement from the Heart was ‘on an A4 bit of paper – that’s it!’ as if the Prime Minister had somehow forgotten the legislative burden of a parallel race-based Parliament and its entourage of discriminatory instructions, untold billions of cost, and the destruction of ‘equal citizenship’ – forever. To call it ‘a bit of paper’ was a lie.
This point does not need to be laboured. State-based Treaties enacted in defiance of the referendum result have demonstrated the true civic and economic cost.
Which brings us to an even more egregious violation of the truth – this time from the Coalition’s leadership team of Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan.
On a special episode of Sky News Australia, Taylor was asked by a voter (Brett) why the Coalition doesn’t get out of the Paris Agreement if they are serious about ending the Net Zero agenda.
‘We will get rid of Net Zero – we are not proposing to get out of the Paris Agreement because, frankly, it’s not going to change anything we do.’
When One Nation National Executive Director Lee Hanson asked Nationals Leader Matt Canavan to ‘please explain’, he said:
‘Net Zero is not in the Paris Agreement at all. We signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015. Net Zero didn’t come along until years later … it’s just a piece of paper.’
Significantly worse, when pressed again by Andrew Bolt, Canavan added:
‘We don’t have time for side quests … we don’t have time for symbolic gestures … keep in mind, it’s very important to make the point that Net Zero is not enshrined in the Paris Agreement.’
Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible … so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century…
There are slight variations in wording, so let us look at the definition of ‘Net Zero’ as laid out in the IPCC glossary:
Unless Taylor and Canavan wish to challenge the IPCC and our international partners on the definition of Net Zero, let us put to rest the misleading idea that it does not appear in the Paris Agreement.
It does.
According to Onassis, Farhana Yamin is credited with ‘getting the goal of Net Zero emissions by 2050 into the 2015 Paris Agreement’ and was a key IPCC architect. She later joined Extinction Rebellion. Even Wikipedia says, ‘Net Zero was basic to the goals of the Paris Agreement’ with the IPCC’s follow-up to Paris, the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5*C, popularising Net Zero as a short-hand for the phrase already used in the original document.
This is not in dispute by anyone except, perhaps, the Coalition, who are afraid that admitting the Paris Agreement’s role in tying Australia to Net Zero weakens their political chances against One Nation.
As Canavan rightly said on First Edition eight months ago, ‘I think we should sort this issue out – that would be ideal. I think we should have a debate in the joint party room about our position on Net Zero emissions. The Liberal and National party room has never debated Net Zero emissions despite it being perhaps the most radical socialist plan ever envisioned for the Australian economy.’
If they wish to be honest with the Australian people, whose trust they are attempting to rebuild, they might try admitting that the Paris Agreement exists to codify and coerce the global acceptance of Net Zero into domestic legislation.
And that is exactly what Australia has done, at huge cost to the taxpayer, mostly under the watch of the Coalition, and with Angus Taylor in his former role of Energy Minister.
Far from being ‘symbolic’ or ‘just a piece of paper’, its reach extends so deep into our Treasury and economic system that the Coalition simply lacks the moral fortitude and political ability to claw back control of our energy system and sovereignty.
Paris is not ‘a gesture’, it is the scaffolding that keeps a near-unknowable compliance cost hanging over the Treasury. The Coalition cannot meet its promise to end Net Zero without pulling out of Paris, and it is our opinion that they know this.
The sheer economic burden of ‘Paris’ is the largest silent line item in the Budget, and that does not include the stealth tax it takes from businesses and private citizens as a ‘green cost’ on power bills, additional requirements, or straight-out costs.
What is the Paris Agreement?
It is a legally binding international treaty on climate change adopted by 195 parties at the United Nations Climate Conference (Cop21) in Paris, 2015. According to its official webpage, it requires economic and social transformation which works on a five-year cycle of increasingly ambitious climate action carried out by countries. This includes a pledge to reduce ‘Nationally Determined Contributions’ regarding greenhouse emissions, and to report on them. Developed nations are ‘encouraged’ to – and do – provide ‘climate finance’ to developing nations. It ‘encourages’ the uptake of green technologies.
Australia then went ahead and formalised this. The Paris Agreement is responsible, directly, and continues to underpin many things, including…
The Climate Change Act 2022, which legislates reduction targets and Net Zero goals. This document holds us, legally, to the Paris Agreement’s statements. This alone includes tens of billions in climate money and references Powering Australia, Rewiring the Nation, and Household Energy Upgrade Fund along with the Powering the Regions Fund, Hydrogen Headstart Program, National Reconstruction Fund, National Electric Vehicle Strategy, Critical Minerals Strategy, APS Net Zero 2030, National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy, Disaster Ready Fund, Australia’s Strategy for Nation, Australian Carbon Credit Units, Safeguard Mechanism, Australian Sustainable Finance Strategy (Sovereign Green Bonds), Net Zero Economy Authority, and the Native Positive Plan. Net Zero Authority which was setup ‘to promote the orderly and positive economic transformation associated with achieving Net Zero emissions’ and its Net Zero Economy Agency and Advisory Board.
And then we have an extensive (but not exhaustive) list of government agencies involved with/tied to the Paris Agreement: Department of Climate Change, AEMO, Clean Energy Regulator, Clean Energy Finance Corporation, Clean Energy Innovation Fund, Australian Renewable Energy Agency, The Climate Change Authority, BOM, and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – Net Zero Agency.
A hell of a lot of ‘symbolic gestures’, I think you’d agree.
And this does not include any of the state initiatives, the reporting structures, the additional international agreements attached to Paris, or any of the small legal requirements placed upon business.
As I am certain Angus Taylor and Matt Canavan are aware, ‘pulling out of Paris’ means admitting to the extent of its influence.
This is not a piece of paper that can be torn up. Nor is our greatest concern, as Canavan suggested, ‘creating international tension’.
‘We shouldn’t just go around ripping up international agreements for no benefit to our own country … all it would do is create friction with other countries.’ – Canavan
The truth is – no one knows how much the Paris Agreement has cost this country.
There is no ledger or register, and certainly no way of assessing the loss of income and rise of costs due to the influence of Paris on our energy, infrastructure, mining, transport, agriculture, and private sectors.
The taxpayer cost since the Paris Agreement was signed sits at more than $100 billion with the total cost to the public and private sector expected to top $1 trillion by 2050.
An expensive bit of paper…
This is only an estimate assuming the industrial projects succeed. The cost blow-out of Snowy 2.0 and litany of failed or abandoned green projects (such as the Sun Cable), show how easy it is for a Budget to understate the true delivered cost.
And we should note, none of these costings include the replacement of short-lived renewable energy or the recycling/disposal cost. Both of which are assumed to be huge. Nor does it take into account the additional costs of things like … upgrading the entire continent for EV chargers and all the infrastructure that goes along with it or paying out the countless Indigenous land claims that might take place along the regional routes of energy networks.
Despite living in an acute financial crisis with Australians facing homelessness or levels of poverty not seen since their great-grandparents, the Paris Agreement – through our domestic legislation – compels us to gift billions of dollars in ‘climate aid’ to developing nations. We cannot afford this and the only reason we do it is a piece of paper. Australia is giving billions of dollars to the Pacific for a climate crisis that does not exist while the same nations take money from China, the world’s largest polluter, in exchange for resources and military perks. At least Beijing gets something meaningful in return.
These foreign aid groups tied to Paris include, Pacific Climate Infrastructure Financing Partnership, REnew Pacific, Pacific Resilience Facility, Australian Humanitarian Partnership Disaster READY Program, Climate and Oceans Support Program in the Pacific, Weather Ready Pacific, Pacific Insurance and Climate Adaptation Programme, Climate Finance Access Network, Kiwa Initiative, Pacific Blue Carbon Program, Governance for Resilient Development, SPREP Core Funding, and whatever that AFL team and stadium come under…
This takes place while Australian farmers cannot secure insurance for flood or fire, are stuck with dirt roads and sub-quality energy, and cannot build something as simple as a dam or fence without excessive interference and added costs.
And yet we gift these things – and more – to other nations with the money our poor farmers give to the Treasury.
It’s easy to see why Donald Trump made pulling out of Paris a priority. The US received no punishment for doing so and has enjoyed a significant trade and economic boom since. They have already saved billions while not receiving any tariffs or sanctions. The worst you could say is they lost the prestige of ‘climate leadership’ but with the world’s worst emitter – China – crowned as a leader, who wants that title?
Why pull out of Paris? Why indeed.
‘I’m immediately withdrawing from the unfair, one-sided Paris climate accord rip-off. The United States will not sabotage our own industries while China pollutes with impunity.’ – Trump
Don’t worry. Shortly after ditching ‘Net Zero 2050’, the Coalition are now getting rid of ‘Net Zero’ entirely without unpicking any of the Net Zero infrastructure and still reporting this non-change in line with the Paris agreement.
At this point, the Coalition appear to be climate cult alcoholics, pledging to attend AA meetings to keep the voters happy and then catching up at the pub. That’s okay, because they’re in the meetings. The pub is ‘just a place’. It doesn’t mean anything. Some people don’t drink at the pub. Refusing to pull out of Paris is a failure of grand old Australian tradition of the ‘Pub Test’.
This week, we have watched the Coalition rightly mock the Prime Minister for ‘changing his position’ on tax policy within the Budget – and yet how is this different to Canavan’s statements?
On June 14, Canavan posted the result of a vote from the NSW Young National Metropolitan Branch that read:
57 Paris Agreement
That Conference call on The Nationals to advocate for the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement to: a) restore national control over emissions targets and energy policy, and; b) ensure access to affordable and reliable energy, food, and manufactured goods for the Australian people.
Canavan’s post discussed Net Zero and Paris as if they were intrinsically linked.
In a Courier Mail article where Canavan admits ‘we never conducted a full cost-benefit analysis of adopting Net Zero’ he adds ‘Trump is at least doing what he says and has pulled out of the Paris Agreement’.
In a post from 2025, Canavan said to a man who runs a food distribution company, ‘Hopefully he encourages more business people to say what they really think, including if they think we should get out of the Paris Agreement SCAM.’
Is it a piece of paper or a scam?
‘Australia should leave the Paris Agreement. Ever since we signed up to Net Zero, we have had soaring prices, skyrocketing interest rates, and witnessed most other nations completely ignoring their commitments.’
Perhaps we should finish with Canavan’s words.
‘Now that the world’s biggest economy [the US] has pulled out of the Paris Agreement, it is just common sense – and a matter of time – that everyone else does too.’ And ‘There is no reason Australia should remain in Paris when China, India, Indonesia, and now the US, are not.’
Quite so, Matt, we completely agree.
It is a shame you ‘changed your position’ after moving from a spirited backbencher to co-leader in an opposition dominated by the Liberal Moderates who have made their commitment to both Net Zero and the Paris Agreement quite clear.
We cannot know if this is a genuine change of heart or a political concession to a Coalition partner hunting down Teal seats at the expense of the nation. (A doomed and dishonest venture by the Moderates who will never win back Blue Ribbon seats while misleading the taxpayer about Climate Change politics.)
However, it seems obvious a Coalition government, without One Nation to keep it honest, has no intention of ending Net Zero – not in the legislative ways that matter.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/Image-2-1.jpg?fit=2048%2C1510&ssl=115102048Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:38:242026-05-22 05:38:33The Monstrous Reach of the Paris Agreement
One Nation aims to increase domestic oil and gas exploration and production by partnering with the industry rather than restricting it. Our goal is to secure greater financial returns for Australians, lower energy prices, and reduce government debt through direct state investment rather than new taxes or forced reservations.
By financially backing exploration and taking an equity share, our aim is to boost fuel security and give Australians “real ownership” of their natural resources.
Transcript
Well, it’s a real honour to be with you today and especially to introduce my gas policy to you. I think it’s very important. I hope that you see in my policy, I have a vision for this country and I think it reflects in my gas policy, so let me share it with you.
Thank you to the Australian energy producers for having me at your 2026 conference. Today I will be announcing One Nation’s new oil and gas policy. This is a bold long-term vision that will give the Australian people vastly greater returns from their resources and align government objectives with our world-class gas industry.
Australia’s gas reserves are nothing short of a miracle. For a country with only 0.3% of the world’s population, we supply nearly 10% of the world’s exported gas. One Nation has always fought for a fair return for the Australian people on our country’s natural resources.
Australians are rightly unhappy. Despite our enormous resource wealth, ordinary families are not seeing the benefits in affordable energy, reduced debt or improved services. Public unrest is building because successive governments have failed to secure a fair share while pursuing policies that risk killing the industry that generates that wealth.
One Nation understands that gas doesn’t magically extract itself. Gas production is only possible with the expertise of the private industry. One Nation will work with industry as a partner, leveraging this expertise to get the most out of our incredible resources.
We want more gas, more oil and more energy to drive our economy forward, pay down our debts and secure our energy future. Before I go on to our policy, I would like to take a moment to address the other policies that have been put forward. Senator David Percock and the Greens Party, along with lobby groups like the Australian Institute, continue to call for an industry-destroying 25% tax on gas exports.
The tax would apply to the total value of all gas exports and destroy the economics of the entire industry. That is their goal. They have drawn false equivalency with countries like Norway, who share the full risks and rewards with their industry.
A model that has succeeded because government and industry partner together, supported by generous tax incentives. These activists simply want to destroy our gas industry and push their Green Agenda scam. It’s nothing more than economic vandalism.
They don’t live in reality. They live in a ridiculous net-zero fantasy world, where fertilisers, plastics, medicines and rubber can be made with the intermittent power from solar panels. Where the 1,500 degree furnaces for smelting can be run on wind turbines.
They want gas stopped. One Nation wants more gas extracted, bigger returns and real energy security. One Nation has previously considered an East Coast gas reservation policy.
However, through consultation with industry and stakeholders, it became clear that it fell short of our policy objectives. The government’s 20 per cent reservation policy will damage onshore development of oil and gas projects. Many of these projects are Australian producers currently supplying the domestic market.
It forces inefficient use of our precious resources under the oversupply model. We will not destroy the industry with forced oversupply. Our policy will instead be flexible to export surplus gas when domestic demand is satisfied, building sovereign wealth rather than undermining domestic supply projects.
Typical of this government, they have thrust these changes onto existing projects with little to no consultation, damaging their ongoing feasibility. This policy is a blunt tool that will result in less competition and less efficient industry. One Nation’s policy will drive more exploration, more development and more production, without pushing out smaller Australian producers.
One Nation is proposing a genuine partnership with the gas industry from exploration through to production and decommissioning. We will provide a 30 per cent rebate on genuine oil and gas exploration in Commonwealth waters. In exchange, the Commonwealth may take up to 30 per cent equity in issued production licences.
The Commonwealth would be responsible for its costs as an equity owner and in turn be entitled to a proportionate share of the production. These costs will include participation in decommissioning, ensuring responsible end of life management is planned from the outset to protect the environment and taxpayers. These ownership rights would be 100 per cent owned by a new Commonwealth special investment vehicle, the Australian National Wealth Investment Corporation or called ANWIC.
ANWIC will direct its share of oil and gas to Australia’s greatest benefit, selling to critical domestic industries like fertiliser production, energy and fuel refining or exporting when the domestic market is well supplied to pay down debt and build sovereign wealth. This flexibility will maximise value for Australians while encouraging industry participation. One Nation would ensure the ANWIC board consists of only industry experts who have had success in the oil and gas industry, not government appointed bureaucrats.
Any profits made on Australia’s equity ownership will be put into a sovereign wealth fund to reinvest and grow, not to be rorted by future governments. Importantly, ANWIC would only act as a non-operating equity partner. We recognise that the expertise rests in our world-class industry and we are there to benefit from their knowledge.
ANWIC would also be empowered to invest in current producing projects. And before the Greens get excited, this won’t be some socialist takeover. It must pay its way into any existing project under commercial arms length terms, not under compulsion or coercion.
This will be a direct financial investment, not a takeover. The equity model gives flexibility to support domestic manufacturing or capture high export prices. It also provides the predictability foreign investors need.
Japan and South Korea are looking elsewhere because of policy instability in Australia. We must look after our trading partners. South Korea takes our LNG and supplies us with essential liquid petroleum products.
Stable partnership policy will keep these vital relationships strong instead of driving capital away. Under One Nation’s policy, the government will have skin in the game as a true partner to industry, maximising returns to the Australian people. This bold new strategy will be supported by One Nation’s long-standing policies of cutting red, green, black and blue tape and dumping net zero targets.
When I consulted gas producers on this policy, they were shocked to be asked their views. One Nation has done more consultation with industry than this government has ever done. The gas industry has been fighting an uphill battle against net zero-obsessed governments.
To all the representatives here, you will not be spared by trying to satisfy the net zero zealots. If you accept any form of net zero or emissions reduction policy, you are signing your industry’s death warrant. They will not stop until oil and gas in Australia is gone.
One Nation will dump all net zero policies. We will abolish the safeguard mechanism that fines gas companies for doing their job. It is actively destroying investment.
It sets rigid emission baselines and imposes heavy penalties, often millions per facility for breaches, even if our gas supports energy, security or vital industry. Companies divert enormous sums to compliance and offsets instead of production and jobs. Constant rule changes create uncertainty, leading to project delays and cancellations and telling investors Australia is not open for business.
At the same time, insane environmental approval processes driven by activist litigation and aligned with UN net zero ideology are compounding the damage. Capital is fleeing to the places that are rolling out of the red carpet, taking jobs and money away from Australians. Red, green, black and blue tape must be cut.
Approvals will be decided within six months with certainty. Fixatious legal claims will not stop vital projects. One Nation is taking the industry in a fundamentally different direction, clearing the way for Australian industry and thinking in generations, not election cycles.
We want more gas unlocked and government as a genuine partner, not an adversary to the industry. Lastly, the petroleum resource rent tax has been a failure in the gas industry. PWRT for offshore gas is not consistent or fit for purpose.
It was designed for oil projects and its structure does not suit gas economics. This has led to unstable tax revenues and eroded community trust. One Nation would replace the PWRT with a simple Commonwealth royalty on wellhead value.
This will give the Australian people a consistent tax take, help preserve the industry’s social licence and provide industry with predictable costs based on production. This change will only apply to prospective projects, grandfathering current PWRT arrangements under which billions were invested. Our policy aims for returns through participation, not ever increasing taxation.
This policy is a massive shift in how Australia gets returns from its resources. Australians will have real ownership of their resource assets for the first time and they will get first use. One Nation will be a partner of industry on behalf of the people of Australia to ensure we have fuel security, cheaper power and pay down our debts while providing the predictability our trading partners need to continue their mutual beneficial relationship with Australia.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/FgJwt2f6R6A/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-05-22 05:37:202026-05-22 05:37:25One Nation’s Gas Policy: Securing the Wealth of the Nation
While I am a Queensland Senator, the political battle taking place in Farrer is fascinating.
Usually, a by-election triggered by a resigning party leader is something of a walkover. A safe seat. A perfunctory vote. Little more than a formality and shuffling of candidates into pre-ordained positions of uniparty power.
Farrer is something this country hasn’t seen in a long time.
A battle for conservatism.
With a real choice.
The uniparty stranglehold is weakening, and the people of Farrer have an opportunity to be a part of history.
Former Liberal Leader Sussan Ley hastened the collapse of the Liberal Party, overseeing two Coalition break-ups during her short tenure. These were not minor tiffs. They were ideological breaking points where metropolitan wets came to blows with the regional National Party leadership. The LNP have become a coalition of opposing forces, tearing each other apart and united by little except an ever-decreasing whiff of nostalgia for a Menzies brand that has long since been colonised by One Nation.
How can those at war with each other possibly lead the fight against Labor?
As I say at the beginning of every speech, One Nation are the true opposition.
On the ground in Farrer, you will find very little love for the Liberals or Sussan Ley. Farrer was left unheard during Ley’s extended Listening Tour. On the campaign trail, the message is clear. They want something different. They want real leadership. They want someone who stands for their community on a local level and who is also capable of engaging in critical federal and international conversations that have real-world impacts. A person who knows the economic structure holding up regional Australia and has lived experience to bring to Canberra.
The choice of Raissa Butkowski, a community lawyer and Albury City Councillor, shows the Liberals attempting to replace Ley with something familiar – a foot half-in, half-out of the regional and town voting blocs without ever quite committing to the big issues. This is formulaic from the Liberals, a tad cynical in clinical adherence to sheer numbers, and the lukewarm response in the polls is entirely deserved. The people are not identity blocs to be wooed and enticed. They are a single electorate that deserves coherent and steadfast representation.
Prior polling and previous election results are useless. This is a new world, and Farrer is a fight between One Nation and the Climate-200-backed Independent.
It is a sort-of Litmus test for the future Teal vs Conservative rivalry in the leafy suburbs of Australia’s capital cities where those raised as blue ribbon conservatives have been temporarily captured by the luxury belief in apocalyptic virtue. Are those conservatives starting to wake up? I think so.
The Liberals believe conservatism can be saved from the clutches of Tealism (and its kin) by pretending that standing half-an-inch from Albanese is the ‘sensible centre’. Laughable.
One Nation suspects that what Australians really hunger for is a revival of true conservatism, the type of honest, grassroots adoration for Australia, its people and its assets, which built the country – from convict chains to skyscrapers. People want a break from radical, dangerous politics that ‘progresses’ the country toward the cliff-edge of socialist ruin. Voters are exhausted by virtue-chasing, global salvation narratives, and the burden of taxes that come with it. They don’t want to sleep with one eye open, wondering what their MPs are drafting in Canberra while they rest.
And what does this Independent, Michelle Milthorpe, offer?
No one is really quite sure, and that is the problem.
Who wants a mystery in a time of crisis and uncertainty?
The wishy-washy noncommittal politics of the green-left, Climate 200-funded collective is deliberate. It is convenient to never outright align with damaging climate change policy or Net Zero goals.
We can ask questions and make guesses as to what any future vote from Milthorpe might look like based on who supported her campaign, who she hired to help her (a former Teal campaign manager), and which political activist groups choose to engage with her message (GetUp!).
On that, it has been reported GetUp! raised $400,000 on an ‘anti-Pauline’ campaign for Farrer, with plans to spend over $600,000, which seems an extraordinary amount of money to use bombarding the people of Farrer. One Nation doesn’t drown voters in propaganda. Funds from GetUp!’s 100,000 members is apparently being spent telling the people of Farrer how to vote. How disgusting it is to treat Farrer as though it were a vending machine where, with enough money, the preferred product might fall out the bottom for collection.
We could also note that Ms Milthorpe has been on the campaign trail with independent David Pocock, whose website states his support of accelerating climate action along with a portfolio of fringe climate policies. Just because Ms Milthorpe won’t praise batteries or EVs does not mean she won’t be friendly to climate legislation that punishes reliable energy or farming activities.
It is certainly interesting that Ms Milthorpe has been defensive about those who draw ideological connections between her and the Teals due to Climate 200. Association with the ‘Teals’ used to be considered a vote-winning perk, however, in the regional seat of Farrer, where there are plenty of frustrated farmers who have had enough of Climate Change policy ruining their livelihoods, perhaps we can finally say that the shine is wearing off the climate narrative…
While an Independent can avoid questions about how they might vote on critical legislative issues, such as the future of Australia’s oil reserves, opening new refineries, and creating dubious agricultural trade deals with the European Union, One Nation is proud to declare its positions. Transparency is our duty, not an electoral inconvenience.
One Nation, regardless of whether it is a by-election, state campaign, or federal election, will never hide its position on the issues that matter to voters. We wish to be judged in the light so that our elected representatives can serve their electorates honestly and in good faith.
By-elections should not be a competition between parties to add another seat into their collection as if curating jewels in a crown. This is about good governance for the people who have, for far too long, been treated by major parties and independents as an inconvenience to be overcome on the way to Canberra.
How will Michelle Milthorpe vote on the hundreds of critical bills that will wash through Parliament under Albanese’s watch?
Who knows.
You can look One Nation’s David Farley in the eye and he will give you a direct answer. That is what we stand on as a party.
And so I continue to watch the Farrer by-election with great interest to see if the successes of the South Australian state election will continue over the border in New South Wales.
Are the people ready to rid themselves of damaging Net Zero legislation and the anti-agricultural mindset that has held our regions back? Regional Australians are already fiercely pro-environment, of course they are, they want to protect the land they live in and call home. Most have had enough of being lectured to by faux environmental movements who clog up city streets with their protests while never setting foot on the land. The people of Farrer know where the nation’s food comes from, and they know what must be done to protect the region.
David Farley is a man who will fight for Farrer, in the paddock, on the streets, and in Canberra.
Authorised by Malcolm Roberts, Brisbane.
The battle for Farrer – and conservatism by Senator Malcolm Roberts
The Liberal-National coalition and Labor are playing a desperate game of catch-up.
For years, they’ve ignored the real issues — energy, housing and mass immigration crisis, which started under John Howard and has exploded under the Albanese government. Now, they’re copying One Nation’s homework.
They drop the right buzzwords and borrow our rhetoric because they’re terrified of the polls, yet they still lack the data and the backbone to actually do good instead of just trying to look good.
People see through the “fluffy and vague” policies of other parties.
One Nation aren’t here to play status quo politics; we’re here to put Australia First.
It’s time to hold these politicians accountable and return the power to where it belongs: with the people.
For over 15 years, I have warned that the climate scam is a direct assault on the Australian way of life.
And it’s not just our hip pockets being hit — it’s our humanity.
Labor and Chris Bowen are selling you a “renewable revolution,” yet they aren’t telling you who’s paying the real price.
While Australian families struggle with soaring power bills, children in the Congo are forced into medieval conditions, digging for the minerals that fuel our “green” future.
Women are working in toxic, open-cut mines controlled by the Chinese Communist Party – all so we can pretend we’re “saving the planet.”
Our environment is being destroyed, our wildlife killed off, our economy smashed – and everyday Australians are getting poorer.
It’s not a revolution. It’s a scam!
Note: The data for 2026 confirms that our energy security has been sold off to foreign interests, with the vast majority of these large-scale wind and solar projects owned by overseas entities.
We need to stop this madness and put Australian families and human decency above the “renewable at all costs” cult. There is nothing virtuous about “renewable” energy.
Those who heard Senator Michaelia Cash’s speech about One Nation’s decision to vote against Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025 might have been left with the impression that One Nation has abandoned cash.
Senator Cash said:
‘The obvious question that is before the Senate in relation to the disallowance motion is, “Why does One Nation want to ban cash?” Because that is exactly what this disallowance motion does.’
The Senator then implied that the reason Coles, Woolworths, and service stations are required to accept cash is because of this new regulation.
‘This is what this mandate does. That legal obligation exists because of the regulations that Senator Roberts and One Nation, for some very strange reason, now seek to disallow.’
I was astonished by this comment from the Senator.
Our reasons for wishing to disallow the Treasurer’s regulation are not bizarre at all. We have explained them clearly and repeatedly.
As has always been the case, our goal is to protect cash in the long-term – not allow its erosion through a thousand pieces of deceptively named regulation.
One Nation has been leading the national conversation on cash protection for decades, including against shameful attempts during the Morrison era to put limits on the size of cash transactions through their wildly unpopular Currency (Restrictions on the Use of Cash) Bill 2019. The Liberal Party sought to re-frame cash as the realm of crime, tax evasion, and the black market.
Then-Prime Minister Scott Morrison said:
‘This will be bad news for criminal gangs, terrorists, and those who are just trying to cheat on their tax or get a discount for letting someone else cheat on their tax. It’s not clever. It’s not okay. It’s a crime.’
He added: ‘Cash provides and easy, anonymous, and largely untraceable mechanism for conducting black economy activity.’
What an astonishingly bad-faith way to present cash transactions which have been the backbone of this nation. If the government wishes to crackdown on criminal activity, it could always try arresting criminals.
Public backlash forced the Liberals to stall the legislation in 2020, following which One Nation were successful in striking out the legislation.
This vocal opposition came from the same places it comes from today – rural and regional areas, community groups, churches, and even the Labor Party’s own ethnic branches. Meanwhile, the Liberals and Nationals never apologised for forcing Parliament to waste time stopping another unnecessary creep of a paranoid government.
As you can see, the Liberal Party are not friends of ‘cash’ … they never have been.
It is important to understand that the protection of cash as legal tender is something that has always been poorly defined and left to languish in significant legal grey areas as the banking system developed electronic currency.
Our Constitution requires the Commonwealth government to make cash available. The definition of ‘available’ is open to discussion and likely includes electronic transactions. Contrary to common assumption, banks are not required to make physical cash available.
Businesses are expected to accept cash, within reason, unless they put up a sign that explicitly states, ‘We do not accept cash.’ These signs are not common because customers, like myself, are often put-off by anti-cash sentiment.
Online businesses with no physical storefront cannot reasonably be forced to accept cash, nor would anyone ordering from their phone on TikTok expect them to. There are also market stalls or pop-up shops that lack the ability to handle cash safely. And then there are trading hours when it is deemed unsafe to handle cash.
To make things even murkier, a business is not required to take cash when doing so would place their staff at risk, which is fair, or where cash is not readily available. This is most common in rural areas where greedy banks have closed branches and removed ATMs.
The rise of the digital world has created an economic and political interest – particularly within the global banking sector – in discontinuing cash. This has prompted a public call for its explicit protection. In early June of 2024, Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, and Dai Le put forward the Private Member’s Bill Keeping Cash Transactions in Australia Bill 2024 to seek clarity on – and strengthen – the status of cash as legal tender.
This would have reinforced the legal obligation for all businesses, within reason and where appropriate, to accept cash up to $10,000 (but would not impose a ceiling). In clarifying the Reserve Bank Act (1959), it would then be possible to determine what the bones of the modern and future economy would look like before adding additional complexity through programmable currency and Bitcoin.
In other words … policy housekeeping.
Unfortunately, a proper debate on this important bill never took place, largely because Treasurer Jim Chalmers implied it would be addressed in Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes-Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.
During the press conference that followed in November of 2024, Chalmers said:
‘Our objective when it comes to payments is to modernise our financial system … to make sure that there’s an ongoing role for cash … we’re making sure that people can pay cash for essentials if they want to and if they need to … what this means is that businesses selling essential items will have to accept cash with some appropriate carve-outs for small businesses and with a particular emphasis on regional areas.’
The Treasurer’s pinky-promise led to the Private Member’s Bill being dropped on good faith.
These regulations eventually manifested as a shadow of their former promise and, in my view, perfectly encapsulate the evil genius of the Uniparty anti-cash movement.
The Treasurer’s final regulation only provides that cash be protected as legal tender in supermarkets and petrol stations between 7am-9pm to a value of $500. That’s it.
For all other situations, the grey area of cash has been clarified – it is no longer protected.
What does this mean for cash throughout the rest of the economy? What about newsagencies? Public transport? Basic shopping? Parking? Pharmacies? Post-offices? Church collections? Buskers? Cultural celebrations? Greek weddings? The million other things that keep society moving…?
By proposing a mandate that only covers supermarkets and petrol stations, the Labor government did not protect cash. They issued an extermination order. The Uniparty are supporting an economy-wide restriction of cash. Remember, 23 per cent of adults do not have a credit or debit card, especially the elderly those challenged by technology.
One Nation predicts that as a consequence of these regulations, banks – who have already shown hostility to cash – will rush to stop accepting cash over the counter. The dwindling supply of ATMs will die out. And cash will drain out of our economy.
Concerned pharmacists came to see me last week to ask for pharmacies to be included, they were not – and yet still the Liberals support these government regulations. Are we going to see people turned away from buying medication because they don’t have a bank card?
An economic change of this significance should be put to the people, or opened to far more scrutiny than a regulation which is not subjected to the same Parliamentary rigour as an amendment.
To be clear, One Nation is not voting against protecting cash. That’s absurd.
We are voting against the specific regulation put forward by the Treasurer which we believe would confine cash protection to a small number of essential suppliers and leave the rest of the economic landscape open to a widespread loss of cash.
These regulations represent a broken promise to Andrew Gee, Bob Katter, Dai Le, and the Australian people.
We want to see banks held to their obligation to provide cash to Australians in a reasonable and easily accessible way. For the banks to be held to account when they attempt to cut regional communities off from ATMs and branches. We wish to see cash maintained as commonly accepted legal tender to ensure Australia has the flexibility to endure blackouts and digital malfunctions, and to take precautions that the banking sector is never in a position to hold money hostage. This is especially important in regional areas where the digital world struggles, and as we approach an increasingly dangerous geopolitical situation. We have seen conflict target energy grids and telecommunications. It would be insane to remove the protection of cash at this point in history.
Ultimately, what the banks want … what the corporate world wants … and what is best for the security of the Australian economy are not always the same thing and it is our duty as elected representatives of the people to act in their best interests.
Senator Cash has presented the option as a binary choice: support the Treasurer or condemn cash. I believe that to be a misrepresentation of the situation.
One Nation will not void the legal assumption that cash is protected by replacing it with a declaration that it is not. Let’s protect cash properly and permanently.
And, if we really are heading toward a fully digital world, and that march cannot be stopped because of cultural and ideological changes, then we absolutely must sit down and have a proper discussion about safeguarding citizens from the known dangers and exploitation made possible in a digital-only environment.
One Nation demands that this topic be taken seriously and soberly for the protection of Australia’s economic future.
Whether it is basic redundancy from energy and internet disruption, or protection against nefarious banking practices, cash is a vital safety net.
And it is obvious that the public wish to see it preserved.
One Nation is protecting cash, not the Treasurer by Senator Malcolm Roberts
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Bracket-Creep.png?fit=858%2C504&ssl=1504858Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-04-16 15:07:292026-04-16 15:07:37One Nation is Protecting Cash – Not the Treasurer
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
Labor’s ‘Big Australia’ mass migration project, designed to shore-up Albanese’s vote at the next election, has created a catastrophic housing shortage.
Everyone knows it.
Even if the media and self-interested uniparty choose to deny the facts.
Young people across the country know it too. They are the ones standing in rental lines behind 50 people who cannot speak English, trying to decipher rental signs written in a foreign language and clearly pitched to everyone except Aussie kids.
They feel upset. Betrayed. Left out. And ignored.
These Australians know they are competing against Labor’s migration agenda, not organic competition like their parents and grandparents faced. This is not, in any way, a ‘fair’ housing market.
When these young Australians decide to ditch the soul-crushing rental queue and take on the dream of home ownership that changed their parents’ lives – they discover an even worse situation.
The price of homes, including small city apartments in the areas they need to live to keep their jobs, are unattainable.
Some of this price increase is to do with greedy government fees and charges, while the rest is a consequence of too much demand from people who live outside the Australian economic cost-of-living crisis. Foreign buyers often have the means to push prices well above what they should be.
In Australia, house prices have advanced much faster than the average wage. Even those earning $100,000 per year – once considered a mark of success – feel that home ownership is financially impossible. These people are no longer considered to be ‘doing well’. They are struggling.
Not to mention that the average worker has a considerable amount of their wage taken as ‘super’ and given to union funds to play the stockmarket. This makes union super funds rich and pushes huge volumes of investment money into projects – usually in the green industry – that otherwise would never receive private funding. $4.5 trillion has been taken out of people’s pockets and locked away. This money remains untouchable until someone turns 65. 8-10% of Australians will die before they access their super (or 56% of Indigenous Australians). That money used to be used for home investment and there is good reason to believe that compulsory super is one of the contributing factors to a major drop in home ownership amongst the middle and working classes.
There are ways to immediately improve the housing situation – the most obvious being the deportation of visa overstayers and a severe cut to migration. This would immediately free up hundreds of thousands of properties for domestic buyers and renters.
That would benefit Australians and massively hurt the political class and their major financial backers.
Instead of doing the right thing, Chalmers & Co have designed a system to turn a profit from the hardship and desperation of young Australians.
In August of 2025, the Labor government introduced their 5% deposit scheme for first home buyers. There is also another version of this for single parents to buy a home with a 2% deposit.
Labor described this as ‘helping more Australians realise their dream of home ownership’ where the government (taxpayers) ‘guarantee a portion of a first home buy’s home loan with a lower deposit and not pay Lenders Mortgage Insurance’.
Their argument is this:
‘All first home buyers will have access, with no caps on places or incomes limits. Property price caps will also be set higher in line with the average house prices, providing access to a greater variety of homes.’
Predictably, this did not unlock more desirable homes – it created an almost immediate increase in home prices. Labor said it would be 0.6% over the medium term. Instead, it was 3.6% in the first quarter. The developers win. Ministers in Canberra with property portfolios win.
Finder says the average loan amount for first home buyers in December 2025 was $607,624. This is a huge sum of money. In 2015, you could expect a first homebuyer to take on $333,500. Westpac says first homebuyers are typically over 40. This shows you how much harder it is to get enough financial security to consider buying a home.
And while the ‘average wage’ is listed as $104,000, it’s suspected that this figure is skewed and the real average is probably closer to $88,000. After tax that’s around $69,000.
If you think this whole thing sounds like a bad idea, you’re right.
To translate it into economic reality, Labor is encouraging and actively changing the rules to allow young Australians to take on loans they cannot realistically afford (and would not be normally given) right when the RBA has warned it will continue to raise the cash rate – which it has done multiple times since the scheme began.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said he did his degree in ‘Paul Keating’ – now he is in danger of re-creating Keating’s gravest mistake.
A person with a normal mortgage that they attained under strict rules is already suffering under the RBA rate rises. Individuals who took on a 95% mortgage are at a very serious risk of defaulting. It only takes a small rate rise on a sum of money this large to lead them into disaster.
An entire generation of vulnerable, trusting Australians have been led into imminent economic ruin by a government that thought 5% deposits were nothing more than a vote-buying game.
It isn’t a game.
It’s people’s lives.
People’s futures.
This isn’t about ‘votes for Labor’ for people who think the government is ‘gifting’ them a house, it’s about Australians watching their savings burn and homes taken off them in a time of economic uncertainty.
It’s rare to find a government that cares so little about young people – although we know exactly why they did it.
Mass migration is a vote buying operation for the Labor Party. They cannot give it up, even though home ownership is the leading election topic among their rising young demographic that is in danger of being taken by the Greens. Labor has made a wager on a short-term vote winner with no regard for the coming disaster.
Even the Daily Mail warned of an impending catastrophe after the latest RBA cash rate rise highlighted a significant rise in risky mortgages (4% of the total market!)
To quote:
‘While the banks are insulated by the government guarantee, which covers the first 15% of any losses from these loans, households are exposed. The banks are fine. The main risk falls on individuals.’
It’s widely expected war in Iran, and the high petrol prices and fuel insecurity that flow on from this scenario, will increase inflation and lead to even more rate rises in the near future.
Government debt – also known as Chalmers’ spending spree – is the main driver of inflation and the interest repayments on this blackhole are climbing every day.
When debt passes $1 trillion – which it is expected to do shortly – interest payments will cost $60 million per day or $41,667 every minute.
Every Australian – whether they are an infant or retired – owes $806.65 every year in just interest. And that’s if Chalmers stops spending right now. And to pay off the $1 trillion debt tomorrow, it would require every person to cough up $36,850.01.
If fuel prices increase (or fuel rationing starts), we can expect a catastrophic loss of businesses and, therefore, jobs. How many young people will lose their jobs and be unable to service these mortgages?
The uniparty doesn’t care. The government never loses.
It raises taxes. It tightens your belt so it can eat more money.
Remember, if you think the LNP are any better, they have their own reasons for supporting ‘Big Australia’. The Howard government marked the start of mass migration. All Coalition governments since have done nothing to change it and they never will.
One Nation are desperately worried about the future young people face.
We have a comprehensive policy to cut immigration by over 570,000 and to deport 75,000 migrants visa over-stayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents who threaten our national security. We also have a housing policy to ensure unnecessary fees, charges, and taxes are cut to get homes built without destroying our green spaces or cultural heritage.
One Nation is here to make a genuine difference for you, not Canberra.
Labor TRAPPED young people by Senator Malcolm Roberts
RBA cash rate rises create serious concern for 5% home deposits
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Housing.jpg?fit=654%2C657&ssl=1657654Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-03-26 10:14:112026-03-26 10:14:24Labor Trapped Young People
