Drill, Refine, Secure: Solving the Fuel Crisis for Good

,

The Albanese Labor Government’s Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 was nothing more than a drop in the tank during the fuel crisis. While its aims were to reduce lead times for renegotiating road transport contracts from over a year to a few weeks, it failed to solve the broader issues crushing our economy, agriculture, and everyday families.

Labor’s rushed these poorly drafted bills without proper consultation. This legislation hands unchecked, unscrutinised powers to the minister to interfere in the Enterprise Agreements protecting independent trucking companies indefinitely.

One Nation supported this bill because we wanted to offer immediate relief to our critical trucking industry. However, A One Nation government will amend it. We will mandate a sunset clause, require a formal declaration of emergency as a legislative instrument, and ensure measures expire as soon as the crisis ends.

The government should have invoked the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 weeks before this legislation was introduced. Doing so would have forced foreign multinational oil companies to release hoarded fuel reserves into the market, reining in regional price gouging.

While trucks keep Australia supplied, farmers face doubled fuel costs, making winter crop planting unsustainable. Labor is picking winners while ignoring regional Australia, small businesses, and manufacturing.

Australia is in this position because Net Zero ideology was prioritised over practical energy security.

Domestic oil production must be restored. We need to build new refineries, construct gas-to-petrol plants and establish a domestic gas reservation so Australia is never left vulnerable to foreign supply shocks again.

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 is a drop in the tank when it comes to managing the fuel crisis. The bill relates to road transport contract chain orders which used to be called delivery contracts. It allows those contracts between businesses and their trucking companies to be renegotiated as a result of this fuel crisis. Currently, that process takes 12 months or more. This bill may—’may’, not ‘will’—reduce the lead time on a contract renegotiation to a few weeks. 

The road freight industry is critical to the functioning of the economy. Everything in our supermarkets, hardware stores and shopping centres is trucked in. If trucks stop moving because the government failed to secure a supply of fuel, affordable diesel, then people starve; chemists, doctors, dentists and hospitals run out of supplies; casual employees and apprentices are put off work; and loans, rents and mortgages go into arrears. And it’s all downhill from there. It’s that simple. 

This bill amends legislation that Labor introduced in 2024 which created these road transport contract chain orders without any emergency provisions or the ability of the government to step in when the public interest is not being protected. This bill corrects the Albanese government’s lack of foresight and forethought. This government needs to slow down its conga line of poorly written bills—we’ve had so many—take the time to consult and stop using the committee system as a rubber stamp. Had it done that, these provisions would most likely have already been included. The problem with this bill is that it doesn’t actually relate to the current fuel crisis, yet it gives the minister powers to interfere in any RTCCO—road transport contractual chain order—it wishes for the rest of time. Powers are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and there’s no requirement to make an order introducing an emergency RTCCO through a legislative instrument. Power without accountability is always a very bad idea. Emergency powers exist for emergencies, not to tip the scale in favour of your union mates. 

One Nation will support this legislation. Given we have not had the time to prepare amendments to introduce checks and balances, One Nation will amend the bill when we take government. Our changes will require a declaration of emergency to be a legislative instrument setting out the reasons for the order and include a sunset clause, a trigger, so that, unlike what Labor is trying to do, measures do not extend past the end of the crisis. 

One Nation points out that, while the trucking industry deserves the help this bill may provide, so does the rest of Australia. Due to a doubling of fuel costs, farmers are struggling to fund their harvests. Farms’ fuel bills must be paid in 14 days, while farmers are not paid for their harvests for an average of two months. With fuel costs rising from, as in one case I was told about, $15,000 per week to $30,000 a week, there are massive extra amounts for family farms to bankroll themselves—and they can’t. Around Australia today, farmers are unable to plant their winter crops. The spring harvests will be down, and fuel prices will go up. The Labor government is hollowing out the bush again. It’s driving people into the cities, and it’s running the fuel crisis to push that objective. 

If the government had the best interests of Australia at heart, it would have already invoked the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984. The act enables the Commonwealth government to prepare for and respond to severe shortages of crude oil and refined liquid fuels such as petrol, diesel and jet fuel. It supports Australia’s obligations under the International Energy Agency agreement and emphasises cooperative responses with industries, states and territories. It provides strong ministerial powers as a last resort if market mechanisms are insufficient. The act requires the minister to be satisfied that there is or is likely to be a serious shortage of liquid fuels with national implications that cannot be adequately addressed without using this bill’s special powers. Powers include directing industry-held stocks of crude oil and liquid fuel, such as requiring companies to maintain, purchase or release specified reserves at certain locations and, secondly, regulating fuel sales and distribution across Australia, including bulk-supply restrictions and retail rationing. This legislation is there, and it should have been invoked weeks ago. This is day 32 of the Iran conflict—32 days for the Prime Minister and his ministers to stop the selfies and cringy TikTok videos and address the real crisis; 32 days of horror for the economy, the devastation of which will ensure the ALP do not form government again. 

Let me explain what’s going on here. These powers require the minister to do certain things. One of those things would be to force foreign multinational oil companies to direct the fuel they’re currently hoarding and supply some into the spot market. This is the market which supplies smaller outlets, especially in rural and regional areas. These are the outlets that suppliers are currently charging way over the odds for their petrol, causing price spikes. Then, once they’ve driven price spikes in the regions, the city outlets that those same multinational fuel companies own themselves put up prices to match prices imposed on the bush. The outcome is price gouging. It’s calculated, and it’s deliberate. The government rammed through legislation last week to increase the fines for doing exactly that, but it will take years before the ACCC’s legal action against multinational fuel companies gets through the courts. They’ll get a rap on the knuckles and agree to a small fine, banking windfall profits and most likely doing it all again. The Albanese Labor government is once again proving it’s the best friend of foreign multinationals and no friend of everyday Australians. 

The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 will result in transport charges rising—and that’s the point of the bill. Before the crisis, getting a tonne of produce to market cost $100. With the fuel shock, it’s now $175. This legislation will drive that price even higher. This isn’t the government helping the trucking industry; it’s the government making the rest of the economy pay more to help the trucking industry. Food will be dearer. Clothing will be dearer. Consumers will pay. The answer is to reduce the price of fuel, not force up the price of freight. 

Last Friday, the National Road Transport Association, NatRoad, published comments critical of the legislation, pointing out: 

“… most small to medium operators simply could not survive until Fair Work Changes flowed through.“

Here’s another quote: 

“… recent announcements, including emergency Fair Work Commission powers and moves toward better fuel monitoring failed to address the immediate needs of industry.…

NatRoad is calling on the Federal Government to urgently implement three … measures to keep trucks on the road and prevent further economic disruption: 

  • Activate emergency financial support payments for affected transport businesses 
  • Introduce a six-month moratorium on heavy vehicle equipment loan repayments through lender hardship arrangements 
  • Immediately remove the Road User Charge for heavy vehicles”

The national road user charge is a tax of 32.5c per litre of diesel. Operators claim back the fuel levy of 52c per litre and then pay the road user charge. One Nation calls on the government to suspend the road user charge for heavy vehicles for as long as this crisis continues. Taking out the fuel duty and the GST will make a large difference to trucking industry cash flows and their ability to get through this crisis—and reduce grocery bills. Invoking the Liquid Fuel Emergency Act 1984 to stop multinational fuel companies profiteering will reduce fuel prices and reduce the need for freight charges to rise. 

The truth is that every sector in the economy is in need of assistance. The knock-on from extreme fuel prices extends right through the economy. Trucking has the potential to impact everyday Australians—and every Australian—and more quickly than other sectors, so it deserves first attention. We see no problem in that. My objection is that the Labor government is picking winners, helping some but not others based on its radical communist ideology. Labor says to small business, ‘No assistance for you’; to manufacturing, ‘No assistance for you’; to farmers, ‘Definitely no assistance for you lot’; to rail transport and ports, ‘No assistance for you’; to Defence, ‘No fuel for you.’ 

The Albanese Marles government refused the request from President Trump to participate in international efforts to make safe the Strait of Hormuz so Australian bound fuel tankers can get through to Singapore or South Korea to refine our petrol for us. This raises the question: Australia doesn’t have a defence strategic liquid fuel reserve, so just how much fuel do our armed forces actually have? And why did the Navy ponce around in Exercise Kakadu Fleet Review last week? This wasn’t a training exercise; this was to show off. From where did those boats come, to where are they returning, and how much fuel was wasted for a photo op in the middle of a fuel crisis? Fair dinkum! The Navy has now caught the selfie virus. Heaven help us. 

The Albanese government snubbed the President of the United States, our greatest ally, while grovelling on hands and knees to him for fuel. ‘Please, sir,’ the Prime Minister pleads, ‘can we please have some of your oil reserve, as we sold ours off for a quick buck?’ The Albanese Labor government is a dishonest national disgrace. How did you not see this coming? One Nation have been banging on about the need for restoring oil production and increasing our domestic reserve since 2020—and about fuel security since 2016. 

Now, I know social media is circulating a Liberal Party meme claiming that One Nation voted against giving subsidies to the Kwinana and Altona refineries in 2020 to keep them in production. Let me address that first, with a history of closures. Port Stanvac closed under the Howard Liberal government in 2003. Clyde closed under the Gillard Labor government in 2012. Kurnell closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2014. Bulwer Island closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2015. Kwinana closed under the Liberal and Nationals in 2021. Altona closed under the Liberals and Nationals in 2021. Now, the meme circulated says that One Nation voted against the fuel security package in 2021, which we did. What the meme does not tell you the bill we opposed was a stunt. BP and Exxon had already announced the closure before the bill was ever written. The Liberal-National government designed the bill to pretend to the public in the 2022 election that the Liberals cared about fuel refining—all to look good, not do good. Exxon and BP never received the money. They knocked it back because plans for closure were underway, and $2.3 billion wasn’t enough to change their minds. So what did we vote against? Nothing—a Liberal Party con, a fraud on the voters. I’m so pleased the Liberals dug that one up though; it shows they haven’t changed. 

By the way, I remind people that Pauline Hanson said: ‘Why are we handing over money? We need equity.’ No, the Liberals didn’t want equity. Just hand over the cash. In her speech in the Liberals’ 2021 bail-out bill, Senator Pauline Hanson called on the government to use that money to buy those refineries and put them into the hands of Australian people to maintain our domestic refining capacity. Of course, the Liberals and the Nationals ignored that request. 

Let’s be clear. Australia is in this mess because the Liberal Party, the National Party, the Greens, the Teals and the Labor Party all still believe in climate change. I tested that last week with my amendment to the appropriation bills that called for the net zero spending to be removed from the budget. Their vote on our amendment is damning. Labor opposed. Liberals opposed. Nationals opposed. Greens opposed. Teal David Pocock opposed. These parties all support giving away another $9 billion to climate prostitutes feeding off the UN net zero scam—parasites killing Australia’s energy and economy. So, of course, they’re not going to do anything to help the petrol and diesel industry. This government is making a horrible mess of the fuel crisis because it’s making decisions based on ideology not practicality—on a scam and contrary to the hard, empirical scientific data. And the globalist Liberals and Nationals are right there with them. Shame on you all! 

We need to drill for oil; restore production in the known deposits—and we’ve got plenty; get started building new refineries; and, in particular, build new gas to petrol plants to use Australia’s cheap, natural gas to make our own petrol again. One Nation introduced legislation for a domestic gas reservation to provide the gas we need for that, and of course the uniparty voted it down. When will people realise these tired old parties love their ideology and their donors and hate anyone who doesn’t agree with their ideology or with their donors? One Nation cares about everyday Australians, and that’s why we’re surging in the polls. It’s not about patriotism or nationalism. Our surge is the public realising that the old parties do not have their backs and One Nation does. 

To remind the Senate, One Nation has already called for the removal of the fuel excise and a three-month moratorium on GST on liquid fuels. Taken together, they will reduce fuel prices outside the trucking industry by 75 cents a litre—a real benefit for everyday Australians. The government has refused to take that measure, even while Treasury is making out like bandits raking in hundreds of millions of dollars each month in additional GST payments on crazy-high fuel prices. I haven’t heard a state premier complain about that either, as they benefit from the GST. The states must be held to account, as well, for their greed. 

Everyday Australians are filling up their vehicle in terror and, yes, in anger at the Albanese government’s greed and arrogance and distance. It’s $100 to fill a small car and up to $200 to fill a family car in the most energy-rich nation on Earth. The biggest exporter of hydrocarbons in the world is Australia. Groceries will go unbought; that’s if they’re available. Clothing and homeware stores are already reporting slow-downs. Your children won’t get those new clothes, new shoes or quality groceries, because their parents are having to pay for the stupidity, the arrogance, the dishonesty, the deceit and the greed of the Chalmers-Albanese Labor government. I foreshadow One Nation’s second reading amendment on sheet 3747. 

I’m pleased the government sees the fuel crisis is real. When we mentioned it first, One Nation were called far right extremists for labelling it. I’m pleased the government sees the regional crisis is now real. Again, One Nation called it first because we listen. Suspend fuel taxes now!

/0 Comments/by

Labor’s Fake Cash Guarantee

,

One Nation submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025.

These regulations are misleading because it allows most businesses to refuse cash. It only requires cash acceptance at supermarkets and petrol stations for purchases under $500 between 7 am and 9 pm, while providing further exemptions for rural towns lacking banks or ATMs.

Cash is vital for cultural customs (such as Lunar New Year and wedding traditions) and essential for the quarter of Australians who are digitally excluded or affected during internet outages, whereby ALL Australians have to rely on cash.

Labor, Liberals and the Nationals are all pushing a cashless agenda because they receive substantial political donations from the big four banks.

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: One Nation has submitted a motion to disallow Labor’s Competition and Consumer (Industry Codes—Cash Acceptance) Regulations 2025. These regulations are dishonestly promoted as mandating cash; yet, in a display of rank deceit, these regulations allow every business in the country to not accept cash, unless they’re a supermarket or a petrol station, for amounts under $500, and then only from 7 am to 9 pm—outside that, to not take cash. There’s a further exemption for rural towns without a bank or ATM, which, these days, is most towns. Businesses do not have to take cash. 

In the last parliament, the Liberals and Labor tried to ban cash, and were defeated when One Nation and Labor’s ethnic branches were opposed. Labor is now trying to sneak in a cash ban through regulation. Chinese and Vietnamese give cash during Lunar New Year. Greeks pin cash gifts to wedding dresses. Labor is wiping out all these beautiful customs—gone! Not only is cash cultural for many Australians; a quarter of our people are digitally excluded, yet the Canberra bubble never understands. When the internet goes down, that figure is 100 per cent excluded from cash. Without cash what are people to do in an internet outage? Is the uniparty of the Liberals, Labor and Nationals beholden to the banks because it accepts huge donations from banks? In 2022-23, Westpac donated $193,000; the Commonwealth Bank, $174,000; ANZ, $91,000; and NAB, $138,000. 

/0 Comments/by

Canberra’s New Loyalty Test

,

The Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 gives government ministers total discretion to suspend senior public servants (like department heads and commissioners) for up to 12 months with full pay, simply by claiming it’s in the department’s “best interest,” rather than using clear, objective performance standards (KPIs).

Public servants are already too politicised and will now be too intimidated to offer honest, independent advice out of fear of ministerial retaliation.

The poor legal phrasing in the bill, specifically the phrase “The minister may give a direction in writing,” leaves loopholes and creates potential for legal abuse.

The Albanese Labor government promised an open and transparent government, yet this legislation will further entrench cover-ups, hide accountability, and abuse ministerial control.

One Nation opposed this bill.

Australians deserve better!

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Four years of cost overruns, four years of secret government, four years of slackness, four years of another managed decline of Australia. There has been misappropriation of money and they’ve done nothing—just covered it up. Transparency was the promise; cover-up is the actuality. Why? Now, as the solution, we see the Labor Party bringing in potential abuse of ministerial powers with an opportunity, if the Commonwealth Entities Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 is passed, to have possible control over the department heads, commissioners and others in senior positions without transparency or accountability. The performance standard under this legislation is not a discretionary instrument with specific grounds for dismissal against standard criteria—that is, KPIs. That’s not the case. With this bill, it’s purely at the discretion of the minister.  

We already have a Public Service that’s been highly politicised. We are now entrenching that and giving the public servants more to fear from ministers if they don’t do what they’re told. Under the ‘uniparty’ ministers, department heads no longer give frank and fearless independent advice. That hasn’t been the case for decades because department heads and senior public servants are now part of the political process. They’re enmeshed in the process. They cannot give frank and fearless advice. Do you want any examples? Have a look at the energy systems in this country, where they’re destroying the best electricity grid in the world and making it second rate, taking us from the lowest electricity prices in the world to now the highest in the world.  

The legislation—I think this appears four times in the legislation—says, ‘The minister may give a direction in writing.’ It does not say the minister may give a direction that must be in writing. Lawyers, as we know, have lots of incentives to argue about a word such as ‘may’. At best, this is sloppy. It’s just not good enough. If a minister suspends a senior public servant, they’re suspended on full pay, which may be extended to 12 months suspension. The minister doesn’t have to give specific reasons; they just need to say it’s in the department’s best interests—that’s it. It’s 12 months paid suspension because it’s in the department’s best interests. This means that the minister can hold a threat over Public Service heads, giving them control over department heads, complete control, creating a poor system that destroys accountability and transparency—two words that are vital for effective governance. But in this Labor government, under Anthony Albanese, accountability is hidden. It’s not possible, and transparency is non-existent. 

If governments want to be good governments, they should want transparency and accountability, because it makes them stronger. I know with Senator Pauline Hanson we are all held accountable and we have to be transparent, because we want to be, but if we weren’t she would make sure we are. The same can’t be said about the Albanese Labor government. So I am in two minds about this bill. It has severe shortcomings due to sloppiness. I think that’s all I need to say. 

/0 Comments/by

When Art Crosses the Line

,

Why are taxpayers bankrolling art projects that cross the line from “expression” into outright extremism?

Creative Australia admitted to funding nearly $100,000 for events linked to an artist who has publicly praised a listed terrorist organisation and celebrated violence.

We also learned that $48,000 went to an exhibition that mocked public figures and pushed divisive political messaging, followed by another $318,000 from the department for the same project.

Everyday Australians are sick of seeing their money poured into insider art projects that promote radical politics instead of strengthening community culture.

One Nation get’s labelled as “divisive” for asking when taxpayer funding will start serving Australians, not ideology.

Labor keeps batting accusations back and forth like a game of political tennis, but we’re not here to play – we’re here to get answers for taxpayers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $1.692 million to Diversity Arts Australia, DARTS, which is the national voice for ethnocultural and migrant racial equity in the arts, cultural and creative industries. Their primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections for women and DEI related purposes’. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy groups to influence government policy? Where’s the arts funding here? This is advocacy, research and brokering connections. Why are taxpayers funding advocacy?  

Mr Blackwell: One of the functions of Creative Australia is to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia. I’m not sure about the amount of funding over what period you’re referring to, but that may well be activities that allow us to perform this function.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, why are we funding this? The primary focus is ‘advocacy, research and brokering connections’. Why are we funding advocacy? Basically, advocacy is funding advocacy groups to influence government policy. Where’s the art?  

Senator Green: I’m not familiar with that project, so we’d have to take it on notice. I don’t know if the officials from Creative Australia have more information for you about what that project or that organisation is doing. Obviously, some organisations are funded for a particular project, so they might have some more explanation for you.  

Mr Blackwell: We do, actually. Thank you, Minister. Diversity Arts Australia are a delivery partner to service the organisations under the community, arts and cultural development stream of our funding. Those organisations that we classify as delivery partners provide services to the arts sector. They strengthen the arts sector, and they allow the arts sector to leverage more value through that connection. That is the connection through to the arts sector and how we would then fulfil that function to support Australian arts practice that reflects the diversity of Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: You used some nice buzzwords in there—delivery, diversity, leverage. But you didn’t tell me why you’re funding advocacy. Advocacy is not art.  

Mr Blackwell: No, but it’s advocacy for the arts. It’s not lobbying; it’s advocacy for the arts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why are you funding that?  

Mr Blackwell: Because that’s part of our remit.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, RP? Can you give a quick explanation of that, please?  

Mr Blackwell: Sorry; could you repeat the question?  

Senator ROBERTS: Does your system for accountability for grants include the concept of a responsible person, and could you give a quick explanation if it is?  

Mr Blackwell: I would say that we have a responsible process for issuing our grants from start to finish.  

Senator ROBERTS: Does that incorporate a responsible person for each grant?  

Mr Blackwell: Could you define ‘responsible person’ for me?  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m asking you if it includes that. It doesn’t sound like it does.  

Senator Green: Perhaps you need to provide the context of what you’re referring to—the agreement or the consideration of the application. You may have to give us a guide on what you’re referring to.  

Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps it’ll come out in the more detailed questions.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: You gave $197,500 to a recipient called Click Ink Inc. for the Bankstown Poetry Slam. They describe themselves: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power, and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by, and disaffected with, systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism, solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ That’s the end of the quote. Events include ‘They call me the good Muslim’, ‘I am Palestinian’ and related pro-Palestinian events. My question is simple. Why are taxpayer dollars funding propaganda? This isn’t art; it’s politics. 

Mr Blackwell: I would say that it is art. I’d have to disagree with you. I would say that it is art. Poetry slams are a common and popular form of artistic expression in this country.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go through the quote again: We actively work to dismantle barriers of access, power and representation. We prioritise the voices of those most affected by and disaffected with systemic oppression. They say: ‘We fight for anti-imperialism and solidarity with Aboriginal sovereignty and our Muslim, Arab and migrant communities.’ This sounds like it’s very divisive and pushing an ideology, not art. It doesn’t bother you?  

Senator Green: Art can be political or non-political. You might not like that type of art, but it might be what other people choose to express. It might be a form of expression for them, or there might be an audience for that type of art. I think it’s wrong to say that art can’t be political or shouldn’t be political in some sort of way. Otherwise, we might have a lot of pictures of fields but we wouldn’t have any generation of debate or discussion through the use of art. Are you suggesting that there should be no politics in any songs, music, plays or artistic expression?  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re saying it’s okay for your government to push ideological issues as politics.  

Senator Green: No, that’s not what’s happening here.  

Senator ROBERTS: That is what’s happening.  

Senator Green: No. This is funding for artistic expression projects. I thought One Nation was the party of freedom of expression, so I’m a little confused about why you would want to stifle people’s views even if you don’t agree with them and even if you don’t agree with the art. You might not want to go to the poetry slam, but it doesn’t mean that art can’t be political in some way.  

Senator ROBERTS: We are not in favour of government funding government propaganda and government ideology.  

Senator Green: But you are in favour of freedom of expression, aren’t you?  

Senator ROBERTS: Correct, but not funded by government necessarily.  

Senator Green: Only when it suits you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Not funded by government.  

Senator Green: Only the freedom of expression that you—  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re defending propaganda from your own government.  

Senator Green: No, it’s not propaganda. The views of the artists might not support our government, but we don’t think that that is a reason why particular art shouldn’t be supported. To make my final point for your next question, the law that was passed in 2023 made it very clear that the government has no role in the funding decisions so that any type of government that might be in power can’t influence the independent funding decisions to alleviate the particular issues that you’re talking about.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s where I’m heading—accountability. Here’s an example. The registered person for this organisation—presumably, it’s registered with you. I don’t know who it’s registered with. The registered person for this organisation is Bilal Hafda, who said on social media that ‘any Australian who fails to support Palestinians who attacked Israel is a white supremacist’. Another registered person is Sara Saleh, who celebrated the Hamas terrorist aerial attack on Israel on her social media. Is there any rule in your grant guide that precludes grants from being used for political purposes?  

Mr Blackwell: In our funding agreements, we have conditions. If you give me a moment, I’ll find it. Our funding agreements have a condition that says that ‘it is a condition of your funding that you comply with all applicable state, territory and Commonwealth work, health and safety and antidiscrimination laws’.  

Senator ROBERTS: That’s it?  

Mr Blackwell: And we refer them to Safe Work Australia and the Australian Human Rights Commission for more information on those applicable laws. So that is—  

Senator ROBERTS: So celebrating terrorists is okay?  

Mr Blackwell: I—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll go on. Ali Al Haj Hussein, who is also known as the Poetic Ninja, has won multiple awards at the Bankstown Poetry Slam. He has praised Hezbollah—declared terrorists—as ‘men of God’, praised the 7 October murders as ‘just the beginning’, promised to ‘drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell’ and used an implicit threat of violence in a poem at the Sydney Writers Festival, where he called for the downfall of the western empire and all its debauchery, including in a general context the same 2SLGBTQQIPAA community your grants are advancing. Does this sound to you like a great day out for the family to listen to poetry? This isn’t art or free expression. It’s an incitement to violence against the Australian community. Why are you funding it? 

Mr Blackwell: I can tell you, in terms of the funding, the grant was $98,000—  

Senator ROBERTS: Nearly a hundred thousand dollars.  

Mr Blackwell: and the project summary, which was funded, was monthly themed poetry slam events; the grand slam championship, Real Talk; high-school poetry programs; the National Youth Poetry Slam; and the development of the Brave New Word Youth Poetry Festival at the Powerhouse Museum. That’s what we funded.  

Senator ROBERTS: You are funding multiple awards for someone praising a terrorist group and wanting to drag the Israeli people to the deepest pits of hell—an implicit threat of violence.  

Mr Blackwell: I’m not aware of that quotation.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, you are now. Moving on to the artist Kait James and her Red Flags exhibition, this was partly funded by Creative Australia with a grant of $48,000 on 28 November 2023. As the title suggests, this exhibition decided certain people and events were red flags to the Aboriginal community and proceeded to insult these people and events using a series of pennants and tea towels. One Nation leader, Pauline Hanson, was mocked, and Captain Cook had his eyes crossed out and was called a c-u-n-t. This is kindergarten art. You talk about not being political, Minister. Why does everything you or Creative Australia fund which could be considered political aim to promote radical causes, including radical Islam, and attack conservatives and everyday Australians? Where’s the balance? This is divisive, and it’s pushing a Marxist ideology. Why are you funding only one side?  

Mr Blackwell: In regard to Kait James’s Red Flags, we funded it for $48,000 under an arts project grant for the development of the artwork. We weren’t involved in putting on that exhibition. The grant has been acquitted. Within that, there is content which we would say falls into freedom of artistic expression. It may offend some people, Senator, but not necessarily all people. There may be satire in it. All of these things form part of artistic expression.  

Senator ROBERTS: Minister, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition, the same one I just raised. Was the criticism of a political rival the quid pro quo for making such a large grant, and what pot of taxpayer money did that grant come from? Where did the money come from?  

Senator Green: First of all, to make it clear, the funding was provided through Creative Australia. It’s not a decision of government; it’s a decision of Creative Australia. But I take your point. The art is not to my taste, but people are entitled to express their views in different ways. I note that viewers of the exhibition were provided a warning about the fact that the art depicted themes and images related to historical and ongoing systematic racism and discrimination and included critique of the artist’s perspectives and strong language. Viewer discretion was advised, so certainly people who wanted to view that art were given fair warning. As I said, it’s not something that I necessarily would consider. I wouldn’t have done it myself, and it probably isn’t something I would go to see, but people are entitled to respect the views of individuals and to present their views in different ways.  

Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your answer, Creative Australia gave a grant of $48,000, which Mr Blackwell confirmed.  

Senator Green: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m advised that the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development, Communications, Sport and the Arts contributed $318,000 to the Red Flags exhibition. That would seem to me to be outside the Creative Australia funds. So where did that money come from? What pot of gold in the department did that money come from?  

Senator Green: You are correct. Sorry; I thought you were talking about the grant from Creative Australia for the development of the exhibition.  

Senator ROBERTS: No—the $318,000.  

Senator Green: There was funding under the Office for the Arts, who were with us a bit earlier. Apologies; those officials have left. You won’t be able to ask them about the funding.  

Senator ROBERTS: I can ask you, though.  

Senator Green: Yes, but I’m not an official, so I will have to take it on notice if I don’t have enough information for you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. When you come back with your answer on notice, could you tell us whether or not this was political quid pro quo for a political rival.  

Senator Green: Definitely not. I don’t need to take that on notice. I can tell you with 100 per cent confidence that we don’t fund art because we want to attack One Nation. We can do that if we just walk up to the press gallery.  

Senator ROBERTS: For ministers, it’s much cheaper to walk up to the press gallery, hey?  

Senator Green: You should go up to the press gallery! They can ask you some questions.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m used to it. Minister, everyday Australians are sick of taxpayers’ money being spent on insider projects and social engineering. We had embarrassment from your government yesterday on this. When will your government listen to them?  

Senator Green: We do listen to Australians. We’ve just finished consultation on the most recent cultural policy. It’ll be the first time Australia’s ever had two national cultural policies in a row. You will remember the release of the Revive cultural policy. So we do give Australians an opportunity to give us feedback on what our cultural policy should be. We’re making sure that that development of that policy takes into consideration all of those views.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why do you push ideologically driven, divisive policies that split the Australian community?  

Senator Green: I think that’s what you and One Nation do, Senator—respectfully—and unfortunately we’re seeing that more and more from the Liberal and National parties as they try to join you in that fight.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thanks, Minister. Thanks, Mr Blackwell.

/0 Comments/by

Responsible Oversight, Not Cuts to the PBS

,

The New England Times published a hit piece falsely claiming One Nation plans to remove medications from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). This is an outright lie. One Nation will defend the PBS, just as we defend Medicare.

Here is the truth.

Our 2025 policy promises a sensible review of medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy. We are looking specifically at just three drugs — Paxlovid, Remdesivir and Molnupiravir — to examine safer, cost-effective alternatives.

No Australian will be left without medication. We are not changing PBS charges, altering existing government payments, or tearing up legally binding contracts.

Society benefits when the sick are healed quickly and cared for with dignity.

Financial barriers shouldn’t stand in the way of care and One Nation will protect the 40-year legacy of the PBS against Labor and Big Pharma’s attempt to spin sensible scrutiny into fearmongering.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Tonight I discuss the heart of Australia’s future: whether our higher education system is identifying and supporting excellence or whether elites have captured education to reward size, history and established reputation. How many Australians know that some of the highest rated higher education institutions in our country, in terms of student satisfaction, are not the sandstone Group of Eight universities or any public universities? They’re smaller, independent universities, one of which, Alphacrucis University College, records student satisfaction rates of 90 per cent for overall educational experience when the national average sits in the mid-70s. The national regulator recognises Alphacrucis as delivering superior quality education and granted it unlimited self-accrediting authority, in part because students studying a postgraduate teaching degree at Alphacrucis graduated with a job 100 per cent of the time. Until recently, I didn’t know that tertiary education institutions with this level of success existed. Australians need to know there are exemplary institutions leading our country, yet we’ve never heard of them. 

We need to reassess how our tertiary institutions are supported, because, if we don’t, we’re reinforcing the status quo, and that’s not working. Our universities have governance issues, financial issues, confidence issues and efficiency issues, yet there are higher education providers achieving excellent outcomes for students without the hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in funding that our public universities receive, including grants and commercial activity. If institutions like Alphacrucis do not become well known, students who might have thrived in such a place will miss the opportunity. Students will be less satisfied with their education than they might otherwise have been. Students might be less likely to graduate into employment and less likely to leave their mark and their legacy on our society. Philanthropic foundations need to know that outside of the G8 there’s great teaching and research, and it’s worthy of support. Foundations need to be looking for opportunities to fund teaching and research institutions like Alphacrucis, because that’s where our future may well be. 

Government has set lofty aspirational targets for tertiary attainment through the Australian Universities Accord and has already acknowledged that public universities alone cannot achieve these targets. The system needs provider diversity and rewards for excellence. Our tertiary funding must move to a level playing field. We must allocate funds on actual performance, not past reputation. The government makes much noise of diversity, yet where’s the funding for real diversity in higher education? The G8 sandstone universities would benefit from increased competition. We must do all that we can to remove barriers from lesser known institutions to enable them to compete. Part of that is to raise their profile, and part of that is to shift funds from the sandstone G8s to institutions already delivering. 

One Nation is committed to greater scrutiny of tertiary institution funding and wants to know why funding favours established universities over new entries. I’m focusing on Alphacrucis, yet the issue is larger than one university college. It’s about whether Australia rewards performance or prestige. These are not the same thing. Reward is about working for today’s students. Prestige is about what’s been done for students in days past. It’s about whether new institutions with fresh ideas are given the opportunity to compete or whether the system remains tilted towards those who have always held advantage. 

Alphacrucis University College is a test case, an institution achieving outstanding student satisfaction, national recognition for quality and a growing reputation for excellence, yet most Australians have never heard of it. If we’re serious about innovation, competition and value for taxpayers, then institutions should be judged on what they actually deliver, not on how old they are, how large they are or how well connected they are. Australia’s future depends upon identifying excellence wherever it’s found and giving it the opportunity to flourish. The Australian people deserve a higher education system that rewards achievement, encourages competition and invests in results. That’s beneficial for students, for taxpayers and for Australia’s future. 

Tonight I address media misrepresentation of One Nation’s policy to review some drugs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS. The New England Times newspaper flagrantly lied to readers in a story just published last Saturday, giving the false impression that One Nation will be removing medications from the PBS. Author RK Crosby’s hit piece was titled ‘Concern brewing as buried Hanson policy threatens affordable medicines’. Only last week, I included the PBS in a list of social welfare institutions that One Nation would defend in government—not tolerate or be afraid to touch but defend. This pathetic piece of journalism shows the lack of research the New England Times conducted for its story. I understand that, like many regional newspapers, the New England Times is short of staff. This leads them to accept a hit piece that Better Access Australia most likely prepared. It’s quoted extensively, and its mission statement is to transfer as much taxpayer money as it can into big pharma’s pockets. 

One phone call would have cleared this up. The story stems from a two-line election policy promise in 2025 which said One Nation will review all medications fast-tracked during COVID to ensure safety and efficacy have been proven. It’s perfectly sensible and responsible. In fact, most of the drugs that were given emergency use authorisation, officially known as the provisional use pathway, have already been withdrawn or had their use reduced to insignificance. Only three remain of interest to One Nation, and these are the drugs we will review: Paxlovid; remdesivir, or ‘Run—death is near’; and molnupiravir. With each of these, there are alternatives which anecdotally carry a lower cost and better safety and efficacy outcomes. No Australian will be left without medication—not one Australian. This is actually a small promise that the pharmaceutical lobby has deliberately taken out of context. During COVID, big pharma benefited to the tune of billions of dollars and is terrified of any scrutiny. 

To open their story, RK Crosby offered a vignette suggesting One Nation will remove asthma medication from the PBS—an outright lie; a fabrication, pure and simple. One Nation threatening affordable medicines is an outright lie. One Nation will not change PBS charges nor change the amounts government pays under the existing arrangements. Contracts signed will be honoured. If we start tearing up legally-binding contracts, confidence in government will never recover. We’re not going to tear up contracts. Negotiate? Yes. Tear up? No. For clarity, no PBS contracts are in our sights. 

The COVID vaccines will be looked at in our terms of reference for a royal commission, although these were not supplied through the PBS. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry didn’t want to mention their COVID products and instead chose to lie about our PBS policy. For the record, here’s the philosophy behind our policy. As I said last week in the Senate, One Nation supports the PBS for the same reason we support Medicare. Society benefits when our sick are healed quickly and returned to looking after themselves. For those with permanent conditions, the basic laws of humanity require society to care for those people with love and respect. The financial cost of medication and related devices should not detract from this care. 

Last week, Minister Butler made similar comments. On this, we’re in alignment. Over the last 40 years, the PBS has balanced prices paid to pharmaceutical companies against product benefits. Sometimes negotiation has delayed drugs, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee displayed a sensible balance, making our PBS the envy of the world. We will defend the process of negotiating drug prices to ensure no compromise on the principles that have informed the PBS for 40 years. 

I’ll discuss two more policies. One Nation will introduce legislation in the next parliament for the right to try. This means that, if a person is being treated for an illness the outcome of which could be death and all existing measures have failed, the patient has a right to request from their doctor, or a doctor has a right to suggest, a drug not listed for that condition. It may be an alternative therapy or an unlisted drug. To put this simply, the patient has nothing to lose and everything to gain. This may expand the market for existing pharmaceutical products—who knows? That’s the point. It’s a free clinical trial that a patient has voluntarily entered into, reducing drug prices and saving lives. 

The other policy is to introduce an eight-year wait for new arrivals to access the PBS, unless you’re a citizen or a permanent resident. Under One Nation, there’ll be an eight-year wait for citizenship and for permanent residence. This will not be backdated. You can’t be unmade as citizen. This will not deny medical care for new arrivals, who will pay for that care themselves. Anyone on prescription medication can vote One Nation without fear of losing access to or paying more for their medication. I trust that’s clear.

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Draws the Line on Terrorism

,

Australians’ safety must come before the rights of people who chose to join terrorist organisations.

The Albanese Government keeps insisting it gave “zero assistance” to repatriate ISIS-linked individuals. Yet, the evidence shows ministerial meetings, advocacy coordination, passport help, DNA testing, citizenship paperwork and a $100 million-funded NGO quietly managing the logistics.

These women entered declared terrorist zones, joined listed organisations, and in some cases, allegedly participated in the enslavement of Yazidi women — offences carrying penalties of up to 25 years. Two have been charged. Why not the rest?

One Nation has moved the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill to stop further returns, including 13 men still in custody overseas. Our bill is constitutional, targeted and designed for one purpose. Keeping Australians Safe.

If Labor won’t draw the line on terrorism, One Nation will.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I move the motion: The need to put the safety of all Australians ahead of the rights of people who chose to join or support terrorist organisations 

Australia is now hosting people who left our shores to fight for ISIS or other Islamic terrorist organisations against Australia and against our allies in Syria. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria was overthrown in that war. Syria fell into the hands of Islamic group HTS, which recently reformed into a more moderate government. Guess what? They don’t want these women. Syrian authorities are treating them as foreign nationals awaiting deportation. In early 2026, when a group of Australian ISIS combatants tried to leave the al-Roj refugee camp, Syrian officials briefly turned them back because they wanted explicit confirmation that Australia would accept them upon arrival. The new Syrian government is clearly smarter than this Albanese Labor government. 

What offences did these women commit in travelling to an area designated as a zone of terrorist activity? Firstly, under section 119.2 of the Criminal Code, it’s an offence for an Australian citizen to intentionally enter or remain in an area, specifically the al-Raqqa province in Syria. Simply being physically present within these ISIS controlled borders without an approved excuse is a crime carrying a penalty of up to 10 years imprisonment. 

Secondly, under section 102.3 of the Criminal Code, it’s a criminal offence to intentionally join a listed terrorist organisation. The definition of membership extends beyond combatants to include individuals who swear allegiance, provide support or willingly integrate into the group’s societal structure. The penalty is up to 10 years imprisonment. 

Thirdly, enslavement offences under section 268.10 of the Criminal Code include the reduction of a person to a status of slavery, including purchasing, owning, using or trading human beings. The Australian Federal Police allege that some of these women were complicit in the purchase and domestic enslavement of captured Yazidi women. The penalty is up to 25 years imprisonment per charge, amongst the harshest penalties in Australian law, and rightly so. 

While charges have been laid against two, One Nation is asking, ‘Why not the others?’ Home affairs minister Tony Burke and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese have consistently claimed the government provided ‘absolutely zero assistance’ to bring these women back to Australia. This is not accurate. The evidence indicating that Minister Burke’s office and federal departments helped or cleared paths for the women includes handwritten notes of Department of Home Affairs secretary Stephanie Foster revealing that Minister Burke held undisclosed meetings with the Save the Children fund, who were responsible for bringing these women back to Australia. During these discussions, Minister Burke reportedly thanked the advocacy group for keeping their repatriation plans quiet and out of the media. The minister explicitly noted that the government ‘doesn’t want to be perceived to have been paying to have them smuggled out’. Paying? The minister is referring to the $100 million that Save the Children has received in federal government funding in the last three years. 

Minister Burke coordinated with Dr Jamal Rifi, a prominent Western Sydney Islamic community leader, who served as the key facilitator managing the ground logistics for their return to Australia. The federal government actively processed the legal paperwork required for international travel, which the UN special rapporteur on counterterrorism described as being ‘utterly disingenuous’ to deny as being of assistance. Minister Burke conceded that the Department of Home Affairs assisted with passports, identity verification, DNA testing and citizenship documentation for the children born overseas. When the women applied for travel documents, the government chose not to implement long-term temporary exclusion orders, even though their circumstances perfectly met the criteria for that order. 

The return of foreign Islamic fighters is not over. There are 13 men in captivity in Iraq who could be returned with the same assistance Minister Burke gave these women. Not on One Nation’s watch. Australia needs protection from Islamic terrorism, and we need protection from politicians facilitating Islamic terrorists’ return to Australia. This is why One Nation will tomorrow move to introduce the Protecting Australians from Foreign Terrorist Fighters Bill 2026, a bill the Greens call unconstitutional. What absolute rubbish! Constitutional law expert Professor Anne Twomey has said One Nation’s bill is structured to navigate constitutional hurdles, because our bill was carefully written to comply with High Court rulings on this topic, and we believe it is constitutional. Our bill strengthens Australia’s ability to prevent the return to Australia of persons who have served with, participated in the activities of or materially supported terrorist organisations, to protect our Australian community. I ask the Senate to take this sensible measure to protect Australians from people who have actively fought in foreign lands against Australia and against our allies, to fulfil government’s and parliament’s primary role, to keep Australians safe.

/0 Comments/by

Strengthening Financial Access in the Bush

,

During this session with Australia Post, I raised concerns from local outlet operators like Kylie in Agnes Waters, who face increasing operational pressures.

Australia Post confirmed that while they are not actively cutting over-the-counter services, telecommunications companies, government agencies, and banks are driving down physical transactions by raising manual fees, pushing digital channels, or pulling services like Western Union.

Addressing the abrupt closure of the Coleambally Post Office, Australia Post explained it resulted from a licensee walking away without notice. To maintain local parcel, mail, and expanding financial services, they partnered with the town’s pharmacy, a co-location model now operating across 82 locations nationwide.

I confirmed that ANZ officially joined Bank@Post on October 1st, bringing the total number of participating financial institutions to 81.

There is a need for physical over-the-counter banking in the bush. One Nation we will establish a People’s Bank to provide a full range of banking services to everyday Australians using the Bank@Post system. This will make Post Offices profitable again and improve banking options for all Australians.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Here’s an email from the Agnes Waters Post Office in Queensland: ‘Hi, my name is Kylie. I managed this outlet for 14 years before buying it 18 months ago. We are 1½ hours from the next nearest full-service post office. In my community, our post office is the only practical point of access for banking, bill payment, retail, parcel services and government related business. This business is under significant pressures from several areas of operation’—which I’ll now ask about. Are BPAY options being reduced inside Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: No, they’re not. What we are finding is that telecommunications companies are encouraging their customers to digitise payment as opposed to going into a branch and paying over the counter—indeed, people are now incurring penalties or higher costs. One telco in particular has increased its fee for those people paying manually over the counter, which is a deterrent to those customers, because they’re trying to encourage them to pay online.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is Western Union being withdrawn? I think you said it is because—  

Mr Graham: It is being withdrawn. After a thorough review in relation to the risk of that product, we have decided, with the support of the licensees, to withdraw that product. But we have done an arrangement with Western Union that the individual licensees can have an agreement directly with Western Union to continue providing those services. We’ve also highlighted to those licensees the risks in relation to that service.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are government and agency services available over the counter reducing in number?  

Mr Graham: They are reduced in number, through no action of Australia Post but through the actions of those agencies or those governments by making it available only through a digital channel, or increasing fees for over-the-counter transactions, or, indeed, removing the service altogether. For example, in the Northern Territory, the NT government has removed the ability to provide that service over the counter at a post office. That service is only available at a Northern Territory government office. We are continuing to work with the NT on reintroducing those services to an over-the-counter service.  

Senator ROBERTS: The retail structure that once supported LPOs has been replaced with a new system, I’m told, that provides less profit for the post office. We’ve spoken about this before. They must have lost revenue. When I go into a post office, no matter where it is, there’s less merchandise available for sale. Do you accept that change has cost LPOs revenue and profit.  

Mr Graham: No, I don’t. The LPOs have a licence to go and sell whatever product they think is appropriate for their post office. In our corporate post offices, yes, we have reduced the range quite a lot. We no longer sell air fryers or electric guitars or whipper snippers or flat-screen TVs. When we did sell them, we sold them at significant loss. We have focused on five key categories, based on significant surveys from our customers about what they want to buy in a post office, including greeting cards, and travel is a big one because we obviously provide passport renewal. We provide travel insurance and other things related to travel, cheap mobile phones and SIM cards, and then a small range of general merchandising. But we continue to provide the licensees with access to Australia Post products. As I said in my earlier statement, with things like photocopy paper or our greeting cards, we have dramatically increased the margins available to licensees through our collective purchasing power and are making those available as an Australia Post branded product. The product’s called JoyUp—that’s not my choice; I’m not a marketing person—but the licensees have the ability to put whatever product they feel they can sell within their Post Office. Indeed, I’ve been to many licensed post offices where there’s a broad array of products that they make money on.  

Senator ROBERTS: There’s nothing to stop them putting their own arrangements in place?  

Mr Graham: Provided it complies with Australian safety standards and Australian copyright standards, correct.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got Kylie’s letter in front of me. I was going to read some out, but in the interests of time I won’t do that. Kylie talks about uncertainty around contract terms making it hard to plan for the future. Is this something you’re familiar with?  

Mr Graham: No. Again, if it’s a licensed post office, it’s a perpetual licence. As I said, we have been in consultation with the licensed post office council and both licensee associations to look at modernising the agreements we have in place around commissions. These were set up many, many years ago and, again, aren’t really fit for purpose, and both licensees agree. We continue to be in consultation as to how we can modernise those agreements and look at things like creating a larger fixed fee to provide greater sustainability and greater certainty. However, I go back to the previous comments—the nature of a post office, and how it is used today, is dramatically different from how it was 10 years ago, even five years ago. We continue to work with licensees in relation to the sustainability of these outlets, but it is challenging.  

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I’ve been watching, in the last 10 years—since I’ve been in the Senate—just how dramatically your letter traffic has gone down. Your parcels are picking up, but you’ve got increased competition. So your traditional services are now a small proportion of your overall services.  

Mr Graham: Correct. As I said, 60 per cent of the reason someone goes into a post office today is parcel related; next is Billpay, then Bank@Post and then things associated with passports, but all three of those are in decline.  

Senator ROBERTS: And there’s a huge community impact from a post office being shut.  

Mr Graham: Indeed. I’ve been to regional towns where the licensee has handed back the post office. Again, as Senator Henderson mentioned, in the case of Tathra it’s been in place for 123 years. It’s been in place for that long because it was one of the stops where Cobb & Co used to refresh the horses. That’s how we ended up with post offices in these small country towns. But, again, that community is using that post office for eight transactions a week.  

Senator ROBERTS: So why did Coleambally Post Office close? I understand it was out of the blue, sudden, and now the only service is the pharmacy, running the mail service—with no attempt on your part, apparently, to reopen the location. I checked, and the population at Coleambally in 2016—that’s the latest figure I could get— was 1,330. So it’s not a tiny town, and it’s an irrigation area, which means there should be good money around.  

Mr Graham: Yes, I agree. We literally had no notice, nor did the town. The licensee literally walked away— put a lock on the doors and didn’t come back—and we continued to pursue that licensee. We immediately set about ensuring that people could get access to mail and parcels, because that was the priority for the town. We worked with the local pharmacy, who stepped up to the plate and was able to provide those services under a CPA arrangement. We continue to work with that pharmacy. Indeed, we met with council again this week to look at how we can reintroduce financial services, and we are committed to doing that in Coleambally. But this is a good example of what happens when a licensee vacates with no notice. We are as blindsided as the community. We recognise that Coleambally requires these services, and we’re working with the community to make sure these services are available. We do see the association with pharmacies as a good partnership. Pharmacies, like Australia Post, are a trusted brand in the community. They have extended opening hours. Unlike Australia Post, most of them open seven days a week, generally. They, also, are under threat from changes within their and are looking at additional foot traffic to generate sales. We now have 82 post offices in conjunction with pharmacies. It’s proven to be a successful model, which is why, when Coleambally came up, we immediately defaulted to talking to the local pharmacy, with the support of the pharmacy.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you’re in partnership with some pharmacies in some areas?  

Mr Graham: With 82 pharmacies, yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to rural customers who say that your level of care about the plight of rural customers is a scandal? How far is it to your local post office?  

Mr Graham: I live in the city. My local post office is probably 1½ kays, two kays.  

Senator ROBERTS: What do you say to customers who are concerned about the plight?  

Mr Graham: We agree with their concerns. That’s, again, why we’re happy to have the regulatory commitment of 2½ thousand post offices in regional, rural and remote areas. We do have some significant difficulties, particularly in the remote locations where we continue to fund a presence because it’s the right thing to do, and we’ll continue to do that. Again I call out the difficult nature of these licensees and their viability. Where a town has a need, we will make sure we satisfy that need.  

Senator ROBERTS: I want to touch on banks quickly. Freedom-of-information requests revealed part of the terms for the government to approve a ANZ’s acquisition of Suncorp Bank was for the ANZ to make the best endeavours to join Bank@Post on commercial terms for a minimum of three years. Can you provide the date they joined so I can ensure that they at least stay for the three years?  

Mr Graham: I’m pleased to say that, after some intensive negotiations, we convinced ANZ to join. Their original premise was that they didn’t have a lot of customers interested in the service. However, they were active from 1 October last year as a member of Bank@Post, and we have seen a significant activity with ANZ customers in relation to using those services both in metropolitan areas and regional areas. Again, this has provided an additional income stream to licensees because, obviously, ANZ was not part of Bank@Post previously.  

Senator ROBERTS: How many banks now participate in Bank@Post?  

Mr Graham: We have 81 financial institutions and banks participating. Obviously the big four banks are the bulk of the transactions, but there are 81 institutions, credit unions, smaller banks and other financial services in relation to which we can perform over-the-counter services.  

Senator ROBERTS: I think the only question I’ve got left is: will One Nation get into government and create a people’s bank using Bank@Post for a full range of banking services before you shut down every branch in the bush?  

Mr Graham: Well, first of all, we are not shutting branches in the bush. We have no intention of being a full service bank. We believe that the over-the-counter services we provide are a valuable community service, and we will continue to sustain those services. Moving from an over-the-counter service provider to a full bank is a large undertaking and not one that we are considering at Australia Post.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much for attending. Thank you for your answers and punctuality.  

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts. 

/0 Comments/by

National Security Must Comes First

,

I questioned security authorities on the thoroughness of the screening processes for returning individuals and older children, ensuring ASIO and joint counter-terrorism teams are actively monitoring threats to keep our citizens safe.

I asked about the total costs of managing, monitoring and integrating these returnees. Taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going, yet officials refused to disclose specific resource allocations in a public forum.

I raised concerns about how risk assessment notices are followed up with state authorities, specifically questioning NSW Police decisions regarding security during heightened-risk periods prior to recent tragedies.

I will never stop asking the tough questions to ensure our national security comes first and the government remains accountable to the Australian people. Australians deserve no less!

Transcript:

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Shoebridge. Senator Roberts.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. Another group of ISIS concubines and their children arrived this week.  

Senator Shoebridge: I’m going to take a point of order: that kind of language is just pointlessly, gratuitously offensive, and I’d ask Senator Roberts to review his language and rephrase his question.  

CHAIR: Withdraw, please, Senator Roberts, and please refrain from that kind of— 

Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw ‘concubines’. ISIS terrorist wives, brides, partners: what security screening has been done on them to ensure the safety of Australian citizens, as a group and also individually?  

Mr Gilmore: As I said earlier this evening, ASIO has worked over many years to understand the threat posed by those Australians who chose to travel offshore and join ISIL. We’ve provided advice on this cohort and other cohorts previously, both overseas and in Australia, to government departments and agencies, consistent with our statutory functions and requirements, for many years.  

Senator ROBERTS: Excuse me; were you watching them on the way out, while they were over there and on the way back?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO will always be watching to identify threats. When information comes to our attention that requires action, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have they been screened individually and as a group? I guess what you’re saying is yes.  

Mr Gilmore: What I’ve said is that on any cohort that travels overseas—and I think I could characterise people travelling to join ISIL as a cohort that has been of interest to ASIO for many years, along with our partners, I must say, including in the JCTTs.  

Senator ROBERTS: Are older children to be screened for security risk? I understand that the eldest at the moment is 18 years of age.  

Mr Gilmore: That would be a question for the security authorities, AFP and others.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I’m sure you understand that there are limits to what ASIO is able to put in the public domain as well.  

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. I understand there’s the New South Wales police, for example, or the AFP. Will ASIO have a role in ensuring national security after these and other returnees arrive and stay in Australia?  

Mr Gilmore: Absolutely. ASIO’s function is to protect Australia and Australians from threats to their security. That means that we will always be looking and, where we need to, we will act.  

Senator ROBERTS: What is all of the work relating to the return of the brides, wives, partners, costing? What are the future related costs?  

Mr Gilmore: ASIO receives a baseline allocation from government, as with any department or agency. We have a robust prioritisation and resource allocation process. The details of how those resources are allocated is not something that I could declare in this public forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking you to declare the detailed operational plans. I’m asking what the cost would be for these women that have recently come back. 

CHAIR: I think Mr Gilmore has indicated that the question you’re asking goes to the very thing that he’s just said he’s not willing to disclose in this forum.  

Senator ROBERTS: Don’t you think the taxpayers have a right to know?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the taxpayers would be expecting us to prioritise our resources against the highest threats and to be doing our job, which is what we’re doing.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough money to cover it?  

Mr Gilmore: We have allocations from government. We have a prioritisation process. We assess risk and we do our job.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have enough to do your job?  

Mr Gilmore: We have the resources allocated by budget. I think the director-general has been on the public record for successive years. If you want specific details that we might be able to offer this evening, we could go there, but we do.  

Senator ROBERTS: When ASIO provide heightened terrorist risk alert notices to the New South Wales police service, is there any expectation or follow-up by ASIO to check if there has been a suitable response from the New South Wales police?  

Mr Gilmore: You may be aware that we’re members of the joint counterterrorism teams around the country. They consist of ASIO, AFP and the state and territory police authorities in each state and territory. We share information through those forums. But it’s not just those forums; there are many other mechanisms. We work very closely with our partners in the states and territories.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you keep tabs on them formally or informally or both?  

Mr Gilmore: Could you just clarify ‘keep tabs on them’?  

Senator ROBERTS: Keep tabs on New South Wales police, for example—when you give them advice, you watch to make sure that they implement that advice.  

Mr Gilmore: We partner very closely. I think it would be reasonable to say we have a shared understanding through that habitual relationship that we’ve built over many, many years with our police partners.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is ASIO concerned to find that the New South Wales police service had actually wound back the police presence for Jewish festivals or events shortly before the Bondi atrocity, the murders, even though they had been warned of a heightened-risk assessment of terrorist activity?  

Mr Gilmore: I apologise, but that would go to matters being considered by the royal commission, and it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to comment on those this evening. Needless to say, resourcing decisions for police or for other agencies and departments are decisions are made by them, and they’re questions that should be directed to them.  

Senator ROBERTS: In the process of your relationship—it’s a close relationship, I’m concluding—would you comment if something were less than you expected?  

Mr Gilmore: We will always work closely with our partners. Nothing is achieved alone, and there are no truer words in the security and intelligence domain. We rely on close relationships with our partners to understand and respond to threats to Australia.  

Senator ROBERTS: I assume it’s in both of your interests to do that?  

Mr Gilmore: It is.  

Senator ROBERTS: Was ASIO aware of the NSW Police Force winding back when you sent out the heightened-risk notice?  

Mr Gilmore: That’s not a question that I’m able to answer this evening.  

Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice?  

Mr Gilmore: I think the question really starts to go to some of the questions that the royal commission will be exploring, and it would be inappropriate to say anything that might compromise that process.  

Senator ROBERTS: The last question was on the royal commission, so I don’t need to go there now. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair, for your accommodation again. 

/0 Comments/by

One Nation Says NO to the UN Ocean Rules

,

One Nation opposes the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 which implements the United Nations Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty. This bill represents an unnecessary surrender of Australian sovereignty, creates excessive bureaucracy and risks global food security and medical research.

This bill mandates strict notification and database requirements for collecting marine DNA. This will discourage expensive deep-sea medical research, protect pharmaceutical companies and impose unprecedented criminal penalties for collecting ocean compounds.

It also allows the UN to declare specially managed ocean areas, aligning with the UN’s “30×30” target (conserving 30% of oceans by 2030).

Despite clauses protecting commercial fisheries, the bill threatens the global seafood supply (up to 11 billion tonnes annually) without viable substitutes.

Further, it requires mandatory assessments for activities that may cause environmental harm. This is vague, bureaucratic overreach that fails to address actual ocean issues, such as third-world plastic pollution forming major ocean garbage patches.

It also establishes a large enforcement apparatus (inspectors, permits, audits), committing Australian taxpayer funds without a capped limit. This is literally giving a “blank cheque” to the UN.

One Nation will always protect taxpayers from unquantified financial burdens, safeguard global food security, and resist the transfer of regulatory power to international bodies.

Australia first!

— March | Senate Speech

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Here comes yet another UN power grab for control over Australian sovereignty. The High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 implements Australia’s obligations under the agreement made under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction. Nobody at the UN, it seems, thought maybe a shorter name would suffice. It’s called BBNJ for short—BB, biodiversity bill, and NJ, areas beyond national jurisdiction. The bill addresses three core parts of the BBNJ agreement: marine genetic resources, MGR; area based management tools, ABMDs—the UN’s full of acronyms, isn’t it—and environmental impact assessments, EIAs. Exemptions apply to activities in Antarctica, which maintains Australia’s rights in that region. Of the main provisions of the bill, the first relates to marine genetic resources and digital sequence information. This establishes a notification based regime for Australian entities collecting or utilising marine genetic resources. Entities must submit pre-collection, post-collection and utilisation notices to the minister. The minister may issue collection or utilisation certificates. Then again, the minister may not. This could actually lock up nature’s own undersea pharmacy and protect the pharmaceutical industry. Remember, natural products can’t be patented. They’re a threat to the pharmaceutical industry. The provision in this bill which requires genetic material, including DNA sequences, to be made publicly available in a regulated repository and database may act to stop companies spending the money to conduct this research, either in entirety or via avoidance behaviour. The regulations do allow some scope for protection of intellectual property, although, given the cost of deep-sea exploration, there is a real risk of this bill reducing the deployment of nature’s remedies hidden in the ocean depths. 

Noncompliance triggers civil and criminal penalties. While previous UN agreements have made the same requirement—criminal penalties on Australians—these have been in areas where such penalties are appropriate—terrorism, genocide, slavery, and suchlike. This is the first agreement that extends the UN’s powers to cover criminal penalties for an action which one would not immediately consider illegal, like taking DNA from a marine creature, looking for a compound that could cure human disease. 

The second aspect relates to area based management tools, ABMTs, and specially managed areas. This creates a framework to recognise international area based management tools—for example, marine protected areas—decided by a UN conference of the parties. The minister must declare the area a specially managed area and determine a special management plan within 120 days, consistent with the area based management tools. Plans may include permitting regimes or prohibitions. Offences apply for contravening the plans. 

The explanatory memorandum and the hype around this agreement show great lengths have been taken to carve out commercial fishing from the agreement. Regional fisheries management organisations, like the ones that manage tuna across the world’s oceans, remain fully in charge of quotas, gear rules, seasons, and enforcement. The agreement contains a strong non-undermining clause, article 5.2, that says the whole treaty ‘shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that does not undermine’ existing fisheries bodies and rules. This was a key demand from fishing nations during negotiations, and it is repeated throughout the text when it comes to area based management tools, although there is a provision which takes precedence, which is marine protected areas on the high seas. The UN conference of the parties can propose and adopt area based management tools to protect vulnerable ecosystems, such as undersea mountains, hydrothermal vents, migration corridors and so on. How much of the ocean can be carved out in this manner depends on the exclusion zone around each of these and on the definition of things like migration corridors. Expect a significant percentage of the world’s ocean to be caught in environmental exemptions—probably 30 per cent, a figure I’ll explain in a minute. 

I appreciate there are checks and balances in this process, yet we have seen the zeal with which anything United Nations is embraced by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens and the teals. Does anyone really think the uniparty is going to say no to the United Nations once these powers have been granted? The UN has already decimated Australia’s fishing industry under these same environmental rules. Now they’ll do the same thing to ocean fishing, which, according to the UN’s own Food and Agriculture Organization, yields 11 billion tonnes of fish—of food, and protein—annually. Eleven billion tonnes of food to feed the world’s hungry may be at risk, and One Nation would argue it is at risk. Australia’s aquaculture industry, fish grown in farms, is only 100,000 tonnes per annum, according to ABARES, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. This doesn’t include wild-caught fish. What country has the ability to produce billions of tonnes of protein to replace the billions of tonnes of fish at risk from this agreement? Australia is an entire continent, and we can only manage thousands, not billions, of tonnes of aquaculture. Even the measly 40,000 tonnes coming out of Tasmania’s fish farming in Macquarie Harbour is under attack right now for being too much, too intensive, too damaging, according to the Greens, who support this bill, so go figure. What will people eat in Greens land? It’s not the first time I’ve asked them that question, and I still haven’t heard their answer. As Australia cannot change an international agreement, all One Nation can do is oppose this bill, and we will. 

The third aspect is the environmental impact assessment regime. This introduces a mandatory environmental impact assessment process for activities within Australian jurisdiction that may cause substantial pollution or harmful changes in the environment. Note the use of the word ‘may’, which is bureaucrat speak for anything they want it to mean—include anything. Every stage of the project is subject to individual licensing, scrutiny, reporting and review. The United Nations’ recipe for everything is more bureaucracy, more licences, more power and more control taken to New York to make things worse—and, if not New York, Geneva. 

How will this legislation solve the major problem actually threatening large areas of our oceans—the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, covering 1.6 million square kilometres; the south Pacific garbage patch; the north Atlantic garbage patch; the south Atlantic garbage patch; and the Indian Ocean garbage patch? How? It won’t. Can anyone show me where in this legislation these abominations, these embarrassments to civilisation will be fixed through this legislation? You can’t, Minister, because the source of this pollution is third-world countries chucking their rubbish into rivers, which travels out to sea and gathers in the gyres between permanent ocean currents. Those will not be covered by the international agreement this legislation introduces, because nobody wants to take on the countries doing it. You won’t take them on. 

Australia did it, though. We banned the export of our waste to third-world countries, who were taking out anything of value from the rubbish and then using their rivers as waste disposal facilities—putting their rubbish, our rubbish, into their rivers and then into the ocean. We did that without a United Nations agreement. We took out the dumping of rubbish and the exporting of our rubbish. We banned the exporting of our rubbish. We did that because it was the right thing to do. And, for the record, One Nation supported that legislation. Here’s the catch, though. Under this agreement, if the United Nations wanted to solve the rubbish handling across nations whose populations exceed three billion, Australia would have to pay for it. That’s the point of this bill. We undertake to pay whatever our share of whatever they spend becomes. 

The fourth area is compliance, enforcement and administration. Australia appoints inspectors for monitoring, investigation, civil penalties, infringement notices, enforceable undertakings and injunctions. This includes information notices, audits and protections against self-incrimination. Australia authorises grants, payments and financial arrangements to meet the BBNJ obligations, including capacity building and technology transfer. When I said ‘more bureaucracy’, I wasn’t joking. This is an insane level of new bureaucracy that we will be paying for. 

And here’s our next objection: the bill creates the heads of power for the government to make appropriations for the purposes of paying our share of this whole new bureaucracy yet doesn’t say how much. You do not say how much. It can’t, because the UN hasn’t set their cost yet. Whatever that outcome becomes, we pay our share of that. This legislation is a blank cheque to the bloody United Nations. One Nation will not sign blank cheques. This is taxpayer money. Taxpayers are under extreme cost-of-living pressure and housing prices. This is taxpayers’ money, and we have an obligation to make sure it’s being spent properly. When you can’t fulfil that obligation, we don’t want to spend it. There’s no reason why the spending can’t be put in a separate bill when the cost is known. Then again, financial responsibility goes out the door when it’s the United Nations asking or the World Health Organization, which is part of the UN, or the Asian Development Bank or the World Bank or any other globalist entity so beloved by the uniparty. Finally, let me share with the Senate One Nation’s overarching objection to this and similar legislation. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted in December 2022 at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations Conference of the Parties 15. This framework, which Australia has signed, includes 23 targets for 2030—that’s just four years away. Target 3, called the 30-30 target, requires members to conserve and manage at least 30 per cent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal marine areas and oceans by 2030 through creating protected areas, taking area based conservation measures and recognising Indigenous territories. 

That’s exactly what this bill does. For all the nice words—the fraudulent wording—around protecting fishing, this bill will give the United Nations, in their own words, the right to lock up 30 per cent of the world’s oceans from fishing. In so doing, the world’s hungry will lose billions of tonnes of food, of protein and of good nutrition. That’s what you’re all voting for. One Nation opposes this bill.

/0 Comments/by

13 Months Later, Labor Finally Listened

,

I first announced our policy to cut fuel excise back in February 2025, repeating it in March 2025 as part of our promise to deliver $40 billion into people’s pockets. Senator Hanson and I have consistently championed this measure, including early in 2026 following rising Middle East tensions.

After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining why cutting fuel taxes would stimulate the economy and boost productivity without driving inflation, the Albanese government finally adopted our policy, even copying our slogan about putting money back into people’s pockets.

While our policy isn’t to remove the GST on fuel entirely, halving the excise automatically reduces the GST applied on top of it, chipping away at an immoral tax-on-a-tax that both major parties have long supported.

One Nation was the first to call for fuel security, supply stability, and excise relief long before the major parties even thought of it.

They called us extremists.

Yet we were right all along and we are proud to see that our vision finally delivered some relief to everyday Australians.

— March | Senate Speech

Senator Roberts: All these bills are coming before the parliament this week to solve the fuel crisis, when the real solution would be to solve the government crisis. Reducing the excise on fuel was part of One Nation’s 2025 federal election campaign. 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Excuse me, Senator Roberts—can you maybe just be a little bit lower in terms of the sound? It’s— 

Senator Roberts: I’m already pretty short! 

The Acting Deputy President (Senator Scarr): Thank you for your good humour. 

Senator Roberts: I first announced this One Nation policy on 11 February 2025 in a Senate adjournment debate. The policy was repeated in my adjournment speech on 25 March 2025 as part of our election promise to cut $13 billion worth of excises to put more money back into the pockets of everyday Australians. Not only have the Labor Party stolen the policy; they’ve stolen the slogan about putting more money back in people’s pockets. 

My talking point is similar to one I’ve heard today. It’s this: the ACCC monitor fuel prices daily, and I’m confident the reduction will be passed on to consumers. Fuel is an input cost right across the economy. Lowering fuel prices lowers commuting costs for consumers and transport costs across the economy, including for groceries, saving consumers and industry $8 billion a year. The policy was a hit and helped to start the orange tidal wave, the orange movement. 

Senator Hanson spoke to One Nation’s policy to reduce the fuel excise in her senator’s statement on 5 March 2026. In a statement on fuel prices and security amid Middle East tensions, Senator Hanson said: 

“The government collects 51.6c per litre in fuel excise. One Nation was elected on a policy to halve that tax, cutting 26c a litre immediately, with compensation for any truckies and farmers losing rebates. The Morrison government took our advice in 2022 for six months—”

They took our advice— 

“but didn’t look after truckies and farmers. It’s time for the Albanese government to do the same and deliver cheaper fuel for Australians in 2026.”

On 2 March, I raised the fuel crisis two days after the jets flew from Israel into Iran. On 12 March, I spoke on the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Amendment (Domestic Reserve) Bill 2026 and called for the excise to be halved. This week, Senator Hanson called for the fuel excise to be removed and for the road user tax on trucks to be suspended for three months. One Nation, One Nation, One Nation, One Nation. Our policy is not to remove the GST on fuel, though reducing the excise 52c a litre will reduce the GST by 5c and end this immoral tax on a tax that both you parties support. 

So, here we are. After 13 months of One Nation patiently explaining to the ideologues on my left why reducing the fuel tax will help everyday Australians and stimulate the economy, finally, lo and behold, One Nation policy is now government policy. As I explained a minute ago, it’s not inflationary. It increases productivity. I did hear Senator Waters describe this bill as ‘rushed’. The bill is rushed. The idea of fuel duty relief, though, is not. 

It was amusing to listen to the Liberal Party and the National Party take credit for the idea. I went back and looked to see when the Liberals first started talking about cutting the excise on petrol and diesel. It was on 26 March 2026, last week, after four weeks. Yet, somehow, the Libs claim it was the Liberals who forced the Albanese government to introduce an excise cut. Nonsense. This is the second time today the Liberals have dispensed with the truth. Senator Cash’s speech on the cash ban regulations was factually false. It misrepresented the truth, and we will explain to the people of Farrer how the Liberals and the Nationals sold out the bush. Today, the uniparty was on display for everyone to see. Look at them down there. The Labor, Liberal and National uniparty were defending their big mates in big banking—their big donors in big banking. 

The Treasury Laws Amendment (Fuel Excise Relief) Bill 2026 implements a 50 per cent cut in petrol and diesel duty and suspends the road user charge. One Nation will support this sensible measure to reduce the cost of petrol by 31c for everyday Australians and 32.5c for the trucking industry. This will keep the trucks moving, putting food on the shelves at the supermarket, stock in the shops, medical supplies in hospitals and dentists and ensuring the economy doesn’t melt down entirely as a result of the war in Iran. 

I remind people that One Nation were the first to raise the fuel supply, fuel security and price volatility issues. We were the second, we were the third, we were the fourth, and we were the fifth, before the Nationals and the Liberals even dreamt of it. They’re playing catch-up. We are having crisis after crisis, and you lot over there in the government accused us of being far-right-wing extremists. We are correct, we are right, and we hit the target before you even dreamt of it.

/0 Comments/by