A Duty of Care to Our Elderly

,

Schedule 4 of The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 was added to address the government’s secret rollout of AI algorithms to assess aged-care applications. For the past year, human assessors were strictly prohibited from overriding computer decisions (even when clinically wrong), leading to under-assessments, long waiting lists and a sixfold surge in appeals, with elderly Australians dying before their reviews were resolved.

One Nation believes that although AI can be used for background legwork, it must never be allowed to make final, unreviewable decisions over human lives. We will legislate to ban fully automated government decision-making.

This AI decision-making system is part of a broader pattern of attacks by the Albanese Government on our elderly, including:

❌ Reducing health insurance rebates, pushing up to 75,000 pensioners into the public system and costing taxpayers approximately an extra $2 billion annually.

❌ Attempting to impose co-contributions on basic personal care (which they were forced to roll back).

❌ Increasing means-tested accommodation fees and daily living costs for retirees.

❌ Creating backlogs through the Support at Home framework.

❌ Raising Centrelink deeming rates by 0.5%, effectively reducing pensions based on assumed, unearned interest.

❌ Capping allied health services for older veterans at $5,000 (which the Senate successfully blocked).

Basically stealing money from pensioners!

Finally, I foreshadowed a second reading amendment regarding Voluntary Assisted Dying. While VAD is legal across all Australian states, state laws currently force aged-care facilities to allow external VAD practitioners onto their premises.

My amendment does not restrict VAD access for individuals; rather, it protects the freedom of conscience and religion for faith-based aged-care providers by allowing them to conscientiously object and opt out of facilitating VAD on-site, provided residents are informed and assisted with transfers to participating facilities. Based on the sensible South Australian model, this ensures respect for differing moral convictions in our community.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: The Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner and Other Measures) Bill 2026 amends the Aged Care Act 2024 to, firstly, establish yet another permanent statutory office, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner, within the Aged Care Quality and Safety Commission; secondly, to incorporate temporary modifications made to the Aged Care (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) (Aged Care System Modification) Rules 2025 into the Aged Care Act and Aged Care Rules 2025 and repeal the instrument; and, thirdly, to vary arrangements concerning refundable deposits, including their use while an individual awaits a means-test assessment, the ability to transfer deposits between providers and the treatment of deposits in aged-care means-testing. One Nation is in support of these long-overdue changes. Fourthly, it will make other administrative and regulatory amendments concerning direct-care staff, local government providers, specialised residential care homes, residential care subsidies, fee advice notices, deemed decisions and the recovery of Commonwealth overpayments.  

This bill has been referred to two committees for reporting—the second because the government added a new schedule late in the passage of the bill. Both reports recommend the bill be passed. I note once again that the Labor government has packaged something we do agree with—the improvements and technical clean-up in schedules 2, 3 and 4 of the bill—with something we do not agree with, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. This is designed to force One Nation to oppose the bill and, in so doing, provide social media fodder for the ALP and the Greens at the next election. They want to claim One Nation opposed reforms to help our elderly. It’s a wedge, another bloody wedge—one of the many wedges this cynical Labor government have used lately to entertain themselves while everyday Australians continue to go backwards. You don’t care about the people.  

One Nation has moved an amendment on sheet No. 4177 to remove the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander commissioner provisions and leave the remainder of the bill intact. One Nation opposes discriminating against Australians based on physical characteristics, including ethnicity, age, sex, sexual orientation and disability. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. It seeks to present a morally superior position which inevitably fails in a perfect storm of cost escalation, empire building, self-interest, mission creep and unexpected consequences that the taxpayers pay for.  

According to the Guardian newspaper, Aboriginal children in Australia have historically been murdered at roughly three times the rate of non-Aboriginal counterparts—three times. Aboriginal children experience rape at five times the rate of non-Aboriginal children, a figure that’s underreported to the point of official data being useless—bloody useless. Aboriginal children are being left in squalor without adult supervision. All of this is under the watchful gaze of the virtue-signalling elites who advance bills like this and then crack open the chardonnay to celebrate how worthy they are. This government and state governments won’t stop Aboriginal children being raped and murdered, yet they have the money for a dedicated Aboriginal aged-care commissioner and their staff. This will of course lead to more regulations and higher costs for everyone. The entire idea, of course, will have no KPIs—not one—to measure progress, because for Labor it’s not about the outcome; it’s about feelings. 

We do not need an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Aged Care Commissioner. We need our aged-care system to support everyone that it’s tasked with supporting. A One Nation government will send its attorney-general into Aboriginal communities, along with ministers for housing, health and infrastructure, to fix the crime and the structural problems behind these heartbreaking, unacceptable statistics—unacceptable to most Australians but not the government.  

We will create jobs to restore the future of Aboriginal communities, using mining and value-adding of raw production, including in agriculture. We will oversee Australia’s largest infrastructure project, the northern rail crossing from east to west, part of the national rail loop, to bring rail transport, water, electricity and the internet to remote communities. That’s our idea of helping the Aboriginal community, not this window dressing BS. 

Anyone who thinks this is a good idea need only look at Closing the Gap. A measure there intended to reduce the life expectancy gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians has in part failed, completely failed, with life expectancy in recent data getting worse for Aboriginals, not better. An analysis of government outlays over the first eight years of the strategy alone, from 2008 to 2016, calculated that total combined spending towards meeting the Closing the Gap targets exceeded—wait for it—$130.2 billion. The source of that data is Adam Creighton in the Australian quoting the Productivity Commission data on 12 February 2018. The Productivity Commission estimated in 2017 that federal government spending on Aboriginal affairs was $25 billion a year. I see nothing to suggest that that number has been going down since then. And then add the state spending. 

I hope the Senate will realise it’s time to change course on the Aboriginal industry. Stop funding more parasites in consultants, academics, lawyers, bureaucrats and larger top-end supervisors. Instead, directly fund the communities where it’s needed. I’ll say it again. This is what we’re advocating: instead of the parasites getting the money, let’s get it to the communities, to fund the communities, where it’s needed directly. 

Moving on, the new schedule 4, added in the House of Reps, makes changes to take account of criticism of the government’s use of AI for decision-making. Applications for aged care have for the last year been determined using AI, not human beings. The Albanese government implemented a system last year which featured strict prohibition of human override. Expert, qualified human-needs assessors were explicitly barred from altering or overriding the algorithm’s outputs, even when they knew a decision was clinically wrong. Second was the systemic under-assessment of vulnerable people. Critics noted that the rigid computer program frequently failed to capture the complex realities of ageing, leaving vulnerable older Australians without adequate funding or essential homecare packages. Without their packages—so much for care! Third was the lack of consultation and transparency. The automated tool was introduced quietly with no public consultation, no industry trials and no transparency regarding the underlying algorithm—no openness; just a secretive AI. Fourth was the severe bureaucratic backlogs. Appeals against robodecisions ballooned sixfold after the system rolled out, meaning many elderly citizens faced extensive waiting lists, with some tragically dying before their reviews were resolved. Robo decision-making is a counterproductive efficiency measure, and I wonder about the real motivation for robo decision-making. 

This Labor government has declared war on the elderly. Just listen to these: removing their health insurance discount rebate, forcing more elderly Australians into the public health system and, in the end, costing taxpayers at least $2 billion more a year in public health to save $350 million on the rebate. That $2 billion figure is likely conservative, with up to 75,000 elderly Australians being forced to give up private health, almost double the government estimate—your estimate, doubled. The Albanese government tried to introduce co-contributions on personal care for aged pensioners. This was so badly received that the government backed down—you backed down—and agreed that vital personal care, like bathing and dressing, would not require out-of-pocket fees. Increased costs for capital and daily living—self-funded retirees and part pensioners must pay significantly higher means tested fees for everyday accommodation, capital contributions and clinical assistance. 

The Support at Home mess—the government absorbed existing homecare packages into the new Support at Home framework. Seniors groups have heavily criticised the measure for severe package backlogs, long wait times and plans to fold the entry-level Commonwealth Home Support Program into it, which critics say threatens independent living in regional and remote communities. The government lifted social security deeming rates by 0.5 per cent—half a per cent!—which means that, even if pensioners’ bank accounts are not yielding high interest, Centrelink now legally assumes they are anyway and adds made up unpaid interest to their income, reducing their pension. That’s what you’re doing. You’re basically stealing money from pensioners. For older veterans reliant on specialised treatments, the government produced a $5,000 annual cap on allied health services. Older veterans who require year-round support were told to pay for it themselves—’Just pay for it yourself’—a measure that the Senate forced the government to withdraw. It’s no wonder the government wanted to use robo decision-making to deflect the blame for this attack on elderly Australians away from themselves—cowardly, dishonest, a lie. 

Schedule 4 in this bill will help in improving rules around robodecisions. It must be the law that any decision taken using AI be subject to human review. A One Nation government will introduce legislation to prevent computerised decision-making anywhere in the government. AI can do the legwork, sure. It should never, though, be used to make a decision, let alone make final decisions that a qualified staff member cannot overturn when an error is detected. 

I foreshadow second reading amendment 4176, which has been advanced in response to many constituent concerns around the expansion of and advocacy for voluntary assisted dying. Voluntary assisted dying is now legal in all states. Nothing in our amendment advocates against voluntary assisted dying occurring. It simply seeks to protect aged-care providers who have a conscientious objection to providing voluntary assisted dying services on their premises. A religious objection is the most common conscientious objection. New South Wales, Queensland and South Australia have a law in place which explicitly regulates institutional objections. They mandate that residential aged-care facilities must not block external voluntary assisted dying practitioners from entering the premises. Because an aged-care room is legally considered a resident’s home, facilities are required to allow all stages of the voluntary assisted dying process, from consultations to death, to take place onsite. In Ontario and British Columbia, provincial governments in Canada have removed the right for aged-care facilities and hospitals to refuse voluntary assisted dying. This is very troubling to me, and it’s troubling my constituents. Our amendment seeks to provide support for aged-care facilities with encouragement that they’re not alone and to hold the line and uphold their convictions. 

This amendment is not about voluntary assisted dying as much as it’s about freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. Currently, in South Australia, healthcare providers can opt out of voluntary assisted dying if they advise residents that the facility does not offer voluntary assisted dying. This allows the resident a transfer to a facility that does offer voluntary assisted dying. My amendment reflects this sensible compromise. The South Australian model works and should be the national model. In the very difficult, emotive space of euthanasia, it’s very important to respect the differing views in the community and to allow residents to choose a non-voluntary-assisted-dying facility if they so want and for providers to opt out of voluntary assisted dying if it conflicts with their values. I ask the Senate to support my amendment 4176. 

/0 Comments/by

Raging at the ‘Dying’ of Wokeism

,
Labor is using censorship to stop power shifting back to the people …

Labor’s Digital Duty of Care bill forms part of an ongoing tantrum put on – jointly – by the Uniparty and media after they lost control of the political narrative.

The rise of social media represents their loss of power.

As children, we learned ‘the pen is mightier than the sword’ and now we see that ‘the keyboard cuts deeper than a surrendered blue-bin machete’ … for there is nothing Albanese fears more than a TikTok meme and the sound of laughter.

It infuriates the Canberra class that Australians are free to criticise policy and tear apart established ‘narratives’ and ‘virtues’ that form the bedrock of their Marxist-inspired regime.

As ‘subjects’ of this regime, Australians are supposed to admire the Uniparty’s efforts to ‘progress’ society toward … well, they’re not really sure. All we know is they want praise even as smoke rises from similar governments across the West.

However, the Uniparty have forgotten that the poorer and angrier the public, thanks to political mismanagement and abusive systems of taxation, the more urgent censorship laws become.

Voters aren’t cheering – they are waving pitchforks. The Uniparty want this opposition edited out of history.

To them, everything is about consensus.

We saw it with Climate Change and Covid. They use the power of ‘consensus’ to overturn science, fact, and reality. Sometimes they call it a ‘social licence’. These aren’t even real consensuses. Not if they have to be curated with censorship, bribed with grants, or threatened with ruin. Now, they are doing it again with mass migration and Wokeism. And they need to shut social media up to achieve their goal.

Remember, if the Uniparty cared about ‘safety’, as they claim in their press releases, they’d be focused on crime waves victimising major cities. They would make parks and playgrounds safe for children. Instead, they obsess over ‘online safety’ – which they do not have to prove – as the perfect vehicle for digital censorship.

Mainstream media is happy to help them do this.

While social media robbed politicians of control, it stripped billions from media empires. The eyeballs that kept advertising money flowing and justified insane salaries for mediocre presenters has dried up and moved online. Advertisers follow customers.

Instead of improving their product and competing in the expanding free market, mainstream media are colluding with the Uniparty to shrink social media and return Australia to a tightly controlled system of curated narratives.

They want a return to an era where misleading editing, selective footage, and outright propaganda can roam around unchallenged, influencing the political future of the country.

Where politicians can offer up seats on the press bus in turn for soft interviews and blind-eyes.

Where the negative aspects of their policies go unreported or re-imagined.

This is not healthy for democracy.

One Nation supports social media because we believe the voice of the people and independent journalists make Australia freer and safer.

We believe Canberra cannot be trusted with censorship powers and that mainstream media deserve to be out-competed on account of their appalling behaviour exhibited over decades.

Both of these entities – mainstream media and the Uniparty – have a credibility crisis.

They know that One Nation is exposing their plan.

It’s no surprise, then, that the media declared war on One Nation and began publishing unhinged hit pieces that served to demonstrate perfectly everything we have been saying.

Allow me to embarrass the media again.

Over the last 20 years, their influence has crashed. Broadcast television fell from 56% of adult TV usage to 20%.

For the next generation of voters aged between 18-35, it’s less than 12% and shrinking rapidly.

TV is predominately reserved for sports – not news. And even then, younger generations are ditching TVs entirely in favour of consuming all digital content via their phones and laptops.

Australians are no longer stuck with a handful of free to air channels offering nauseating drivel. They can switch off. And they do.

TV hosts who were locked into multi-million dollar contracts are furious that they’re being out-competed by people filming high-quality shows in their bedroom.

The social media model is proof that real talent has been locked out of the media industry for decades on account of the incestuous friend-of-a-friend hiring loop.

A normal person would celebrate this rise of independently trained talent growing online.

Isn’t this good for productivity?

Isn’t this better than joining the Centrelink queue?

No. The Prime Minister, his Communications Minister, and their media friends would rather see this grass roots industry strangled in its crib to protect their own power structures. That is the selfish nature of power.

It’s surely a coincidence that the majority of social media news commentary is coming from young conservatives who have been locked out of the ‘fair and balanced’ billion-dollar-per-year public broadcaster.

The losses to Australia’s network giants are substantial and some may argue – deserved.

In 2006, Channel 9 was worth $7.5 billion. Today, it’s worth just $960 million.

Channel 7 fell from $4 billion 20 years ago, to $115 million today.

During the same period, Channel 10 went from $1.5 billion and now sits on the books of its owner, Paramount, at $20 million.

And News Corp fell from a high of $85 billion to $14 billion.

Fairfax Media was valued at $9 billion. It sold to Channel 9 and is included in their value.

All values adjusted for inflation.

Today, these media organisations openly support and offer little pushback when the Uniparty present policies to suppress social media or allow Silicon Valley to be raided for the undeserved and unearned profit of Australian media entities.

Traditionally we’d call this a ‘conflict of interest’ – one that is never stated by those publishing the stories, just as they neglect to disclose how much public money they received from Labor-led media grants that mysteriously overlooked independent conservative news outlets.

There was a time we’d call this ‘fascism’.

Here is my reminder to mainstream media: conservatives make up over 50% of your audience. One Nation supporters are roughly 30% of your potential customers.

To alienate, ridicule, insult, and lie about and to this market probably explains your falling profits and rapidly eroding shareholder value.

The fable of ‘The Scorpion and the Snake’ was written for the Australian media class, who are hopelessly ensconced in their urban bubbles, preaching to an ever-shrinking base of champagne socialists raging at the dying of Wokeism.

They do not see the world as it’s; they see the world as they are.

Conservatives can turn to The Spectator Australia and Epoch Times for accurate news and current affairs – or follow the many independent voices on social media who form a community of conservatives across the Western World.

Anika Wells and the rest of the Uniparty can put forward all the censorial pieces of digital barbed wire they like.

Just know that as soon as One Nation takes power, we’ll be tearing it all down and restoring freedom, dignity, trust, and truth to the people.

/0 Comments/by

Labor Built a Housing Crisis

,

One Nation warned about Labor’s housing policies — and now young buyers are paying the price.

Negative equity, tax hikes and soaring interest rates have created the perfect storm.

We won’t stop exposing this incompetent government’s selling out of young Australians trying to get ahead and own their own home.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: When the government released its housing policy, we warned about the debt trap, which is exactly what is happening. The debt trap has closed on young buyers. We warned about the negative equity arising. Here it is. Thank you, Labor! We warned about changes to capital gains tax. Look at the consequences. We warned about negative gearing being abolished. Here it is. We warned about interest rates increasing because of Labor government spending. Here it is. It’s the perfect storm, thanks to the Labor Party. We will continue to expose this lazy, tired, dishonest, incompetent government. 

/0 Comments/by

The Radical Grant Probe

An Islamic centre in Broadmeadows – “MyCentre” – received $68,000 under the Community Language Schools Grants program. I asked Minister Watt what steps had been taken to verify these funds were used for teaching Arabic to schoolchildren after reports emerged that funds went to a radicalised adult instead.

Minister Watt stated he could not comment on the specifics of the case as the allegations are under active investigation by a joint counterterrorism team (AFP, Victoria Police, ASIO), He emphasised that all grant recipients are expected to comply with funding agreements, with reviews triggered if breaches occur.

When asked whether “MyCentre” was audited between grants for specific program guidelines (such as teaching hours, residency status, and attendance levels), Minister Watt said that the Department for multicultural grants performs due-diligence checks for compliance and risk evaluation. While taking allegations seriously, he reaffirmed the government’s broad support for multicultural organisations.

I questioned whether the Minister could personally assure taxpayers that no government funds were diverted, given reports that “MyCentre” sent $1.1 million overseas to regions like Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Somalia since the Labor government took office. Minister Watt replied that he had not seen these claims, questioned their source and pointed out it is unclear whether those were government grant funds or privately raised money, reiterating that any non-compliance concerns are investigated under standard policy.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Home Affairs, Senator Watt, in regard to the Community Language Schools Grants program, a Liberal government program that the Albanese government expanded with $26 million in taxpayer money while retaining the purpose to teach foreign languages to schoolchildren up to HSC level. UAE terror pilot Hamam al-Hammami has admitted his radicalisation started while studying at my centre in Broadmeadows, which received $68,000 under this program. At the time, he was an adult university student, not a primary or high school student. My centre is open to all ages. There is a co-located school called MYCollege which is a different legal entity. The grant didn’t go to the school; it went to the radical Islamic centre. What steps have been taken to ensure the funds given to my centre were actually used to teach schoolchildren Arabic? 

Senator Watt: Thank you, Senator Roberts. Strictly speaking, I think this is probably a question for the Minister representing the Minister for Education. I might be wrong about this, but I think that the funding for language schools is provided through the Department of Education. But I’m happy to do my best to answer your question. This follows a similar question that was asked by Senator Hanson yesterday and indeed is very similar to the question that Senator Duniam asked Senator Wong earlier in question time today. What we have said is that the matters involving the allegations against this pilot are currently under investigation through a joint counterterrorism team. That team comprises the AFP, Victoria Police and ASIO. They are investigating this man’s links to Australia. As an investigation is underway, it wouldn’t be appropriate to comment. As I said yesterday in answer to Senator Hanson, there is no current threat to the community or public safety in Australia, and we certainly trust those agencies to undertake their investigation properly. 

More broadly, when it comes to multicultural grants, again, I made the point yesterday that that we certainly expect all organisations that receive government funding, whether it be through English-language courses or other grants, to conduct themselves in line with government guidelines and funding agreements and in accordance with the expectations of the Australian taxpayer. If any activities breach those requirements then that funding will be reviewed. Given that this matter is under investigation through the joint counterterrorism team, that’s about as much as I can say. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: There are multiple requirements for a grant under the Community Language Schools Grants Program. These include hours of teaching, students being citizens or permanent residents, minimum attendance levels and others. Grant recipients were warned in a grant explainer that they will be required to provide proof they have met the guidelines. Was MyCentre audited between grants to ensure compliance with grant guidelines? If so, please provide a copy of the audit. 

Senator Watt: Again, given that the question has been put to me rather than the Minister representing the Minister for Education, I’m probably better placed to speak about multicultural grants that may have been provided to this organisation. What I can say on that is that the Department of Home Affairs conducts due-diligence checks to assess compliance with eligibility requirements and to identify information that may present a risk to the achievement of the grant objectives. Of course, any allegations of wrongdoing must be taken seriously, but what we will do in the meantime is support multicultural organisations. I know that that’s something we would never see from the One Nation party, which continues to argue that Australia has a monoculture. In contrast to that, we support multicultural communities in Australia and recognise the contribution they have made to this country over many generations. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: So no answer. Since Labor came to power, MyCentre’s Broadmeadows operation has sent $1.1 million overseas in so-called aid to Afghanistan, Indonesia, Somalia and other Islamic areas. Has the minister assured himself that every cent of taxpayers’ money given to MyCentre was used for the purpose of teaching children a foreign language and nothing else? 

Senator Watt: I haven’t seen the allegations that you’ve just made that this centre has sent money overseas. I’m not sure what the source of that claim is. Also, I’d make the point that, even if that is the case, I’m not sure whether the money that has allegedly been sent overseas has been sourced through government grants or whether that’s been privately sourced and fundraised. Again, when it comes to government grants to any organisation that receives a multicultural grant, our requirements are clear. We expect those organisations to follow government guidelines to comply with their funding agreement, and, whenever there’s a concern that that has not occurred, that matter is investigated.

/0 Comments/by

The Price Tag of Socialism

,

While market competition and cost-of-living relief are urgently needed, the Greens’ proposal for state-run supermarkets and price caps is economically flawed and infeasible.

Instead, One Nation supports increasing competition by funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices, dishonest advertising, and unfair competitor advantages used by major supermarkets (Coles, Woolworths, Aldi). We propose shrinking government waste and passing those savings directly to Australians through tax cuts.

State-run supermarkets historically fail.

Will the Greens’ proposal to acquire existing Coles and Woolworths sites offer fair compensation, or will they rely on state acquisition tricks similar to what John Howard used to steal farmer’s property rights in the past?

Supermarket profits (around $1 billion combined from $100 billion in sales) represent a thin profit margin on actual sales. A 1% reduction in retail prices would completely erase those profits. And the Greens’ promise of a 30% price reduction is mathematically unrealistic without massive taxpayer subsidies, which ultimately will require raising taxes.

While the Greens’ policies will add to your cost of living through higher taxes, One Nation’s policies will put more money back in your pocket, delivering genuine, lasting cost-of-living relief.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: This motion is two-thirds of a good idea. Yes, the Colesworth duopoly needs competition. One Nation would do that, funding the ACCC to investigate and prosecute restrictive trade practices in the industry used for the market advantage of Coles, Woolies and Aldi, including supplier agreements, side agreements, rebates, dishonest advertising and disadvantaging competitors, sweetheart union agreements and government policy designed to damage small and medium competitors. Secondly, yes, everyday Australians desperately need cost-of-living relief. One Nation would do that, shrinking the government to fit the constitution, as we said, in early 2025, eliminating government waste and duplication, then passing on the savings in the form of tax cuts, with more people keeping more money of their own. That’s One Nation’s way. 

It’s the third part that One Nation opposes: a government run supermarket. With this policy, the Greens looked across the Pacific to New York and its communist mayor, Mamdani, and thought: ‘You know what? We’re going to try to run state run supermarkets.’ That’s always failed badly. And price caps have been another disaster wherever they’ve been tried. At least Mamdani is building his supermarket. The Greens just want to steal Coles’s and Woolies’s existing sites. Mamdani doesn’t open his first supermarket until next year, and already the Greens are declaring the idea a winner. There’s no talk of just compensation, because it’s against the federal constitution, so I assume the Greens will use state governments for acquisition—the same trick John Howard used to steal farmers’ property rights to comply with the UN Kyoto protocol. Strange bedfellows, indeed! Supermarkets are low-margin operations. Yes, they’re getting greedy, and this is where One Nation would step in, as I mentioned. The $2.1 billion figure is not accurate. The figure includes all divisions: supermarkets, variety stores, pet stores, liquor, property, hotel businesses, and online and loyalty programs in Australia and New Zealand. Coles has funds employed—the investment to build and run supermarkets—of $12 billion on a 12 per cent return on investment. Woolworths has $19 billion invested on a 17 per cent return on investment. Those are healthy returns and suggest more competition is needed—not much, though. The actual $1 billion or so in profit that ‘Colesworth’ makes from supermarket sales comes from around $100 billion in annual sales. A one per cent reduction in prices would wipe that out completely. Are the Greens promising to subsidise their supermarkets with taxpayers’ money? If so, be honest about it. How much will be needed, and whose taxes will you put up to pay for it? The most this idea will save is between one and two per cent. The Greens are promising a 30 per cent saving. It just doesn’t add up. 

/0 Comments/by

Killing the Golden Goose

,

The Greens are trying to force higher taxes onto Australia’s resource sector and I have to ask: how much is enough?

With the mining, oil and gas industries contributing $45 billion in taxes and royalties last year alone and $335 billion over the past five years, true economic growth comes from expanding, not shutting down, natural resource projects.

A recent meeting with Tamboran in the Northern Territory emphasised the life-changing impact of resource jobs for regional and Aboriginal communities. Providing real skills, stable incomes and financial independence, these projects offer a path out of welfare dependency and toward home ownership and prosperity.

Everyday Australians already see returns in their superannuation from our resource industry, while governments receive critical royalties to fund essential public services, as well as the “free stuff” they love to dish out. The Beetaloo project is already attracting interest from data centres seeking direct access to the Northern Territory’s national internet backbone. With guaranteed gas for power and water for cooling, planning could begin today.

This is One Nation’s approach: maximising resource development for the benefit of all Australians, while maintaining genuine, practical environmental protections. We will focus on our real landscape, not the climate orthodoxy pushed by Labor, the Greens, Teals and globalist Liberals.

Blocking new coal, gas and mine extensions will crush jobs and cripple regional towns. The Federal Court’s recent decision to overturn the government’s ban on the $1.3 billion McPhillamys goldmine reaffirms One Nation’s commitment to sound, responsible resource extraction that delivers long-term abundance for all Australians.

Taxing the resource industry into extinction while expecting it to fund the nation is pure madness!

Transcript

Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for this motion. The first thought I had after reading this motion was simply ‘how much is enough?’ The resource industry, mining, oil and gas paid $45 billion last year in company tax and royalties in Australia. Over the last five years, they’ve contributed $335 billion in tax. If the Greens want even more, there is a simple way to achieve that: more mines, more gas wells, more utilisation of Australia’s immense natural resources to bring in taxation and to create the wealth and opportunity for all who are here, especially in rural and remote areas where the workforce has a large Aboriginal component. 

My office met this afternoon with Tamboran, who operate a new gas well in the Northern Territory, and included hearing about their successful Aboriginal employment program. Tamboran are giving Aboriginals breadwinner jobs, training and a future independent of government handouts, empowering Aboriginal workers to break free of welfare dependency. I can see why the Greens don’t like it. Who knows? Once Aboriginals own their own homes, are married with families and enjoying the benefits of resource job brings, they may vote One Nation. 

Resources already provide returns into their superannuation funds of everyday Australians, as well as extra royalty into government coffers, to pay for the free stuff that government offers. The Beetaloo project has already attracted inquiries from data centres looking for a location connected to the national internet backbone, which is the Northern Territory. Data centres could start planning today, knowing the gas for power and the water for cooling are available. This is One Nation’s solution: more resource utilisation for the benefit of all Australians while, of course, ensuring the protection of our natural environment—the natural environment, not the sky god of warming as Labor, Greens, teals and globalist Liberals still believe. The green solution is to tax the resource industry while shutting down the resource industry. This is insane. Yes, I know it doesn’t make any sense to me. 

Published Greens party policy is no new coal, no new gas and no extensions to coal or gas leases. High taxes will force resource projects out of business and, importantly to the Greens, prevent new developments. Massive job losses will result from this Greens party policy. Huge communities will be cast into poverty, heat and isolation because wind and solar are a useless way to drive air conditioners, transport and industry. Government revenue to pay for all the free stuff goes, and superannuation returns fall, and the Greens celebrated the refusal of a $1.3 billion extension to the McPhillamys goldmine in New South Wales. The reason Minister Plibersek gave for the refusal was the section 10 Aboriginal protection order, as the site hosted a mythical blue-banded bee important to Aboriginal culture, apparently. 

Today, the Federal Court officially overturned the mining ban. Justice James Stellios ruled that Minister Plibersek’s protection order was legally invalid due to a procedural failure and a lack of procedural fairness. The company that owns the mine paid $900 million in taxes last year on other projects. The taxes on this mine will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Who knows, there may be enough to cover the operating losses of one of Senator McKim’s Greens supermarkets. 

This motion shows the stark contrast between the Greens and One Nation. The Greens will use high taxes to force resource companies out of business in the name of social justice virtue signalling while One Nation will encourage environmentally sound resource extraction in the name of providing abundance for everyday Australians for many, many, many years to come. Voters of Australia, the choice is yours. 

/0 Comments/by

The High Price of Socialist Ambition

,

The Australia Institute recently claimed that big government serves everyday Australians while small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack One Nation’s “neoliberal” policies. They completely miss our core belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people creates growth and abundance so Australians can be self-sufficient and independent. It’s not about the size of government, it’s about what government actually does.

The left hates economic independence because self-sufficient Australians don’t rely on the state. That’s why the Australia Institute is pushing destructive measures like an inheritance tax on lifetime savings and a 2% wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income – assets! These taxes hit asset-rich, cash-poor Australians hard; our farmers, truckers, fishers and small business owners, which will force many into bankruptcy.

One Nation firmly rejects both wealth and inheritance taxes. The Albanese Labor government has already embraced these left-wing ideas, pushing capital gains tax changes that crashed housing prices, erased billions in national wealth and trapped young buyers in negative equity.

Labor needs to stop pushing ideology over economics.

Bring on the next election so One Nation can put an end to this socialist agenda once and for all.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Last month, the Australia Institute stated that big government serves the interests of everyday Australians and small government only serves the rich. The point was to attack as ‘neoliberal’ policies that One Nation is promoting. It fails to understand One Nation’s central belief that an economy run for the benefit of the people will grow wealth and abundance for all, reducing the need for government support as people take care of themselves. It fails to understand that it’s not the size of government but what government does that counts. The Australia Institute advocates an inheritance tax to target, in their words, ‘the untaxed compounding of intergenerational wealth’. One Nation calls that wealth that parents build up during a lifetime of hard work ‘people getting ahead’. That’s what it is. It’s what parents do: work hard and pass the benefit to their children. 

The political left hate people becoming self-sufficient, because economic resilience removes subservience to government. The fundamental difference between One Nation and Labor-Greens socialism is economic independence. Small business is in the Australia Institute’s sights, with a proposed two per cent wealth tax on assets over $5 million. Not income—assets. The losers from this include farmers, truckers, restaurants, fishers, fast food franchisees and childcare workers. These Australians are asset rich and income poor. Paying a $100,000 annual tax would force them out of business. 

One Nation rejects a wealth tax and an inheritance tax. The Albanese Labor government listened to the Australia Institute when they advocated recent capital gains tax changes. The Treasurer needs to stop pushing socialism. Founded on ideology not economics, these changes have caused a housing price crash, wiping billions from our national estate and placing many young Australians who used the five per cent deposit scheme in negative equity. Thanks, Treasurer. Now please stop helping. Enough! Bring on the next election so that One Nation can slay the socialist dragon.

/0 Comments/by

Real Wages on the Decline

,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary. 

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

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

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary. 

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

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

/0 Comments/by

Questioning the Murray-Darling Strategy

, , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

Senator ROBERTS: So your targets are volume? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr Banks: Sure. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Johnson: That doesn’t— 

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

Senator ROBERTS: What was the total water? 

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

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

Mr Sullivan: We’ll take it on notice. 

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

Senator Watt: No. 

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

CHAIR: Which grid? 

Senator ROBERTS: The national water grid. 

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

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, that’s fine. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/0 Comments/by

Taxes, Traps and Tactics in the 2026 Budget

,

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

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

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

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

Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/0 Comments/by