The Labor Government keeps telling you migration is coming down. The data tells a different story.
Right now there are about 2.9 million people here on temporary visas and another 1.8 million on permanent non‑citizen visas — a total of roughly 4.7 million non‑citizens.
That’s 4.7 million people competing for a home, clogging your roads, and filling your GP waiting rooms. Our infrastructure cannot cope with the scale of this influx.
This isn’t ‘sustainable’ — and it’s a disaster for the Australian way of life.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. I’d like to discuss migrant numbers and stock data. Can I go to the number of temporary visa holders in the country first. The temporary visa holder stock data says that, at 30 September this year—which is the latest data, apparently—there were 2.9 million temporary visa holders in the country, and 2.53 million when excluding tourists and crew. Can you confirm, please, that that’s the largest number of temporary migrants in the country ever recorded in the month of September.
Mr Willard: I will just find those figures. The 2.925 figure you provided is correct. I’m not able to confirm it’s the largest number ever; I’d have to take it on notice and check every other month.
Senator ROBERTS: If you could—thank you. So we have the government saying that migration is coming down but we actually have what we understand to be the highest number of temporary migrants in the country for this season on record. The total number of migrants in the country certainly hasn’t gone down, has it?
Mr Willard: That figure has increased. Just so we’re clear, that’s temporary visa holders, so that includes people like tourists. It also includes, as I think you mentioned, crew visas, and it includes New Zealanders, who are in fact the largest cohort. The visa that New Zealanders have, through the trans-Tasman agreement, is technically a temporary visa.
Senator ROBERTS: But the 2.53 million figure excludes tourists and crew. That’s what you confirmed.
Mr Willard: Yes. I’d have to do the maths, but that looks about right.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s my understanding of what you said. So we’ve got a high number of migrants, and it hasn’t gone down. Now let’s turn to permanent visas. At the last hearing, the department confirmed there were 1.8 million people in the country on permanent visas. Do you have an update on that figure, or is that still the same?
Mr Willard: I do have that figure. I think it is about the same, but I can’t give you the precise number. I might have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So, adding the 2.9 million temporary to the 1.8 million permanent, there are now 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not Australian citizens, correct?
Mr Willard: That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that a record for the number of visa holders in the country?
Mr Willard: Again, I’ll have to take that on notice to check the records.
Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that it is, but I’ll wait for it to be confirmed by you. Can you give a breakdown, please, of the categories of permanent visas and their numbers, as per your latest data.
Mr Willard: Bear with me, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s okay. No need to rush. We just want it accurate.
Mr Willard: You asked for permanent visa holders?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes—categories of permanent visa holders.
Mr Willard: I’ll run through the figures here. The largest category is the resident return visa. I think last time we were at estimates we spoke about this visa. This is a visa that permanent residents can get once they’re at the initial travel period on their first permanent visa.
Senator ROBERTS: So they can return to the country.
Mr Willard: It’s called resident return, but essentially it’s a permanent resident renewing their travel rights on their visa. That’s 855,000. These figures are to 30 September 2025. There’s the partner permanent visa, which is 205,000. There’s the skilled migration visa, which is 447,000. There are parent visas, which are 38,000. Then there’s a range of other visas—child, other family, other permanent, and special eligibility, which are all smaller amounts, but there’s a range of other visas there as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Why don’t you publish the number of permanent visas on issue like you do with the temporary visa stock?
Mr Willard: We publish the Migration Program numbers every year, in terms of the Migration Program outcome.
Senator ROBERTS: Is that including the permanents?
Mr Willard: It includes all the visas issued in the context of the Migration Program for that particular year.
Senator ROBERTS: But not the total number of permanents?
Mr Willard: It doesn’t include the total number. We do publish a paper called ‘The Administration of the immigration and citizenship programs’, which has a lot of data. I’d have to come back to you as to whether it has that specific number in it.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me why you don’t publish the number of permanent visas on issue, like you do with the temporary visa.
This is our last chance to act before we stand at cenotaphs across the country, yet the government seems content to push a bill that belongs in the dustbin.
I’ve watched the inquiries. I’ve heard the testimony. I’ve felt the genuine pain and shock from our veterans and those currently serving. They feel betrayed. Defence morale is absolutely shot to bits right now, and a big part of that is a government that gives the “top brass” carte blanche while ignoring the men and women on the ground.
The Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal deserves better, and our soldiers certainly deserve better.
The bureaucratic games must stop! Start showing respect to those who wear the uniform.
P.S. Finally clearing up speech videos from late last year. While the date may have passed, the message is still relevant today.
— Senate Speech | November 2025
Trancript
Senator ROBERTS:I support Senator Pocock’s motion to suspend standing orders because it is urgent and it’s serious. I watched the inquiry. I felt the pain from veterans, from the serving men and women and from the DHAAT—the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. The veterans are shocked at what is going on. After serving the country, they’re shocked, they’re in pain and they’re in anguish. It’s the same with the enlisted men and women right now. It’s the same with the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal. As Senator McKenzie pointed out, we have Remembrance Day coming up in five days.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, please refer your remarks to the suspension.
Senator ROBERTS: We have five days. This is the last sitting day before Remembrance Day. That’s why it has to be done today. That’s why it’s urgent. There are two more reasons. One is that Defence morale is shot to bits over this issue and over many other issues, because the government is just listening to, and giving carte blanche to, the Defence top brass. My final point is that the minister and the government need to be saved from themselves. This is a stupid bill that’s coming up. It needs to be condemned and consigned to the dustbin.
It’s been illegal to pay a woman less than a man for the same job for several decades. Yet the Workplace Gender Equality Agency (WGEA) continues to release “gender pay gap” reports that refuse to compare like-for-like roles. They use raw averages that ignore the reality of human choice, i.e. the fact that many women choose to prioritise family and motherhood over “climbing the corporate ladder” or working 80-hour weeks.
This isn’t about equality; it’s a globalist agenda using flawed statistics to devalue the family unit and sow division between men and women.
We need facts, not manufactured grievances.
It’s time to stop the spin and start respecting the choices Australian families actually make.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. Now, we’ve discussed the fact that it’s been illegal to pay men and women differently when they are doing the same job for 60 years, the fact that your gender pay gap data doesn’t even compare people working in the same jobs and the fact that you can’t achieve gender equality on your own measurements at your own agency. We’ve done that at length in these hearings, yet just days ago you released more data and didn’t include any of these caveats in your commentary to the media. Why are you presenting Australians with data without context?
Ms Wooldridge: Senator, I assume your question is to me. We very clearly provide clarification on the information that we are providing when we release our scorecard. I think we’ve now done 11 scorecards over the years, and the data expands, but consistently the gender pay gap methodology has been the same, which is average remuneration for women and men and a comparison between the two. It doesn’t seek to do an equal pay for equal work comparison in the like-for-like jobs. In fact the data that employers report to us does not enable us to do that calculation. If there’s unfair pay for equal work, that’s dealt with by the Fair Work Commission and the Fair Work Ombudsman. Our remit is to calculate different data, which is the gender pay gap, looking at those averages across the nation, across industries and within employers.
Senator ROBERTS: That—as we’ve discussed and I have a strong opinion on—is completely misleading. It doesn’t show a gender pay gap. You’re taking the easy way out and just using averages. It’s misleading. Can I confirm that you still haven’t achieved gender equality at your agency. What’s the latest update on average earnings for men and women at the Workplace Gender Equality Agency?
Ms Wooldridge: To reiterate, as I did last time, the gender pay gap calculation we use is an internationally used methodology. It’s used by governments and nations around the world to do comparisons, and we believe that, being very clear what the methodology is, it is a valid mechanism to make the comparisons. We don’t pretend that it is a like-for-like comparison. We’re very clear on what it measures, that it’s a proxy for gender equality and that it’s a mechanism to then look in more detail for where the inequality lies. We do encourage employers. As you’ve said, under the law they need to do equal pay for equal work. That is a part of it, but it’s not the whole amount. I have no further figures to update you with from when we talked about this about six weeks ago in terms of WGEA’s numbers. We do have staff changes from time to time, which changes the proportion of men and women in our agency and the gender pay gap calculation, but what we talked about six weeks ago is still the same case.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re using flawed methodology to distort and misrepresent because it’s international, even though it’s not accurate, and it’s definitely not statistically valid for presenting your case. Let’s move on—
Senator Gallagher: No, Senator Roberts. I accept that that is your view that you are putting; that is not a view that is shared by the government, me or any witness here this morning.
Senator ROBERTS: So you support the inaccurate use of data—statistically invalid methods?
Senator Gallagher: I reject that it is inaccurate. I accept that you and I disagree on at.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, so do I. I’m going to quote Janet Albrechtsen, a very successful woman, who said: The gender activists and their supporters have concocted a shallow stereotype about women in order to complain about a gender pay gap. They assume we want to work like men. I didn’t. Millions of other women don’t either. There is no shame in that. We put aside, slowed down, switched careers—and big pay packets—to raise our children. Motherhood is not the only driver, either. And I’m sitting next to a woman who proudly is a mother and said so in her first speech just a few months ago.
Senator Gallagher: I think you’ll find there are plenty of—
CHAIR: There are plenty of proud mothers sitting around this table, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Thank you. I’m so pleased to hear people come in. Janet Albrechtsen continued: From the instant they receive their HSC or ATAR scores, and for the rest of their lives, many women appear to make very different choices to men. What do you say to that?
Senator Gallagher: I’ll jump in first. Everyone is entitled to their view on this. We live in a country where we have free speech. People have a view about data and policy, and sometimes that differs. I think that’s probably pretty reasonable. The view I take is that, in our striving for gender equality, we should enable everyone to have legitimate choices, and should that be that they take time out to care for their children then that’s fantastic. We shouldn’t penalise them for that, but there should be a whole range of choices available to men and women equally. I think there’s plenty of evidence that shows that there is inequality based on gender across our economy. Where that exists we should be trying to close it to ensure that you, Senator Roberts, if you were a child today, and Senator Collins, if she were a child today, would have exactly the same opportunities. That’s what our policy is about.
Senator ROBERTS: Hear, hear—and we should be presenting the facts as they are. Have you considered that for your data to show a zero per cent difference between gender we would have to have women knocking off work at 5 pm, giving birth at night and being back at work by nine the next morning? You’re making no allowance for families who want to take time away from work to raise their children and not just be a cog in a corporate machine their entire lives.
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t agree with that either. I think in this report it showed that there had been an increase in fathers taking time for those shared caring roles. That was about a three per cent increase on the previous year’s data. That, again, is a welcome move. Shared parenting shouldn’t be considered controversial. But we haven’t given men the same opportunities to have those caring arrangements in the past, and that is changing. I think there is growing acceptance that that is a legitimate choice for men in their careers as well. So I’d don’t accept the assertion, but I think some of the data in this shows that we are making progress.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, I want to take up that last point. There’s a minister for women, but there’s no minister for men. I personally think there should be no minister for any particular gender, but surely if there’s one for women there must be one for men?
Senator Gallagher: Senator Whitten was in here earlier. He asked exactly that question, and I responded. He read out a series of statistics that he used around men’s health in particular. We have, for the first time in any federal government, a Special Envoy for Men’s Health, Dan Repacholi, who’s doing an amazing job. If you read any of his speeches and look at the work he’s doing across the country in enlivening this area of policy, it shows that the government considers this an area for further work. Again, the more we involve men and boys in the discussions that we have around the inequality that exists—and it may be inequality for men—and the more we drive gender equality, the better the country will be—if we are all treated equally, which is what we’re trying to work on.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree with you entirely, and that means presenting the data in an accurate fashion, not misrepresenting it. I notice—and I’m not saying all of the people in this room are with your department—there are no males here with you.
Senator Gallagher: There are men who work in the Office for Women.
Senator ROBERTS: Very, very few. There are nine women in the room supporting you, including yourself, but no males.
Senator Gallagher: Yes, and any man that wants to work at the Office for Women is more than welcome. People have free choice about where they work as well, and they make those choices. I would say more women apply for positions within the Office for Women than men, but there are men, and they are valued colleagues.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any truth to the notion that some people hold, including myself—and you’re saying you’re following an international measurement standard, even though it’s wrong—that this is part of a globalist agenda to destroy the family, put down women and sow division?
Senator Gallagher: No, I don’t accept that at all. As I said, everything we’re doing in this space is something I think you would agree with, which is how we ensure that a little girl in the hospital down the road who’s born today and a little boy who’s born today grow up with the same opportunities, whether it be the education choices they have, the job choices they have, and how they manage family life and those caring responsibilities. We want everyone to be treated equally. That’s what this is about.
Senator ROBERTS: I agree, so why are you using data that misrepresents the situation?
Senator Gallagher: I’ve already addressed that. I don’t agree with the assertions. I accept that you disagree with us, but we think the data is robust and sound and that it’s important data to report.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1770259164741-ff185ff9-7e0f-4ea5-9b20-323a87d4a513.png6361134Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-02-05 12:40:452026-02-06 16:48:24Choice Is Not a Gender Pay Gap
In this session with ACARA, I wanted to get some straight answers on why so many Australian families are walking away from the mainstream school system.
One Nation has always stood for parental choice, so I asked them: is the new “Version 9” curriculum so complicated and full of the wrong priorities that parents are losing faith? To my surprise, ACARA admitted they aren’t even looking into it. They aren’t doing any research into why families are leaving or how the curriculum might be at fault.
ACARA writes the national plan, yet the states have the “sovereign right” to chop it up and change it. When the implementation becomes a burden for parents and teachers, ACARA basically washes their hands of it and says it’s a state problem.
I also wanted to make sure there wasn’t a “crackdown” coming for parents who chose to home-school their children. I got a direct “no” on that. They aren’t pushing for more audits or extra red tape, mainly because they don’t have the power to.
It’s clear to me that while the ideas start in Canberra, the real pressure on our families is coming from the states. You deserve an education system that works for your family, not one that ignores your concerns.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here again today. ACARA is responsible for a national curriculum intended to be taught to all young Australians. How does ACARA account for a growing shift away from mainstream schooling towards homeschooling? Does ACARA accept that implementation burdens and content choices in version 9 of the curriculum are contributing to a loss of faith in the school sector’s ability to teach our children? We know that the COVID mandates—the lockdowns and so on—drove a lot of parents to take their kids out of school. I understand that, but please tell me any impact from version 9.
Mr Gniel: Version 9 is currently being implemented through the jurisdictions, through their own implementation plans. As you know, ACARA doesn’t have any role in terms of monitoring the actual implementation of the curriculum; that’s not part of our remit.
Senator ROBERTS: Is it left to the states?
Mr Gniel: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Do the states have choice as to how much of the national curriculum they implement?
Mr Gniel: All ministers approved the Australian national curriculum, but they approved it with their sovereign right to adopt and adapt for their own communities, where that’s required. It’s important—and this goes to Senator Sharma’s points before—that we have in the Australian Curriculum an agreement about what we see as the most important parts for our children to understand, but there is that flexibility at the jurisdiction level.
Senator ROBERTS: Is ACARA currently conducting or commissioning research on homeschooling trends, motivations and outcomes, especially the relationship between curriculum engagement and school withdrawal?
Mr Gniel: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Gniel: We don’t have any jurisdiction over homeschooling. The Australian Curriculum that is signed off is for all children. As I said before, the implementation is at the state and territory level. I would expect they are doing some of that because, as you mentioned—and I’m aware of it too—there have been some increases in homeschooling, so it’s an important area to be considering.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought you might have got some indirect analysis.
Mr Gniel: No, we don’t at this stage. We would expect that to come through the feedback from the jurisdictions, though, as we ask about what we can do to improve the curriculum. All those resources that are provided to homeschooling parents are provided at the state and territory level.
Senator ROBERTS: I know that remote schooling, homeschooling and broadcasting over the air have got very high standards and a fair bit of flexibility.
Mr Gniel: You’re right, and some of that’s been around for a long time.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good, solid stuff. You used the words ‘at this stage’. One Nation fully supports parental choice. Can ACARA confirm it’s not proposing to crack down on homeschooling?
Mr Gniel: ACARA has no role within homeschooling.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re not going to—
Mr Gniel: The short answer is no.
Senator ROBERTS: Has ACARA provided advice to ministers or jurisdictions advocating increased regulation or compliance audits for homeschooling families?
Mr Gniel: No.
Senator ROBERTS: What’s ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?
Mr Gniel: We don’t have a view on that. We—
Senator ROBERTS: Left to the states, is it? You just leave it to the states?
Mr Gniel: Sorry, I’ll just finish what I was going to say.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry.
Mr Gniel: Can you repeat the question?
Senator ROBERTS: Could you state ACARA’s view on the appropriate balance between parental choice and national standards?
Mr Gniel: No; we don’t have a view.
Senator ROBERTS: What steps has ACARA taken to ensure that the Australian Curriculum version 9 is usable by home-educating families. For example, do you provide guidance, exemplars and flexible learning sequences so that families are not driven away by perceived complexity, so they can have full and informed choice?
Mr Gniel: The Australian Curriculum and all the supporting materials are freely available to all Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have any guides or supporting materials for parents?
Mr Gniel: At that level, that would be something the jurisdictions would—
Senator ROBERTS: The states; okay. Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers.
I questioned the Department of Defence regarding their ongoing COVID-19 vaccine mandates.
Other major institutions, like the Federal Police, have dropped these requirements, acknowledging that the evidence on safety and efficacy has shifted significantly.
While the Surgeon General tried to frame these injections as “recommended” not “mandatory” for general staff, the reality is that vaccine mandates are still hanging over the heads of our defence members.I don’t care where a soldier is stationed in the world; if a treatment isn’t proven safe or effective, our defence personnel shouldn’t be forced to take it just to keep their jobs.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’d like to move to vaccine mandates. The Australian Federal Police and other major Commonwealth institutions have removed their mandates for COVID-19 injections on the basis that resulting major health problems from the injections contrasted with very few benefits from the injections, which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective. Does the Department of Defence still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?
Adm. Johnston: Senator Roberts, the Surgeon General will come to the table to talk through our vaccine approach. While the Surgeon General is getting to her notes, Senator Roberts, as you would appreciate, the employment basis for the Australian Federal Police is largely domestic and delivered in a very different health environment to that which the ADF often finds itself, particularly when we are overseas or operating in very remote or austere occasions. So the circumstances of what law enforcement agencies might do or those agencies based domestically in Australia might do are not equivalent to the employment circumstances our people are often in.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that, Admiral Johnston. As I said in the last phrase of my concluding sentence, these are injections ‘which evidence now shows are neither safe nor effective’. I don’t care where they are on the planet. They’re neither safe or effective, and that’s now accepted.
Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects with respect to vaccinations, and I think your question is specifically around the COVID vaccine?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Do you still mandate COVID-19 vaccination for employees?
Rear Adm. Bennett: Defence routinely vaccinates our personnel both on entry and annually for certain vaccines, and then there are also operational requirements for vaccination that might be specified on an operational health support order. With respect to the COVID vaccine, on entry we follow the national advice, from the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation, around recommendations for vaccines. Defence’s approach has changed over time as those recommendations have changed. The COVID vaccine is safe and effective, but the need for vaccination has changed as the virus has changed, as the prevalence of the virus in our community has changed and as the population’s immunity has changed as they’ve either had COVID or received vaccines. We follow the current recommendations, which I could describe: primary course is still recommended, but an annual booster is recommended for certain populations at risk or for people who, on discussion with their own treating clinician, would like to protect themselves from the virus that year.
Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean it’s voluntary?
Rear Adm. Bennett: It is recommended, but it’s not mandatory. That’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’ve ended the mandates
Rear Adm. Bennett: There are two aspects, as I said: on entry and routinely. On operations, there has been an order for vaccination because, as you can appreciate, when personnel go on deployment they are often living together in close quarters and there are different viruses circulating depending on where an operation occurs. The risks of people becoming unwell are much greater, both for themselves and for their mates. But, having said that, with the shift in the virus, Joint Health Command, my team, is consulting with the service chiefs to consider how they feel about the removal of that mandate and about looking at operations on a case-by-case basis—so, should there be a risk, considering what vaccinations may be warranted then. That work’s currently underway.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you assess the risks? Whose medical advice do you take?
Rear Adm. Bennett: ATAGI’s—the Australian Technical Advisory Group on Immunisation. We follow their advice on all vaccinations and then consider our own needs for vaccination.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you ever go against ATAGI?
Rear Adm. Bennett: No—well, it depends on what you mean ‘against’. We may go beyond. ATAGI don’t just look at safety and efficacy; they look at the cost to the system. For those vaccines that are recommended, for instance, on the National Immunisation Program, we may provide more routinely in Defence for our personnel because, again, of those operational and other aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you aware that there are significant risks to healthy young people and that many other Commonwealth entities, including the Australian Federal Police, have now revoked their vaccine mandates?
Rear Adm. Bennett: Nearly all states and territories and organisations have revoked mandates. That’s not all on safety; it’s on need as well. All vaccines do have an adverse-effect profile, and part of vaccination is the clinician understanding that profile and informing each individual, case by case, of what that is. The balance of benefits versus risk is considered always in vaccination. As far as COVID goes, the recommendations provided are that, on balance, the benefits of vaccinating people at risk and others are considered to outweigh what is a small incidence of adverse side effects.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1769576060615-9908c4ca-ee7d-414b-a9d0-fd4f37c717d6.png6371139Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-29 17:09:472026-01-29 17:10:42Mandates Must Go for Defence Service
The government’s modelling suggests we need 107 million tonnes of carbon sequestration by 2050. By my math, that would mean around 5 million hectares of productive farmland will be swallowed up by trees and woody weeds. When I asked them exactly how many hectares would be lost, the department admitted they don’t have a figure. They are implementing a plan that will devastate our agriculture sector.
Despite the UN Paris Agreement (Article 2(1)(b)) explicitly stating that climate action should not threaten food production, this department hasn’t even sought legal advice on whether their plan breaches that requirement. They are relying on Treasury “scenarios” that claim food production will magically increase by 32%, even while they lock up the land used to grow it.
I asked if they had assessed the combined impact of reforestation and carbon plantings, renewable energy projects (solar/wind) and massive clear felled transmission corridors. The answer was a flat no. They are ignoring the “slow-motion train wreck” of transmission lines and renewables destroying our food bowls because they say it’s “another department’s problem.”
While officials talk about “diversification of enterprise mix” and “market clearing,” I know the truth on the ground. Locking up land leads to explosions in noxious weeds and feral animals, increased management costs for neighbouring properties and the destruction of regional communities and jobs.
My Conclusion: This reckless “plan” is nothing but bureaucratic speak and strategy without a shred of solid data to back it up. They are gambling with Australia’s food security to satisfy an insane, unachievable net-zero agenda.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing today. The net zero Agriculture and Land Sector Plan commits to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050. Based on sequestration rates of one to 21 tonnes per hectare, that means at least five million hectares of farmland could be converted to trees and woody weeds. How can you justify this when it risks reducing food production and creating food insecurity for Australians?
Mr Lowe: The Ag and Land Sector Plan doesn’t commit to 107 million tonnes of sequestration. The way I’d characterise that is that that was part of the Treasury modelling which described a particular pathway to achieving net zero, which factored in an amount of sequestration that would be needed in the particular scenario. What the Ag and Land Sector Plan does is identify a range of different options for landholders and farmers to reduce emissions and commit to a number of particular actions in which to achieve that. The first of those is understanding on-farm emissions as a foundational action. The second is around research and innovation, technology being an important factor in supporting farmers to reduce emissions, as it has been. Research and development have been foundational actions to support farmers throughout the course of agriculture in Australia. The third is on-ground action. We know that supporting farmers with the capability and skills that they need to manage their enterprise and reduce emissions is really important. The fourth is around maximising the potential of the land sector.
In relation to that, from our perspective, we think there are significant opportunities for producers to take up diversification of their enterprise mix in relation to land sequestration opportunities. Earlier in this committee, we were talking about soil carbon projects, and soil carbon projects are being explored by a number of participants in the livestock sector. Revegetation, where they’re garnering ACCUs as well. I might leave it there, but we can go into further detail if you’d like.
Senator ROBERTS: So the net zero agriculture and land sector plan does not commit to 107 million tonnes of carbon dioxide sequestration by 2050.
Mr Lowe: No, it doesn’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Is there any sequestration?
Mr Lowe: It acknowledges that sequestration will be an important factor in achieving net zero, and it acknowledges that sequestration is also an important opportunity for producers in terms of diversification of their enterprise mix and diversification of income sources.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land under this plan is currently producing food?
Mr Lowe: It’s in the order of 50 to 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass where agricultural production of some form is undertaken. I’ll defer to colleagues as to whether I got that number right.
Dr Greenville: Yes, 55 per cent of Australia’s landmass is currently undertaking agricultural activities.
Senator ROBERTS: What will be the impact of the plan on food production?
Dr Greenville: I think the Treasury projection and the ag and land plan modelling that they conducted—and it’s just a scenario—has agricultural production continuing to increase out to 2050.
Senator ROBERTS: How much of the land is affected, though?
Dr Greenville: They did not provide estimates of the land base—
Senator ROBERTS: Does that bother either of you?
Dr Greenville: Sorry, Senator, maybe as you saw, we’ve mentioned and had a discussion with keen interest with Senator Canavan and Senator McKenzie around this topic. We at ABARES are undertaking some work to explore the implications for the land use.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on the question before you, you’re undertaking that work?
Dr Greenville: Yes. We let the committee know, and there were some interesting questions on notice when we provided some detail around that. I’m happy to talk.
Mr Lowe: To clarify, that work has been ongoing. It was acknowledged in the Treasury modelling that I referred to earlier that ABARES has been undertaking that work.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you just accept Treasury modelling?
Mr Lowe: We provide inputs into Treasury modelling.
Senator ROBERTS: But you haven’t published modelling yourself on the impact on food output. You’re relying on Treasury saying it will increase.
Mr Lowe: As my colleague, Dr Greenville, said, we’re undertaking work in relation to that.
Senator ROBERTS: Based on questions that were put to you today.
Mr Lowe: No, based on work that was already ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: Even article 2(1)(b) of the UN Paris Agreement requires climate action to avoid threatening food production. Is there any land being locked up under your plan?
Mr Lowe: The ag and land sector plan also acknowledges—and a key tenet of it is—that achieving emissions reduction shouldn’t come at the cost of food security. We would say that the ag and land sector plan is consistent with that acknowledgement that you read out.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice that your plan doesn’t breach the Paris Agreement?
Mr Lowe: The Net Zero Plan and the six sector plans are government plans to be consistent with the Paris Agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you sought legal advice?
Mr Lowe: We have not, as a department.
Senator ROBERTS: How do you know it’s consistent?
Mr Lowe: I think that question may be best directed to DCCEEW, but I’m not aware of legal advice.
Senator ROBERTS: Aren’t you responsible for the plan?
Mr Lowe: We’re responsible for the ag and land sector plan, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: And the impact on the ag sector?
Mr Lowe: Yes. We have not sought legal advice in relation to the ag and land sector plan, and its consistency with the Paris Agreement, to answer your specific question.
Senator ROBERTS: I read that you spent $2.2 million developing the plan, yet you cannot provide a figure, as I understand it, for hectares to be reforested.
Mr Lowe: We don’t have a figure currently; that’s correct.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that acceptable?
Mr Lowe: It’s work in progress.
Senator ROBERTS: How is that a plan?
Mr Lowe: There are a number of elements of the plan, as I mentioned, for foundational actions. Maximising the sequestration potential of the land is one of those.
Senator ROBERTS: I get the carbon dioxide sequestration. I don’t believe in all this crap, because there’s no data to back it up. I believe carbon dioxide sequestration will increase food production, but not if it locks up land—because then you’ve got noxious weeds and feral animals proliferating and going onto neighbouring properties, which increases the cost of managing neighbouring properties. Are you aware of these things?
Mr Lowe: I’d say, consistent with my earlier comments, that there are significant opportunities in carbon sequestration for producers. I’m aware of a number of examples of producers who have put into place plantation forestry on their enterprise and added that to their enterprise mix—so they’ve increased the number of trees on their property. It’s supported an increase in carrying capacity of stocking rates and diversified their income stream by enabling them to undertake forest activities. There’s an example of a New England wool producer, Michael Taylor; he’s got native and pine forest on his enterprise. He’s got a sawmill on his enterprise as well, where he cuts down, saws and processes the timber on his enterprise to sell. One of the benefits he ascribes to that is having an income during leaner years; where he’s got lower stocking rates, he can sell the timber and continue to employ people on his farm.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you like to visit some properties in south-western Queensland that have been locked up, where neighbouring properties are being destroyed?
Mr Lowe: Always open to visiting farmers and properties.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you commit to publishing a hectare estimate before implementing any measures; yes or no?
Mr Lowe: We’re already implementing measures.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know how much land will be locked up?
Mr Lowe: As I’ve said, that work is ongoing but we are already implementing measures in relation to the ag and land sector plan.
Senator ROBERTS: So you’re implementing the plan before the plan is finalised?
Mr Lowe: The plan is finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: But the hectares aren’t.
Mr Lowe: That work is still ongoing.
Senator ROBERTS: CSIRO’s land use trade-offs model shows carbon plantings compete directly with agriculture for land. How will this impact Australia’s food bowls and rural jobs?
Mr Lowe: I’d say it’s not going to be a one-size-fits-all approach as to how carbon sequestration plays out in the landscape. There will be lots of different ways that land managers and producers decide to take up carbon sequestration opportunities. So I probably wouldn’t characterise things in the way that you have. What I would say is that we think there are opportunities for producers. I also think that, certainly, the types of lands that might be more favourably disposed to carbon sequestration—and ABARES can talk about this in more detail if you like—are the types of lands that are less productive. We would envisage is that we would often see multiple-use land, so land where there’s revegetation happening but also still able to support primary production.
Senator ROBERTS: I know the answer to this question. Have you assessed the combined impact of reforestation, renewable energy projects and transmission corridors on farmland availability?
Mr Lowe: In terms of hectare impact, for example?
Senator ROBERTS: The loss of productive farmland.
Mr Lowe: The answer is no. The work that we have ongoing is particularly in relation to carbon sequestration in the landscape.
Senator ROBERTS: You are not going to consider the renewable energy projects taking up farmland for transmission lines. They’re massive, and the farmers are pretty damn upset about them. People in regional communities, not just farmers, are upset.
Mr Lowe: That is a matter that’s the purview of DCCEEW in terms of renewable energy and transmission. We are interested in understanding the land impact of that and have been working with DCCEEW to understand that better.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand you’re developing a national food security strategy.
Mr Lowe: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: How can that strategy be credible if you don’t know how much farmland will be lost to carbon dioxide sequestration, solar and wind generation or transmission lines?
Mr Lowe: I think the development of the strategy will be taking in multiple perspectives in relation to Australia’s future food security. We received over 400 submissions when we put out a discussion paper recently on Australia’s future food security. I haven’t read those submissions in detail. I imagine some of them might have raised those sorts of issues, so it is something that will be a matter of consideration. Equally of consideration—in fact, something that I understand came through really strongly in the submissions—will be the climate impact on our primary production enterprises and the importance of resilient farming systems as well.
Senator ROBERTS: In your planning and strategising what comes first—data or strategy?
Mr Lowe: We’d like to think that there’s a combination of both, where we can.
Senator ROBERTS: I thought data was the first step to understanding what you’re going to strategise about.
Mr Lowe: Another input is consultation, and we take that really seriously. In the development of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, we focused very heavily on consulting and consulting with our state and territory counterparts. We had an issues paper out on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan. We received a large number of submissions in relation to that. We held a sustainability summit that was auspiced by Minister Bowen and Minister Watt on the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan, and we held a number of roundtables as well with industry stakeholders on the plan.
Senator ROBERTS: Will you integrate land-use change modelling into the food security strategy and publish the findings?
Mr Lowe: We have land-use change modelling on foot. We will publish the findings, and we’re very happy to use it as an input into the food security strategy as well.
Senator ROBERTS: Has DAFF modelled the impact of the Agriculture and Land Sector Plan on agricultural gross domestic product?
Mr Lowe: I’m just trying to think about that.
Dr Greenville: That was part of the modelling that Treasury undertook, and it’s an area where you have quoted that 107 million tonnes from. They have projections as part of that, like the 107 million tonnes, about agricultural production as well as agricultural emissions intensities and so forth. There’s detail in that.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you checked the assumptions on which it’s based or the actual figures?
Dr Greenville: We provided some information to give them the baseline on which they looked at the plan, and they’re quite detailed with what they’ve done in terms of the plan, the assumptions they’ve made and the like, and that’s all been published as part of that result.
Senator ROBERTS: Have you scrutinised it?
Dr Greenville: Obviously, we’ve taken a look. We take a keen interest, which is why—
Senator ROBERTS: ‘Taking a look’ is a bit different from scrutinising.
Dr Greenville: Which is why we’re undertaking our own modelling with the land sector. They pointed out that there was considerable uncertainty in land base sequestration potential and the trade-offs between sequestration and agricultural value. We’ve invested in improving information around regional impacts and trade-offs.
Senator ROBERTS: Treasury assumes agricultural production will rise by about 32 per cent by 2050, but we don’t know how much land is going to be sequestered. How much land is going to be destroyed? How is it possible to get food production increased by 32 per cent if we don’t know the land that will be cut off?
Dr Greenville: Under a market-based approach, sequestration will occur where opportunity costs to agriculture are low. That is not inconsistent with agricultural production continuing to grow while carbon sequestration is added as another land-use activity.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve raised markets, so that raises carbon dioxide price. What carbon dioxide price is assumed to drive reforestation at the scale required, and will farmers be forced to choose between growing food and earning carbon dioxide credits?
Dr Greenville: That would be an outcome of modelling we haven’t finalised yet, so I don’t want to speculate.
Senator ROBERTS: The plan references alternative proteins. Is DAFF actively promoting lab grown meat as a substitute for real meat?
Mr Lowe: Not actively.
Senator ROBERTS: What assessment has been made of the economic and cultural impact of replacing traditional meat with lab grown alternatives?
Mr Lowe: We haven’t done detailed work on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Chair, this terrifies me. There doesn’t seem to be any data driving the plan. That’s just a statement.
CHAIR: I’ll take that as a statement. Do you have further questions?
Thislegislation – The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 – is a direct assault on small and medium businesses. Forcing employers to pay superannuation within seven days of payday, instead of the current quarterly system, is stripping away the “cash flow buffer” that keeps businesses afloat.
Here is the reality of what these bills do:
If a business is even slightly late, they face brutal penalties: 25% for a first offense and 50% for subsequent ones.
To cover the immediate cost of bringing these payments forward, businesses (especially in retail, hospitality, and tourism) will be forced to cut staff levels. This means tens of thousands of young Australians will lose work during peak seasons like Christmas and Easter.
The government is also scrapping the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Instead of one bulk payment, small business owners will now be buried in paperwork, manually paying dozens of individual funds every single week or fortnight.
This isn’t about workers, it’s about funnelling more money faster into union-backed industry super funds. While small businesses collapse, these funds and large corporations get richer.
One Nation believes workers should be able to use their super for a home deposit — investing in their own future rather than being forced to rent from the very super funds getting fat off this legislation.
Ultimately, this is nothing but a revenue-raising exercise disguised as “virtue signalling.” It ignores the reality of record-high bankruptcies and unaffordable energy costs, choosing instead to “shaft” the very people, the workers and small business owners, it claims to protect.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Superannuation Guarantee Charge Amendment Bill 2025 and the Treasury Laws Amendment (Payday Superannuation) Bill 2025 penalise employers who do not pay their employees’ superannuation guarantee contributions at the same time as salary and wages. The payment must reach the employee’s super account within seven business days of the employee’s payday. Currently, payments are due 28 days after the quarter to which they relate.
This is a major change in cash flow. It brings forward a significant expense for businesses, particularly small businesses, while only adding a small amount to their super across their working life—if they can get a job, of course. So many jobs these days require ABNs, in which case the person must pay their own super. It says in the legislation:
The reforms intend to ‘strengthen Australia’s superannuation system’ by reducing the SG gap—
which was estimated at $5 billion in 2022. Treasurer Chalmers wrongly says:
While most employers do the right thing, some disreputable ones are exploiting their employees.
Most of the shortfall is in small businesses and microbusinesses and includes solopreneurs not paying themselves super. The quality of data on this is surprisingly poor for something being used to justify this onerous bill. The government doesn’t want the facts to get in the way of their virtue-signalling and pork-barrelling of union backed industry super funds. That’s the target. That’s what the government wants to do here—look after their union bosses’ super industry funds.
If the employer hasn’t paid the super 28 days after payday, they will receive a notice giving them 28 more days to pay. If they still fail to pay, there is a penalty of 25 per cent of the missing super. That’s for the first offence. There’s a 50 per cent penalty for a second offence and for subsequent offences. This will be a nightmare for small and medium businesses, particularly in retail, hospitality and tourism, and it will be a gift for super funds, the unions and the Australian Taxation Office.
Treasurer Chalmers has no clue how businesses—especially small businesses and microbusinesses—work. The current quarterly super system increases the ability of small and medium businesses to smooth their cash flow over what is, effectively, a four-month period. Businesses could set their staffing levels to the expected revenue for a three-month period.
Let me give you an example. Retailers have mostly completed hiring their staff for over the Christmas period, even though Christmas spending doesn’t get going for another few weeks. They know they can afford the wages now but don’t need to pay super until the money comes in next month. What’s going to happen under this ignorant, anti-small-business legislation is that small and medium retailers will cut their staffing. They’ll reduce the number of their workers equal to the amount of the super contribution that they’re bringing forward. They’re taking the cost out of labour because there’s nowhere else to take it from. That’s what you don’t seem to understand. You certainly don’t understand rents or profits.
Most small and medium businesses in this country are struggling as it is. Business bankruptcies are at a record high under this Labor government, and now more will go under. Large retailers—wait for it—will simply pass this cost on to everyday Australians through higher prices, so the people of Australia, and the workers in particular, are going to get shafted by this bill. Treasurer Chalmers and this Labor government have ensured that tens of thousands of, mostly, young Australians will not have a job this Christmas, Easter, Mother’s Day, Father’s Day or Black Friday and other retail highlights.
It isn’t just retailers, though, who will lose. This bill will, in addition, harm markets, tourism and hospitality—all of which are weather dependent. These businesses will not be able to smooth out the ups and downs coming from good and bad weather—and there are ups and downs. That’s the way the earth operates; weather is variable. They will be forced to set staffing levels lower to ensure that they can cover the wages of staff and their super. I expect we will see a change to employment terms, with weather clauses being written into awards and further reductions in shifts to allow staff to be sent home if businesses are not busy.
This Labor government has already had a lesson in unintended consequences with its greedy hike in tobacco tariffs leading literally to open warfare, firebombings and killings in the industry, and lower tax revenues. Everyone loses except the criminals. Treasurer Chalmers is in for another such lesson here. It will not be the government that’s harmed. It will be young Australians—and retailers—who will be harmed. Of course, Labor won’t care. They don’t govern for young Australians. If they did, then the Albanese government would not have flooded the country with new arrivals, driving up rental and home prices, lowering wages and reducing living standards. Did anyone mention unaffordable power?
The winners from this bill will be the government’s mates. The unions’ super funds will get richer. The large corporations who can afford to carry staff for the few weeks will get richer. The big end of town gets richer, and Australians get poorer. I said last week that the Australian Labor Party spell ‘labor’ without a ‘U’, l-a-b-o-r, because the Labor Party do not care about ‘you’. They bypass the ‘you’. Young Australians are about to get another lesson on how little they matter to this government.
Workers will be sacked, and businesses will close as a direct result of this policy. It’s clear. The revenue-raising figures and estimates in this bill make no allowance for expected employment downturns, which will come—the unintended consequence of this bill. It’s not, as proposed in the legislation, better for employees because they get their super money earlier, because the job market and the private sector will immediately shrink.
After Treasurer Chalmers had his fantasy tax grab on unrealised capital gains trashed, he has evidently pivoted to recouping the money off the dying and struggling ecosystem of private industry, which has borne all the costs of unaffordable energy increases, foreign competition and Labor’s recent award changes.
These bills are estimated to increase taxation payments to $589 million over the next three years. This is about a taxation increase, which ignores as usual the decrease in revenue from business collapses and staff sackings. There will be lower employment.
Why is the government banking on this bill boosting their bottom line so much? Is this about superannuation or is it revenue raising—fining small businesses for laws the government knows they won’t be able to comply with on time? Maybe the government don’t know; that’s how out of touch they are. Despite this, this bill is disguised as being pro worker, when in fact compulsory super contributions are eating away at workers’ take-home pay and preventing them from saving for a home. The $4 trillion—that’s right; $4 trillion—in Australia’s super accounts is employees’ money. It’s the workers’ money. It’s come out of workers’ wages.
One Nation will counter this Albanese government attack on our young with better policy. We will allow young Australians to use their super balance towards a deposit on a new home. That’s been a standing part of our policy for a year now. The higher the deposit, the lower the repayments. The more the young are advantaged there, the more realistic purchasing a house becomes. The investment from the person’s own super account into their home is secured with a loan, so their super grows as the value of their home grows. You’ll never see that policy coming from the ALP, the Australian Labor Party, because their policy is for the government to own your home, or a share of it, so they can dictate to you how to live and who you should live with. Think about it. This has all been documented.
This measure adds to payroll complexity for large corporations, especially around employment mobility. Large corporations will not pay for this measure. The Australian public will, though, through higher prices or staff reductions.
Industry has already asked for a one- to two-year delay to make the necessary software changes. That’s how extreme the measures are. Accounting software giant Xero provides the software that 1.8 million businesses use and has recommended a two-year window for implementation. Instead, this bill is going to be rushed through, with an implementation date of July. Imagine the cash-flow burden on a medium business with a thousand staff across different states, on different awards, all taking leave and changing super funds during this period.
Treasurer Chalmers can’t imagine that. He has no business experience, and, quite honestly, he hasn’t a clue about the misery his policies are causing small and medium businesses in this country. That’s apparent with the decision in this bill to abolish the ATO’s Small Business Superannuation Clearing House. Small businesses today can pay a lump sum of all their employees’ superannuation contributions to the clearing house along with their employees’ super details. The clearing house then makes the necessary payments to the employee’s individual super fund. This saves small businesses a truckload of paperwork by letting them make one bulk payment instead of dozens to every employee’s individual fund. That will be gone with this bill. Small businesses will have to take care of dozens of extra super payments, and they will be penalised 60 per cent if they are later than seven days from payday.
Nonetheless, a lot of the blame for small-business hardship must be directed at the minister for climate change and sending Australia broke, Minister Chris Bowen. Unaffordable energy is driving the country to ruin. This legislation has come into this Senate at the same time as the government announcing it would require super funds to invest almost $2 trillion of Australia’s super money in the United States. That’s how much this Labor government cares about jobs for Australians. They are taking an amount equal to one-half of all the money in super funds in Australia at 30 June this year and sending it to America over a 10-year period. Prime Minister, superannuation is not your money! Yet the government is sending your super overseas to grow the American economy.
Imagine how many breadwinner jobs could be created in Australia with the $2 trillion being invested right here in projects like the Capricornia project, an integrated rail, steel and concrete project, to provide Australia with security on steel, ceramics, fertiliser, explosives and pharmaceutical precursors—steel, the foundation of modern civilisation. Instead, young people will be competing with millions of new arrivals in a labour market that’s currently in a race to the bottom of wages, conditions and security—Prime Minister, in case you’re not aware of it despite so many people shouting it from the streets, stop mass migration—a trend this bill will make worse.
The Albanese government is pursuing policies that ensure young Australians don’t have the abundance, wealth and income necessary to buy their own home in a country with more resources than any other country per capita. Instead, young people will have to rent from union super funds and predatory wealth funds like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. Putting a roof over a young couple’s heads is critical to starting a family. Measures like this, combined with over migration, mass migration and unaffordable energy, will continue to steal opportunity from our young people. Never has a generation been so lied to as the people aged today between 18 and 45. One Nation opposes this bill because One Nation supports employment, workers and small businesses. We support a fair go and fairness for all.
I questioned the Commissioner regarding her September trip to Stanford and meetings with US tech firms. She will provide a detailed log of her itinerary, speaking engagements, and total costs on notice. Australians deserve to know exactly how their money is being spent and what is being discussed behind closed doors.
I then queried the Minister regarding concerns raised by US House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan about the Commissioner’s conduct. While I support protecting children from harm, we must be vigilant when unelected officials are labelled “extreme” by international peers.
Lastly, I was interested to know what the Commissioner’s philosophy was regarding censorship, noting the “enormous power” that has been given to her. She denied being a censor, stating she only acts on public complaints regarding “highly damaging” and “refused classification” material, specifically excluding political speech.
The eSafety Commissioner has enormous power over what you see and say online. I will continue to hold this agency to account to protect the rights of adult Australians from government overreach.
P.S. At one point during this session, Senator Green accidentally called me “Minister” – saying “maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.” She even joked that One Nation is already writing policy for the LNP! 😆😆
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I understand you have a few more questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, just three. Commissioner, you visited Stanford University in September this year as part of a USA trip. Did Australian taxpayers fund that?
Ms Inman Grant: Yes, I went, and I met with eight of the AI companies and the social media companies. Then I spent a day and a half at the Trust and Safety Research Conference.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide a log of meetings and a record of your speeches, or any other documentation, to assure taxpayers that their money was spent appropriately, as well as the total cost of the trip?
Ms Inman Grant: I sure can.
Senator ROBERTS: On notice.
Ms Inman Grant: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. You’ve already answered a question from Senator Whitten about the House Judiciary Committee chairman wanting you to testify, so I don’t need to cover that. Minister, does it concern you that your commissioner is engaging in conduct that is so extreme that the US Congress, specifically the House Judiciary Committee chairman, Jim Jordan, is alarmed?
Senator Green: Minister, I think the eSafety Commissioner’s address—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not a minister.
Senator Green: Sorry, Senator—maybe one day, if the LNP has their way.
*Senator Henderson interjecting—*
Senator Green: You never know. They wrote your net zero policy, so you never know. We are very proud of the reforms that we are undertaking. To be fair, I’m sure the coalition was very proud of the steps that they took in terms of online safety when the eSafety Commissioner was established. For the most part, we have had bipartisan support for these types of reforms, because they keep Australians safe. The social media ban or minimum age will seek to keep our children safe. It’s incredibly important. I know you come in here quite often talking about the safety of children and wanting to keep harmful material away from them. That is the work of the eSafety Commissioner. It’s open to other governments or other people in other parliaments to have their judgment of it, but from an Australian government point of view we are very proud of the work that she does.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner, you said earlier, in roughly these words, that you’ve never claimed to censor the net globally. Why do you think people think this?
Ms Inman Grant: We talked about Elon Musk’s tweet that said she’s the eSafety commissar trying to globally regulate the internet, and then Ben Fordham then picked it up, and it’s just had a life of its own.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve complimented your office on its work in protecting children, quite clearly. There are other concerns we have with your work because it can cause consequences for adults that we don’t like, but it’s not appropriate to discuss it here. What’s your philosophy on censorship?
Ms Inman Grant: My philosophy is I’m not a censor. I respond to complaints from the public. We received many about the Charlie Kirk assassination and about the stabbing of Iryna Zarutska on a train where she bled to death and the decapitation of the Dallas hotel owner. If you think that that’s overstepping when that’s something that’s highly damaging and was determined—
Senator ROBERTS: No, I didn’t say that. I was wanting to know your thoughts on censorship—that’s all—because you’ve got enormous power.
Ms Inman Grant: My thoughts on censorship? Well, what has been helpfully built into the Online Safety Act is that we’re not regulating for political speech or commentary. It’s where either online invective or imagery veers into the lane of serious harm. You provide us with thresholds. Sometimes those thresholds are tested and sometimes they’re a grey area, but I think we help thousands of people every year. We’re doing world-leading work that the rest of the governments around the world are following. I think we’re punching above our weight. We’re a very small agency given the size of our population. So I guess I don’t have a view. I don’t see myself as a censor. I don’t tell you what you can or can’t say unless it’s refused classification or it’s trying to silence someone else’s voice by targeted online abuse that reaches the threshold of adult cyberabuse.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Lastly, I think it was Mr Fleming who invited us to have a briefing. We haven’t forgotten. We’d like to do that, but we’ve been a bit busy. We will do it one day.
Mr Fleming: Maybe in the new year. The offer still stands.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1769654088997-9e0ba7dd-2657-48fe-b136-9ff6339848f1.png6361135Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-29 12:57:422026-01-29 12:57:50The Fine Line Between Safety and Overreach
Why on earth are we leasing Navy patrol boats from the National Australia Bank?
It’s a strange arrangement – handing over $63 million to one of the “Big Four” to rent vessels like the Cape Inscription.
When I asked for the logic behind this, or even the basic cost of the lease extensions, the answers were frustratingly thin. No one in the room could tell me what it would cost to buy these ships back, or even how much total taxpayer money has been paid to the NAB so far.
This feels like a stopgap measure that has turned into a more permanent, expensive one, and I intend to find out exactly who is profiting from it.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending. Australian Defence vessels Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy were reportedly being leased from the National Australia Bank for three years from 2017 for $63 million. Why did the Defence Force ever lease a Navy ship from the NAB, one of Australia’s big four banks?
Adm. Johnston: The Chief of Navy will come to the table. We will be able to explain it in the terms of what the circumstances were at the time, particularly a transition plan, as it was, to the offshore patrol vessels, and where we are now.
Vice Adm. Hammond: As CDF just intimated, there was a patrol boat transition plan which involved Armidale class and enhanced Cape class and Arafura. At that time the intent was to transition to 12 Arafura class offshore patrol vessels. As we’ve gone through the Defence Strategic Review and then the surface combatant review, that plan has changed. The E-Cape has now become the program of record, for the Australian Defence Force and Border Force, for patrol boat capability. We had two Cape class patrol vessels that we were leasing as a stopgap capability. Now that the Evolved Cape class program is the program of record, that program has changed. The initial basis was around a decision between the cost of ownership for an outright purchase and a short-term lease arrangement, and that was negotiated by the Naval Shipbuilding and Sustainment Group. I’ll throw to my colleague Rear Admiral Brad Smith for any further details.
Rear Adm. Smith: Nothing further to add to that—other than that the program has been in place since 2017.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. The lease on these Navy ships was reportedly extended in 2020 for two years. What was the cost of that two-year lease extension?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice and get back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: There’s no-one in the room who can answer that question?
Rear Adm. Smith: Not at this time.
Senator ROBERTS: Who owns the ships today—the Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy? Are they still on lease from the National Australia Bank?
Rear Adm. Smith: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the agreed residual value of the two ships that NAB can purchase if the Navy ends the lease?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll also get that one back to you, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: What is the total amount that has been paid to NAB under these leases for both ships, Cape Inscription and Cape Fourcroy?
Rear Adm. Smith: I’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Australian Defence Force leasing patrol boats from a bank that made $7 billion in profit last year?
Rear Adm. Smith: I think Chief of Navy answered that earlier, Senator.
On Monday 19 January, during an early recall of Parliament, I delivered condolences for the victims of Bondi on behalf of myself and Senator Pauline Hanson.
My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation — your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all.
It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people, and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia.
The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership — leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
Transcript
Fifteen Australians massacred in 10 minutes of terror—15 Australians executed, 15 Australians given the death sentence for being in a park and on the street in a beautiful, once peaceful part of our country. Others are carrying injuries and scars for life. My condolences to the victims’ families, friends, workmates and colleagues. Nothing I can say will adequately articulate your grief, fear, devastation, shock and desperation—your search for understanding, for clarity in putting your lives back together, for addressing the hole in your heart and mind, for meaning, for making sense of it all. It’s difficult to make sense of something senseless that’s the result of inhuman ideology, Islamic ideology, which is the number one killer of Muslims worldwide, a rampant killer of Christians and of Jewish people and the driving force behind indiscriminate killing of non-adherents worldwide.
Before 14 December 2025 we thought this may happen close to us—in Bali’s two bombings, when 92 Australians died—yet surely not on our shores. How can you make sense of it all when so many people won’t name the force, Islam, that brutally murdered your loved ones? Yet before embarking on that search, I acknowledge 27 million Australians who had our collective perception of Australian security ripped away, tearing at the heart and fabric of our nation, security, culture and identity—our democracy, our unity. My condolences to all Australians whom this tragedy touches. Honouring the Bondi victims is not with words alone; above all it’s done with action—honest, genuine, meaningful actions. This is an opportunity to unite Australians whom this tragedy touches and to unite them with a unity based in truth.
Another preliminary to action is to acknowledge that life is precious. From conception to death, life is precious. This is the first of our universal God-given freedoms, the freedom of life, our freedom to live. Without freedom to live there can be no freedom of speech, no freedom of thought, no creativity, no freedom of belief and no freedom of assembly, association, initiative or movement. In other words, in another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that freedom to live is essential. In another preliminary to action we must acknowledge that in our actions honesty is vital. Regarding the Bondi massacre, honesty starts with responsibility, because parliament has failed to hold government sufficiently accountable to spur the government to take action that would have or likely could have avoided the massacre. As a senator in federal parliament could I have done more to hold the government accountable—I asked myself that—to spur the government to confront Islam’s beachhead in our country? For those upset with my comments, I quote from evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins:
Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.
Truth is important. Responsibility is a key to leadership that needs to be provided for all Australians and especially for families of the murdered. A true leader takes responsibility for failures like the failures and lapses leading to Bondi, rapidly investigates using a genuine royal commission with terms of reference that ensure truth is established and then, based on data and facts unearthed, leads changes in governance, all to protect people, not to punish or control people, apart from those responsible for lapses in doing their duty—only to protect people. I know two quotes from everyday Australians on my social media posts:
Social cohesion doesn’t occur under social coercion.
Anyone who wants to ban free speech has a lot to hide.
A real leader doesn’t weaken the people he or she leads; they strengthen people. A real leader doesn’t take resources from his political opponents; they strengthen their opponents, because stronger opponents strengthen governments—governments that care. A real leader calls an inquiry with adequate power to get to the root causes and to then recommend answers. All this, with a clarity of understanding, leads to prevention of future recurrence.
I divert briefly from Bondi to Australia’s largest domestic mass murder, the Port Arthur massacre, which killed 35 people in beautiful Tasmania on 28 April 1996, because there’s at least one important lesson there. Then prime minister John Howard illegally cancelled the request for an inquiry into the 35 deaths—an action that failed and betrayed the victims and their families. It betrayed every Australian. Had the lessons of Port Arthur been explored through a royal commission or through a proper inquest, we may not be where we are today. Our obligation lies not only to those Australians in mourning for what this country has lost in the last month but also to those Australians yet to be born. It may take many years for the circumstances of Bondi to recur, yet they will recur unless action is taken now.
Prime ministers are elected in a vote of the party caucus. Leaders, though, are not appointed; they are self-emergent as a result of their successful, sincere and honest handling of challenges and incidents that affect the people they supposedly lead. On Sunday 21 December at Bondi’s ‘Light over darkness’ vigil at the memorial to terrorist attack victims, the current Prime Minister was loudly and emphatically booed. That booing reverberated across Australia. It was an emblematic verdict from the people on the Prime Minister’s performance in response to Bondi because, in Bondi’s aftermath, our country has not seen leadership. Once the absence of leadership became obvious and open, the government tried to rehabilitate a tarnished image with branding. Branding, though, is not leadership. It is dangerous because it’s a vacuum. The best way to honour the Bondi massacre victims is to respect them, to be honest, to be open and to enable a fair dinkum royal commission to get the data and facts truthfully, and then, based on the data and facts, to change systems and adjust leadership behaviours.
Why have there been no prosecutions under Commonwealth hate crimes legislation that Labor introduced in 2010 and 2025? If the place of worship of the radicals that committed this offence could be closed under existing powers straight after the offence, why can’t others? If they can deport tennis players and Nazis under existing laws, why have they not deported Islamic hate preachers?
As a way of honouring the Bondi victims, I pledge to fulfil my role as a senator and as a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia. I will fulfil my role under our Westminster system of government to ensure that Australians can again feel safe and secure and to hold government—regardless of who’s in power—accountable in its primary role of ensuring every Australian’s security and safety. We must do more to end Islamic extremism, the world’s large perpetrator of terrorism. The most appropriate way to honour the Bondi victims is to end Islamic extremism and terrorism in Australia. The Bondi victims, at the very least, deserve honest leadership—leadership that takes responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of all of their, and our, fellow Australians.
I will now convey some condolence remarks from Senator Pauline Hanson. I’m proud to be able to deliver them for Pauline. She says:
Due to my suspension from this chamber my colleague Senator Malcolm Roberts has kindly agreed to deliver my Bondi condolence speech.
On December 14th 2025, just 10 days out from celebrating Christmas our nation was struck the cruellest blow with the terrorist attack at Bondi beach that claimed the lives of 15 innocent Australians.
Many more faced hospitalisation from injuries they incurred but countless more will carry scars for the rest of their lives from the horrors they witnessed on that fateful day.
To all of those who lost family, loved ones, or a dear close friend never forget your fellow Australians, including myself, share your grief.
Our heart goes out to you, your loss is our loss, your hurt and pain is our hurt and pain.
Your fellow Australians and many throughout the world share your grief and pain, you are not alone.
Matilda was the youngest to lose her life, a beautiful young girl only 10 years of age. Why? What could she have possibly done to warrant her life being cut short at such a young age?
Nothing! She was celebrating the Jewish festival Hanukkah with family, held at the iconic setting, Bondi beach.
Thousands of Australians attended as they do every year, only this Hanukkah ended in a massacre.
The carnage Australians witnessed as it was happening on their devices, left most of us stunned, disbelieving and in horror that this could possibly be happening in our country.
The hate and evil delivered on that day must be stamped out.
I question myself constantly what has happened to our country when two men, father and son, are seen to be deliberately firing rifles with precision and determination to kill or maim as many people as they can.
The heroic actions of Ahmed Al-Ahmed in wrestling the gun from one of the men while he was firing at people, has been praised for his bravery, from all around the world.
Also the heroic actions of the couple Boris and Sofia Gurman who saw a man taking the rifle out of his car, tried to take it from him, but tragically lost their precious lives.
There were countless heroes, including the amazing first responders, on that tragic day—
I pause here to convey Pauline’s deep appreciation, respect and admiration for the first responders who actually ran towards the firing—
many trying to help and protect the young and not so young.
Australians selfless to their own safety only to put themselves in danger to save others—
Pauline says thankyou—
This is a tragedy, a scar that will be in our history books for eternity.
Mistakes have been made, but lessons must be learnt. We cannot just move on and thank our lucky stars that it was not one of us or one of our loved ones.
History repeats itself, don’t let the death of 15 innocent Australians and the suffering of many more be swept under the carpet and forgotten.
We are very fortunate to live in such a beautiful country, that many from around the world look on in envy.
This tragedy has been a wake-up call for a lot of people. Never take your freedom, peace or harmony for granted, there are those wanting to spill their hate or evil, if we let them.
Our current and previous governments have a lot to answer for, but that is for another day.
I and my One Nation colleagues will continue to fight for your right to freedom and safety not only for you but for future generations.
A country you can be proud to live in and call home.
https://image2url.com/r2/default/images/1768981847320-73639cb1-d0b5-464b-a099-59fa6f65424a.png6321129Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-01-21 17:52:262026-01-22 17:47:50Australians Deserve the Truth: Ending the Ideology of Terror
