In Senate estimates, I asked questions about the Brereton Afghanistan inquiry and its implications for integrity in public office. When Mr Brereton wrote his report, he declared that command responsibility for alleged war crimes did not extend to senior officers or headquarters. That raises serious concerns.
I pressed officials on whether Mr Brereton had close associations with those officers and whether this pattern of judgment affects his fitness to lead the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC). The response confirmed that while his association was professional, he continued to provide advice on the inquiry—even after becoming commissioner.
Australians deserve confidence that those tasked with fighting corruption are beyond reproach. Transparency and accountability are not optional—they are essential.
What do you think? Should prior involvement in controversial inquiries disqualify someone from heading an anti-corruption body?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: When Mr Brereton wrote his Afghanistan inquiry report he declared that command responsibility and accountability for war crime allegations does not extend to senior officers and headquarters, joint taskforce 633 and the joint operations centre. Did he know any of those officers well, or did he have a close association with any of those officers?
Mr Reed: That report was produced before the National Anti-Corruption Commission began and therefore—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m going to—
Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to be able to tell you about—
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: I can’t advise you on that.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you know?
Mr Reed: No, I don’t.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take it on notice to ask Mr Brereton, please?
Mr Reed: I’m not sure. Is it relevant?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, it is, because it’s going to the commissioner’s fitness for the job of heading up the NACC and establishing whether there’s a pattern of behaviour here. There seems to be a pattern of behaviour, from what I can tell.
Mr Reed: I’ll pass to my colleague Rebekah O’Meagher.
Ms O’Meagher: Thank you, Philip. If it assists, in terms of the previous line of questioning, the commissioner has put it on the record that, in terms of that association, it was a professional one, not a friendship. It was a historic—
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not doubting that.
Ms O’Meagher: professional association. As to the reasoning of how that error of judgement occurred, those referrals came to us in the third day of our operation as the commission, and the commissioner has explained that he maintained involvement—not decision-making but involvement—because it raised issues in terms of the breadth of corrupt conduct under the act. That was the reasoning. He declared what the conflict was on multiple occasions. He stated how he was going to manage it. And another deputy was the decision-maker for the referrals.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC received any referrals or complaints in relation to the Afghanistan inquiry that Mr Brereton conducted?
Mr Reed: It’s not something I’m going to be able to answer here.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take it on notice please?
Mr Reed: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Has Mr Brereton recused himself from the complaints against the Afghanistan inquiry, or does he need the inspector-general to tell him to do that again?
Ms O’Meagher: The commissioner has stated that he will recuse himself, and he has recused himself, from all matters involving that IGADF.
Senator ROBERTS: Has he continued to provide advice to the inspector-general of the ADF on the Brereton report? He has, hasn’t he?
Mr Reed: That’s what we were talking about earlier—
Senator ROBERTS: That’s right.
Mr Reed: and the answer is yes. But it was advice, not regular or structured but infrequent.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you confirm, Mr Reed, if there have been any complaints to the NACC about the Brereton report? He’s not advising the NACC?
Mr Reed: If it was a referral to the National Anti-Corruption Commission about the IGADF—
Senator ROBERTS: And the Brereton report.
Mr Reed: he would recuse himself from that matter.
During a session with CSIRO at Senate Estimates, I raised serious questions about Australia’s pandemic preparedness and biosecurity.
The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza took a decade to develop, yet it was shelved during COVID. I asked CSIRO whether this plan is being updated and what lessons have been learned.
I also pressed CSIRO on their handling of live viruses—rabies, Ebola, and others—and sought assurances that Australia’s highest-security facility will never repeat the mistakes of Wuhan. CSIRO advised of their world-class biocontainment standards and of their 40-year record without a breach.
Finally, I asked Professor Sutton about his recent comments suggesting future pandemic responses could avoid harsh lockdowns. His view: policy decisions should be “less restrictive” than what we saw during COVID.
Australians deserve transparency and accountability on pandemic planning. I’ll keep asking the tough questions.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions now go to pandemic preparedness. This is the Australian—
Senator Ayres: We’re off the horses and ferrets now, Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes, and the rats and the birds.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve got three minutes.
Senator Ayres: We’re now going to move on to the main event.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Health Management Plan for Pandemic Influenza was developed over 10 years, concluding in 2019, just in time for COVID. But it wasn’t used; it was binned. As your department is pandemic preparedness, Professor Sutton, are you working on updating this plan and correcting whatever reason caused it not to be used?
Dr Hilton: Again, Professor Sutton is not responsible for the ACDP, which is our centre for pandemic preparedness. Professor Sutton is responsible for our research unit, named health and biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the CSIRO handle live viruses? Your achievement page mentions lyssavirus— including rabies and Ebola, for example. If you have live viruses, which ones do you have?
Dr Hilton: So are we back to horses and weasels and ferrets?
Senator ROBERTS: Just viruses.
Dr Hilton: Yes; we hold a number of—
Senator ROBERTS: I treat this pretty seriously.
Dr Hilton: So do I.
Senator Ayres: I’m trying, Senator.
Dr Hilton: I just want to make sure we’re going back to your first line of questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m just going through whether or not you handle live viruses.
Dr Hilton: I think we’ve established that. We do handle live viruses.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can you assure the committee that CSIRO will not slip up in the way the Wuhan Institute of Virology did in the escape of their Frankenstein COVID experiment?
Dr Hilton: I would not characterise it in that way. CSIRO takes its responsibility for biosecurity exceptionally seriously in all of its facilities and works closely with regulators to ensure that it maintains the highest standards.
Senator ROBERTS: So you can give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: What won’t escape?
Senator ROBERTS: Live viruses.
Dr Hilton: Any live viruses? I will give you assurance that we work assiduously to maintain the highest standards of biosecurity as an organisation, across our sites.
Senator ROBERTS: Highest standards—can you give me an assurance that they won’t escape?
Dr Hilton: Senator, we maintain our facility to the highest standards of biosecurity.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an assurance it won’t escape?
Dr Taylor: Senator, I can add that the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness is one of three facilities in the world that has the highest biocontainment. It is quite unique in its capabilities. Its box-in-a-box design means that, even if the facility fails and if electricity fails, there are triple redundancies in the system. It is world renowned for its secure capabilities. That is why we handle high consequence live viruses there, and that’s its purpose. It’s done that for 40 years without a biosecurity breach.
Senator ROBERTS: Obviously you won’t give me an ironclad guarantee, but that’s fine. In Professor Sutton’s podcast interview, conducted recently, he made the statement that the government could consider not introducing the intrusive COVID social restrictions—lockdowns for instance. Is his opinion based on the work you have done at CSIRO or could you expand on what aspects of the social restrictions should be reconsidered? If Professor Sutton can’t answer it, perhaps you could do it.
Dr Hilton: I think that would be one that Professor Sutton could shed light on—to the interview.
Senator Ayres: He’s been champing at the bit to respond!
Prof. Sutton: That reflection was really based on the fact that it’s a matter for future governments as to the policy settings in response to any future pandemic. It’s not for me to say what the settings could be, but I could certainly imagine a future in which policy decisions could be less restrictive than we’ve experienced historically.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. See, that wasn’t so difficult.
Prof. Sutton: Not at all.
Dr Hilton: It was a pleasure.
CHAIR: Thank you for your rapid-fire approach, Senator Roberts.
I spoke with the CEO of the National Blood Authority, Adjunct Professor Ms Adriana Platona. She confirmed that the Australian Government owned the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories before it was privatised. She also stated that the National Blood Authority was established in 2003.
I asked her what steps had been taken to ensure the safety of concentrates containing Factor VIII. I did not receive a satisfactory answer—rather, I was given an attempted history lesson. Ms Platona went on to explain that the National Blood Authority was created as a result of the negative issues experienced by recipients of blood products during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. She said that an apology had been issued. I question whether an apology alone is enough to compensate victims who were infected with Hepatitis C and HIV?
Ms Platona stated that there have been no contaminated blood incidents since 2003. I suggested that the Commonwealth Government surely had legacy responsibilities, at which point the Deputy Secretary of the Department, Ms Penny Shakespeare, intervened. She said that these issues were primarily the responsibility of the States and Territories. I pointed out that in March 1953 the WHO recommended that dried plasma should be taken from small pools of 10–20 donors only, for safety reasons. Apparently, by the mid-1980s in Australia, plasma was mass-pooled from large numbers of donors, contrary to WHO recommendations. I asked why this had occurred – which had to be taken on notice.
I then asked whether it was considered an acceptable risk—of high probability—that haemophiliacs would contract Hepatitis Non-A, Non-B, and Hepatitis C during the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Again, I did not receive a satisfactory. I asked whether adequate compensation would be paid to the victims, as has happened in the UK, but was dismissed, and then my session was cut short by the Chair.
I will continue to seek justice for the victims of this terrible blunder by the Commonwealth and their continued denial of responsibility.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve got several issues here that I’d like to discuss—National Blood Authority about tainted blood, the pelvic mesh, the Lyme disease, ATAGI following on from Professor Lawler’s comments. So I’ll start with National Blood Authority, please. Is Dr John Rowell here? No. A lot of people are plagued with tainted blood, a heavy burden. At CSL’s 2024 annual general meeting, Chair Brian McNamee stated that, prior to its privatisation, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories. Is that correct?
Prof. Platona: The National Blood Authority was formed in 2003 as a statutory legislative agency. I’m very happy to answer questions about the National Blood Authority’s role and work since 2003.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wanting to know if you could confirm that before the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was sold off to the public, the Australian government was the owner, funder and regulator of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories.
Prof. Platona: I believe that is correct, sir.
Senator ROBERTS: What steps did the Australian government take to regulate the safety of the Factor VIII and IX concentrates manufactured by the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Prof. Platona: As I said in the first statement, the National Blood Authority was formed in 2003. I’m happy to answer questions about the work of the agency since then. You are referring to matters that precede the formation of the National Blood Authority by several decades.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me—I know it was a long time ago, but a lot of people are severely suffering now. Whose responsibility was it at the time, Ms Platona—is it Professor?—
Prof. Platona: Yes. Ms Platona is fine.
Senator ROBERTS: to ensure the safety of the Factor VIII and XI concentrates? This has relevance to what you’re doing now.
Prof. Platona: Indeed. The National Blood Authority was formed, as I said, as a result of some negatively affected people in the seventies, eighties and nineties. My predecessor provided a lot of context in response to your question in November 2024 on Hansard, as to the steps that led to the formation of the National Blood Authority, the apology, the formation of what is now the national Red Cross Lifeblood organisation, the apology that Red Cross Lifeblood made in 2014, and a number of actions by state and territory governments to deal with, really, the failings of the blood transfusion in the past. I do not want you to think at all that I don’t think about the lives of the people that Haemophilia Foundation, for example, is working to support—not at all. I’m the officer that has got the Public Service Medal for making the direct antiviral medicines available. Those hepatitis C treatments are now considered to be best practice and curative. So I do want to acknowledge the hard circumstances of the people affected by the disease.
Senator ROBERTS: That’s good. Did you want to say any more on that?
Prof. Platona: I’m keen to do a good job, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: How can you do a good job for people with tainted blood? It was the government’s responsibility.
Prof. Platona: Since the organisation was formed in 2003, to date there has been no contaminated blood incident.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you not have any legacy responsibilities from your predecessors? The Commonwealth government is responsible.
Ms Shakespeare: Prior to 1991, the Commonwealth’s role was largely through providing funding to state and territory governments to operate blood services. States and territories regulated the blood supply system in Australia until, as Ms Platona has explained, the National Blood Authority was established in 2003, and it now provides that national coordination. I think we also had the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. After that, there were changes to the way that blood was regulated as well. Before that, the regulation largely would have been occurring through state and territory governments.
Senator ROBERTS: But it was overseen by the Commonwealth. Let’s go through the history, and correct me if I’m wrong, Ms Shakespeare. In March 1953, the World Health Organization released a report that recommended dried plasma should be prepared from small pools of no more than 10 to 20 donors. This was ignored, and, by the mid-1980s, factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, significantly increasing the risk of hepatitis and HIV. Why were these early recommendations ignored? You weren’t around then, but that was a federal responsibility.
Ms Shakespeare: We can try and take on notice if there’s anything in the archives about what happened in the 1950s, but it is a little bit difficult for us to talk to you about what happened at that time.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you take these on notice then, please. It was in the mid 1980s. Factor concentrates were being manufactured using mass pooled plasma from thousands of donors, which went against the prevailing wisdom. Could you find out, Ms Shakespeare—and I thank you for your attention—if it was considered an acceptable risk that there was a high probability of haemophiliacs using factor concentrates that would be infected with hepatitis Non-A, hepatitis Non-B, hepatitis C in the seventies, eighties and nineties?
Ms Shakespeare: Senator, what I can tell you is that the first specific test for hepatitis C became available in late 1989. Australia was one of the first countries to commence using the test, in November 1989, with implementation completed by February 1990. Similarly, we were one of the first countries to introduce HIV patient screening in May 1985. When tests have become available to make sure that the blood supply was safe and could be monitored for those particular medical issues, we’ve implemented that as early as possible.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m wondering how to help these people.
Ms Shakespeare: I think Ms Platona has spoken about some of the assistance that has been provided, and I can go through some of the help that has been provided. There was a review of the blood arrangements in 2001 that was conducted by a former High Court judge. The recommendations from that review were provided to all Australian Health Ministers and led to the establishment of the National Blood Authority and the centralised coordinated arrangements we have to ensure a safe and adequate blood supply that we still have today. We have haemovigilance—
Senator ROBERTS: Can I interrupt?
Ms Shakespeare: Of course.
Senator ROBERTS: That would assume that, prior to that, the blood wasn’t considered to be safe.
Ms Shakespeare: Decisions will have been made based on the state and territory governments’ delivery of blood products about the introduction of testing when it became available, when those tests were developed. As I said, compared to other countries, Australia was one of the first adopters and introduced those tests at a very early stage. But we didn’t just stop there. We’ve been establishing arrangements to make sure that the blood products that we provide to people today are nationally coordinated, that we’ve got consistent arrangements and that we don’t have differences between regulation and provision in different states and territories. The national haemovigilance program for Australia has been developed. That’s a set of surveillance procedures covering the entire blood transfusion chain, from donation and processing of blood to their provision and transfusion to patients. We have monitoring, reporting, investigating and analysing of adverse events related to donation processing and transfusion, and development and implementation of recommendations to prevent the occurrence or reoccurrence of adverse events. So we’ve got a whole haemovigilance program that now operates that’s been developed and implemented through the National Blood Arrangements. For people that have acquired hepatitis C the direct-acting antivirals, which were listed on the PBS in 2016—at that time that was the largest single PBS listing that had ever been made. We have future-generation directantivirals that are now provided through the PBS. If I can give an example, in 2023-24, we had 9,167 scripts of a drug called glecaprevir and pibrentasvir, which is a current-generation treatment for hepatitis C at a cost to government of $161 million. In the same year, sofosbuvir and velpatasvir, another medicine to treat people with hepatitis C, had 10,953 scripts at a cost to government of $131 million. So we’re providing access to those treatments. Now that covers anybody with hepatitis C. It doesn’t matter how they acquired it, but it would certainly benefit those who acquired it through the blood system before the testing was available.
Senator ROBERTS: For some of these people with tainted blood, their lives have been really shot. Perhaps you could look at the camera—and I’m not trying to put pressure on you, or Ms Platona, or the minister, but what do we do for these people? Where do they go for compensation? Britain compensated their people with tainted blood, long, long, long ago; they admitted it and got on with the job. How do these people recover? How do these people get compensation if they can’t? I know you’ve given a list of drugs. What do we do?
Ms Shakespeare: Those are curative, in many cases, direct-acting antivirals, which will be of significant benefit to people with hepatitis C. I should also say that the Australian government contributes to the hepatitis C litigation settlement schemes, which were set up and are managed by the state governments for people that were infected through the blood supply system before we had the National Blood Authority established. That offers financial settlements for people who contracted hepatitis C between 1985 and 1991. So there has been compensation made available and the Australian government contributes to that.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, I’m going to have to share the call. We are tight on time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for your interest, Ms Shakespeare.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/So4yc2UKSho/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 16:20:322025-11-13 16:20:35Decades of Neglect: Victims Still Waiting for Justice
In a recent Senate hearing, I questioned the government on its decision to include a standing appropriation—an open-ended budget allocation—in its Pacific Banking Guarantee legislation. This approach bypasses the annual appropriation process, removing Senate oversight and public transparency.
The Pacific Banking Guarantee is a scheme whereby the Federal Government guarantees the operation of banks across the Pacific. If these banks encounter financial difficulties, the Federal Government will bail them out. Why this is the business of the Australian Government escapes me. Why banks such as the Commonwealth and ANZ require a Federal Government guarantee, despite earning profits exceeding $15 billion annually, is a question they refused to answer. The Guarantee itself is worth no more than $2 billion—even in the unlikely event of a total loss. This Guarantee has been provided to give the Big Four banks a competitive advantage over other banks and financial institutions. With this Guarantee, they can borrow money at lower rates, thereby increasing their profits and creating an “I owe you one” sense of obligation to the Federal Government. I assume Minister Bowen intends to leverage this influence to “encourage” investment in wind and solar energy, despite the questionable economic viability of such ventures.
This is how government operates: influence-trading using taxpayers’ money.
Standing allocations cannot be questioned, and the only way to halt this flow of money to our major banks is through legislation that overturns the allocation. Given that the Greens have supported big banking in this country throughout the Albanese Government’s term – alongside the Government itself – any effort to restore accountability to the Pacific (big) Banking Guarantee is going to fail.
This reflects the contempt of the Albanese Government. The ALP is proving to be even bigger corporate lapdogs than the Liberals were.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: The Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills requested a justification for why this bill includes a standing appropriation rather than being included in the annual appropriation bill, which would give the Senate oversight. Please explain why a standing appropriation is required.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts, for the question. A special appropriation is more suitable for meeting possible liabilities than annual appropriations. While the likelihood the Commonwealth will need to make a payment is very low, we may be urgently required at any time to meet liabilities arising under a guarantee, which may fall outside the usual budget cycle. This means the annual appropriation process may not be available within the timeframe any liability falls due.
Without a special appropriation, it is possible parliament will be recalled to pass an urgent appropriation or the Commonwealth can risk defaulting on its liabilities. The special appropriation is not proposed to have a direct dollar limit, as this provides the Commonwealth with flexibility to ensure it achieves a significant national interest objective, securing an Australian banking presence in the Pacific over the long term.
The Commonwealth would not provide an unlimited guarantee, however there may be circumstances where the maximum amount guaranteed under the appropriation could change. This includes if the Commonwealth entered into a new agreement with another Australian bank and the legislation limits on the types of guarantees the government can provide to guarantees—only from an ADI banking business in the Pacific region. Specifically, the legislation limits the guarantee to only the ADI’s Pacific operations.
Senator ROBERTS: So it’s an open-ended budget allocation. The guarantees being provided by this government are commercial-in-confidence. This means the Senate will not have oversight on what the government is agreeing to. Is that correct?
Senator CHISHOLM: In terms of reporting obligations, any Pacific banking guarantee, including the ANZ agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations. This includes regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities and the compliance with bank commitments as well.
Senator ROBERTS: The duration of the ANZ guarantee is 10 years, meaning this government is binding future governments. Can the federal government withdraw from a guarantee at any time in those 10 years? If so, is there any sunset clause or time limit to the guarantees?
Senator CHISHOLM: It’s a commercial agreement that’s been entered into with the Commonwealth. There is no sunsetting clause.
Senator ROBERTS: I am told the World Bank is also working on a plan to assist correspondent banking intermediaries in the Pacific. Why didn’t you join that international effort, and will you use what they come up with as a way of sunsetting this arrangement?
Senator CHISHOLM: Any Pacific banking guarantee is expected to complement the World Bank’s Pacific Strengthening Correspondent Banking Relationships Project, the CBR project. The government strongly supports the World Bank’s work on this in terms of the work they are doing in the Pacific.
Senator ROBERTS: If you have strong confidence in the World Bank, why not let the World Bank do it?
Senator CHISHOLM: Phase 1 of the World Bank project will establish a correspondent banking relationship provider of last resorts, which countries can call upon should they lose their financial correspondent banking relationship in a particular currency. It is intended to be a fallback for when there is no other commercially viable option.
Senator ROBERTS: This bill does not specify what is being guaranteed, so let me ask. Does the guarantee extend to the Australian government guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations?
Senator AYRES: Senator Roberts, we’ve just had a small changeover. I’m just trying to ensure that I can give you accurate information. The Commonwealth provides a limited guarantee to ANZ, under this legislation, in connection with banking operations in nine markets across the Pacific and Timor-Leste.
Those markets are Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Timor-Leste, Tonga and Vanuatu. The guarantee only covers certain eligible liabilities, and it is only triggered if certain trigger events occur and result in a loss to ANZ. The Commonwealth has only provided the guarantee for certain eligible liabilities in order to minimise the risks and potential costs of any Pacific banking guarantee to the Commonwealth and to mitigate any potential competition or market distortion risks in Pacific financial markets and the Pacific banking sector.
To preserve the non-distortionary mechanisms in the guarantee, the government will not be disclosing the specific terms of the guarantee, including the types of exposures that are covered. If it assists Senator Roberts, the government was, of course, provided with extensive commercial advice on the guarantee, including around the risks, and commercial risk assessments found the likelihood of a default to be very low.
Senator ROBERTS: I appreciate your statement that you’d like to give me accurate information, but you didn’t answer the question. I take it that you can’t answer the question of whether or not the Australian government is guaranteeing loans by Australian banks to the governments of Pacific nations.
Senator AYRES: I’ll try and answer a little bit more directly, if it assists. The reason that I answer it in the way that I do, Senator Roberts, is that the advice that is provided and the terms of the guarantee are, of course, commercial in confidence, for policy reasons, in particular so that they don’t distort the banking and financial services markets in the Pacific. I’ll get the team behind me to correct me if I answer this incorrectly.
The question about the support that the Australian government provides to Pacific island countries is quite different to this set of arrangements, which is about ensuring that banking services are provided and that there is trade, the free movements of goods, investment and all of the things that go with having banking services provided with the facilitation and support of the Australian government. I hope that assists; I’m not sure that it will. If you’ve got further questions, I’ll endeavour to answer them.
Senator ROBERTS: It doesn’t answer the question, but I’ll come back to it later. Minister, Australian banks like the ANZ raise money to lend in the market, issuing bonds and debt securities. If the intended use of that capital is to issue government-guaranteed loans to Pacific nations, which this bill would allow, does that not give banks like the ANZ a competitive advantage in the capital market? And is any oversight intended of the capital raising of Australian banks to make sure they are honest in their representations to the capital market?
Senator AYRES: Any banking guarantee in the Pacific, including this agreement, will contain mechanisms to ensure a bank’s compliance with its obligations, which include regular reporting on the total amount of guaranteed liabilities, and to ensure compliance with bank commitments. There are measures undertaken in order to deal with that concern, which is at present, I would argue, theoretical.
I hope that the financial markets in this area lift to a point that is consistent with the kind of development, growth, investment and trade that the Australian government is working with our Pacific partners to facilitate. That is in their interest and in our interest for that to occur. The kinds of measures that you’re talking about—I’ll put that backwards—do not have a distortionary effect on capital markets or on financial markets.
There is extensive work that sits behind this that has been directed towards achieving that outcome. ANZ has made a number of commitments to its Pacific operations in the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in exchange for this guarantee that includes maintaining face-to-face banking services and enhancing the ANZ Bank’s services, including digital services. That is important for people and businesses and economic growth and investment in each of those states.
It supports ongoing access to correspondent banking services in the Pacific and international money transfers, including the Australian dollar but also the New Zealand dollar and the US dollar. It will also maintain fee-free remittances for ANZ customers. That is important for facilitating more trade and more transactions. It will involve investing an additional $50 million to enhance the ANZ’s digital banking offering in the Pacific, excluding in Papua New Guinea, again, mobilised by some of the issues about making sure that the effect here is to support providing banking services where they are at risk.
The uplift that is engaged there will impact the ANZ’s retail banking operations everywhere, except for Papua New Guinea, where ANZ today currently only offers institutional banking services that play an important role for the mining sector and other parts of the Papua New Guinea economy. Alongside this, there are efforts to continue to support and promote financial inclusion and literacy, and ANZ will continue to support Pacific countries in terms of their infrastructure financing, in line with the bank’s credit risk policies.
That is the nature of the impact of the guarantee, in terms of capital markets. It should not be conflated, of course, with the efforts that the Australian government engages in through EFA and various efforts to support infrastructure development and economic development more broadly in the Pacific. This is about supporting the banking infrastructure—maybe I shouldn’t say ‘infrastructure’, because it’s confusing—the banking retail network and digital services that sit alongside that throughout the Pacific states.
Senator ROBERTS: I noticed that, in starting that answer, you used the words, ‘I hope that the financial markets lift’—I hope—to the trade, yet, in Australia, we had severe breaches of the law by senior banking and financial institution officials and no-one went to jail—no-one! You also said that you’d like to maintain face-to-face banking services in the Pacific islands, yet we can’t get that here in Australia. Minister, is this bill just putting more money in the pockets of the big four banks by lowering their borrowing costs relative to other banks?
Senator AYRES: The short answer to that question, Senator Roberts, is no. It does not achieve that objective in any practical way. It’s not one of the principles that’s engaged here. Australia does have a very well-regulated banking sector, and that is a national asset for Australia. That is important for our capacity to deliver investment and growth and financial transactions and security for borrowers and lenders and projects.
In times of financial stress, our well-regulated banking sector is a fundamental part of Australia’s economic resilience in what is a pretty challenging world that we live in. That is not related to what is being provided for here. There will always be, as you’ve alluded to, bad actors, bad things happening, malfeasance, errors, omissions or whatever in any system. I have no argument with that. That is what the regulatory sector is designed to deal with. This situation is about extending banking services that might not otherwise be extended to a part of the world that needs banking services, and it is in Australia’s interest for those to be provided.
This ensures that, through arrangements supported by this legislation and also by the commercial and non-distortionary measures, it’s provided in a way in which there is no disadvantage to the Australian banking sector—and, when I say ‘banking sector’, what I mean is the kind of services that customers and businesses would need and expect from the Australian banking sector. Quite the contrary to the final suggestion in your question, this is not a matter of the government paying an amount to the ANZ; in fact, it’s quite the reverse.
The ANZ pays an annual fee with respect to the guarantee, and the Department of Finance and the Commonwealth’s commercial advisor have provided advice on the annual fee. That fee amount, for some of the reasons that you’ve alluded to in some of your previous questions and in order to ensure that it doesn’t have a distortionary effect, is commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed publicly. The guarantee isn’t a subsidy. It’s not a bailout. The government will not be providing any direct funding to Australian banks for their Pacific operations.
Senator ROBERTS: That sounds like a protection fee. Let’s get this straight. Banks have no risk—they have a guarantee if they have any losses—so banks cannot lose, so that sounds like a protection fee. Minister, who drafted your bill for you? The banks?
Senator AYRES: Certainly not. That is certainly not the case. This bill is drafted, this arrangement has been struck, in order to support regional communities in Australia and Pacific nations to access banking services. That is in Australia’s national interest. That is fundamentally what is engaged here. For Pacific nations, remaining connected to global finance is one of their highest priorities because it supports their own economic development and their economic resilience. Investment in capability; investment in new businesses; microfinance for small businesses; and making sure that project finance can be accessed for the kinds of mining, development, manufacturing and other projects that deliver good jobs, stable investment, national economic growth, regional interdependence and economic resilience in the region—all of that is in Australia’s national interest.
Those are the questions that are being engaged here. In terms of regional Australia, this government has secured commitments from the banks that previous governments have failed to secure—a moratorium on regional bank closures from the four major banks, as well as an agreement to increase their commitment to, and their investment in, Bank@Post. I grew up in a little country town. I know how important those services are. And I know you would not be so mischievous as to suggest that there is a relationship between the services provided to regional Australians through their banks and the government’s determination to protect that—
CHAIR: Minister, I hate to interrupt you, but it’s 1.30.
A good idea has many parents—just look at the push to suspend costly National Construction Code changes. One Nation proposed it first, saving $50K per home. Now the Liberals and Labor are claiming credit.
Yet the real crisis is homelessness, driven by mass immigration policies started by the Liberals and turbocharged by Labor—over 500,000 arrivals a year while Aussies sleep in cars.
Only One Nation has a comprehensive housing policy. We would cut demand by stopping illegal immigration and visa abuse, ban foreign home ownership, slash construction costs by ending net zero and overregulation. On the finance side, One Nation would roll HECS debt into home loans and allow super to fund deposits.
It’s time to put Australians first.
Transcript
A good idea or a popular idea has many parents. A bad idea or an unpopular idea is an orphan. Well, look at this! One Nation came up with the idea of holding the National Construction Code changes—stopping them, suspending them—to save $50,000 per house in construction costs. That was One Nation, before the election! Now we see Senator Bragg taking ownership of it for the Liberal Party. Then we see the Labor Party coming up with the idea at the roundtable. Where did it come from? One Nation. We have a homelessness crisis in this country. Every major provincial city in Queensland has homeless people sleeping in cars. Working mums and dads are sleeping in their cars. They come home to see if their kids are still there. Why? Because the Liberal Party started mass catastrophic immigration under John Howard, and the Labor Party has turbocharged it now with over 500,000 new immigrants per year.
That’s what’s driving the homelessness crisis. And only One Nation has a comprehensive policy for housing—working on the demand side, working on the supply side, working on the cost side and working on the finance side to reduce demand. To stop immigration, we would deport immediately 75,000 people who were here illegally and deport students who were not in compliance with their visas. On the supply side, we would stop foreign ownership of houses in this country—just stop them! We’d give them two or three years to sell and get out. Free them up. Many of those homes are locked. On the cost side, we would reduce regulations, stop the National Construction Code changes, and end net zero to reduce the price of energy. On the finance side, we would roll HECS debts into home loans and allow access to super accounts to get a deposit. Why can’t your super account invest in your own home when it can invest in other people’s homes? This is bloody ridiculous!
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ZfR0Bo7i2yE/sddefault.jpg480640Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 14:59:562025-11-13 15:00:05Your First Home Shouldn’t Be a Dream
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/climate-change-misinformation-cover-photo.png?fit=2240%2C1260&ssl=112602240Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-13 12:47:232025-11-19 16:55:44Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy
The Labor Government is running scared of scrutiny. Their atrocious bill to establish an Australian Centre for Disease Control (CDC) is significant legislation—and I’ll go so far as to say it’s the worst I’ve seen in my nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous.
There were countless amendments that required answers, and many speakers were denied the opportunity to contribute. Serious questions remain unresolved.
The Albanese Government manipulated the speaking list to push One Nation Senators to the bottom. Just before it was my turn to speak, Labor guillotined the bill, preventing any further speeches from being delivered. I managed to use the debate on the guillotine to deliver part of my speech, which is the video you see here.
This marks a new low for the unscrupulous and arrogant Labor Government. The Greens should be ashamed for supporting the guillotine on such an important bill.
The CDC will provide the government of the day with cover to do whatever it wants. It’s expensive, it will control dangerous research, and the reporting and scrutiny provided in this bill are virtually non-existent. This is unacceptable.
One Nation will repeal this bill.
Transcript
Yet again, a guillotine stops debate immediately before I was scheduled to speak against this bill, and after pushing all three One Nation senators, who were going to speak, to the bottom of the list. One Nation opposed the guillotine. We want to know why the coalition and the Greens join with Labor in supporting big pharma.
Senator Canavan interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: Except Senator Canavan. Thank you, Senator Canavan. This is significant legislation, and I’ll go so far as to say that it’s the worst legislation I’ve seen in nine years in the Senate. It’s dangerous. There are many, many amendments that need answers, and there are many speakers that missed out. There are many questions.
The first question I have for you is: why are you avoiding scrutiny? This is half a bill! The bill establishes what the CDC director can do. It does not, though, establish what the director cannot do. There’s nothing in this legislation to establish rules around the following, so can you please clarify. What is the process for determining where the CDC will be located and what the site features should be—what protections for the community? What research will be conducted at the CDC, if any? Will that research include gain-of-function research, which was the cause of the COVID outbreak in 2019, which killed millions of people? Who will own the taxpayer funded CDC research? There are no answers to these questions. These are fundamental. What research will be conducted in cooperation with research facilities overseas, and what countries should be excluded on national security grounds? Start with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and exclude Anthony Fauci’s haunts, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and America’s National Institutes of Health, and Fauci’s colleagues including Ralph Baric and Peter Daszak.
Will live animal testing be conducted, and, if so, on what animals and how? Will research be conducted on behalf of commercial corporations, and, if so, who owns the taxpayer funded research. What annual reporting will be produced to alert the parliament and the Australian people about the risks to which they’re being exposed? If the CDC facility handles sensitive material, what level of containment will be used, and what will be the process for investigating and rectifying breaches? And what is the purpose of and limit to research? Is it just ego—’Look at what we can do!’—or is there a genuine medical outcome they’re working towards?
We know the CSIRO at its Geelong facility is already conducting risky experiments on deadly viruses such as Ebola, and they’re experimenting on animals. Those are my questions. Additionally, what’s happening with taxpayer funds? We know the CSIRO monetises its research, or used to, and we know lately the CSIRO has been publishing the results of their research allowing corporations to piggyback off that research free of charge, saving them years in developing new drugs from which the Australian taxpayers will have no commercial benefit. The taxpayers pay and get no benefit. This is the state of medical research in Australia. What impact will the CDC have on the CSIRO? We don’t know. The bill doesn’t set out these matters. It’s a glaring omission.
The minister says the Australian CDC will undertake technical and advisory functions based on its public health expertise and knowledge and access to relevant information. What expertise? It hasn’t started yet. You’re assuming bureaucrats and health officials actually have the expertise and knowledge to perform these studies, yet there’s nothing in this bill to say they must have that knowledge—nothing. This is a pretence to give ‘thank you’ jobs to COVID era health officials who have a track record of very dangerous, dishonest and inhuman decisions. These bureaucrats will be given powers. The Chief Medical Officer, for example, must be a doctor, but the director of the CDC does not. What could possibly go wrong?
Continuing cover ups from the government and freedom of information—an issue which One Nation senator for Western Australia Senator Whitten has raised is the changes the bill makes to the Freedom of Information Act. The bill amends the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to exempt the CDC from freedom of information applications to which the same documents are currently open. I wonder if this is to cover up information from the COVID years or just to get ahead of the next lab leak.
Finally, I’ve already discussed sensitive biological agents with regard to Ebola. The CDC bill transfers responsibility for the Security Sensitive Biological Agents Regulatory Scheme from the department to the Australian CDC. This scheme regulates certain biological agents that are considered dangerous. Now, let’s take a closer look at this one. Who would decide if a biological agent is sensitive and subject to extra checks? The CDC. Who would be most likely to be importing sensitive biological agents like Ebola and heaven knows what else? The CDC. Who would now be their own regulator? You guessed it, the CDC. This is a recipe for no accountability, a recipe for disaster, a recipe for rampant, unbridled control over the people.
Officially, this bill simply brings together powers spread across several departments into one place. If that’s really the case, why does the bill have a price tag of $250 million for the first three years and $73 million per year after that? Shouldn’t the cost of the CDC be offset through savings in other departments? If that’s all they intend, then that would be true. Clearly the Australian CDC will be doing much, much more. You’re given them the money to do it, and they’ll be doing it away from prying eyes and protected with freedom-of-information blocks and negligible reporting criteria, regulating itself and sending the bill to the taxpayers. In nine years in the Senate, this is one of the worst bills I’ve dealt with. Minister, I’ve given you many questions. I’d like some answers.
Host – Damian Coory: The latest news poll by The Australian newspaper shows that what we predicted on this show for some time now in terms of what would happen to the mainstream conservative parties in this country, the Liberals and the Nationals, is in fact happening. Instead of the Coalition’s push to the left flank and Susan Ley’s insistence on a modern approach helping them pick up voters and pick up young people, it’s had the complete opposite effect. The Coalition parties have seen men running a mile and younger Aussies abandoning the party in droves. It’s worst in the eastern states. Only 25% of voters in NSW now support the Coalition. Remember, at the end of last year, Peter Dutton’s conservative, strong approach had the Coalition on 40% primary vote and rising on track for victory. The party’s weaklings on the left moved in and asked for the message to be toned down to save unwinnable inner city seats that had fundamentally changed forever anyway, and with muddled messages and bad campaign leadership, Dutton looked weak, inconsistent, rudderless and as a result he of course lost. Blind Freddie could have seen it coming. There’s no gender gap in who likes the Coalition either. They’re equally disliked by both genders. It’s 29% of men and 29% of women who say they’ll vote for them. Joining me now to discuss all this is long time One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm, thank you for coming in and joining us on The Other Side.
Malcolm Roberts: Thank you for having me, Damian.
Damian Coory: So all this bad news for the Coalition, It’s been somewhat good news for One Nation. The Australian reports that One Nation’s increased its primary vote since the federal election from 6.4 to 9%. That’s a almost a 50% jump. In NSW you’re on 10%. Other conservative and libertarian leaning parties and independents have also seen their primary votes jump as well. I think in NSW the collective is 20% now, which is almost at the level that the Coalition is at. I mean, interesting times for you.
Malcolm Roberts: Very interesting and really satisfying. There’s a global move, there’s a national move, there’s a conservative move and there’s a One Nation move. They’re all need to be factored in. Actually, some of the polls we’ve seen have actually been higher than the numbers you’ve quoted, Damian.
Damian Coory: OK.
Malcolm Roberts: Which is marvellous. NSW, for example, I think One Nation is at 16%. But internationally people are tired of the fake conservatives – the Tories, the Republicans or the those – well the Republicans are a bit different because the party has quite a bit of variety across it, same as the Democrats. Some of the Democrats will vote with Trump, you know, so that’s understandable. But Trump is not really a Republican, he’s not really a Democrat. He’s an independent and they have to be registered as a party, in one of the two parties to get in. So he’s there. Nigel Farage is there in Britain, Pauline Hanson’s been here for a long time. So that’s the first thing. Globally, people are saying we’ve had enough. We’ve had a gutful of the lies from the from the pseudo conservatives. We want the real conservatives.
Damian Coory: I think people can see through the fakeness too.
Malcolm Roberts: Absolutely.
Damian Coory: The lack of authenticity. One of the things that supporters, non supporters of Trump said initially was, you know, I don’t agree with Donald Trump, but I like the fact that I know where he stands and what he stands for and he seems authentic, and I can believe when he says something, he pretty much means it. Even if he’s a bit fast and loose on the factual side of the truth, they know that he’s genuinely coming from a place of consistency. And you know what you’re buying? You know what …
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly Damian. I’ve got more grey hair than you have by a long way, so I’m aware of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I was in my early 30s in Ronald Reagan – no, no, late 20s-mid 20s in fact was Reagan and Reagan and Thatcher, and I’ll always remember comments from more than one person, former Brits who’ve moved out here and they used to vote Labour in Britain. And they told me that they voted Labour until Thatcher came along. They said she – they didn’t like all her policies, but you knew where you stood. And it’s the uncertainty removed. So, the global trend, the trend within the country because of what you said with the fake Liberals, I think what happens when you get conservative, whether it be Abbott or Dutton, is that the wets in the Liberals undermine him. It makes it very, very hard. So I don’t put the blame with Dutton, I put to blame with – well, he should have called them out, but anyway, with the party itself. And the third thing is that Pauline’s been around almost 30 years, 29 years and people have seen her – what she said back in 1996 is coming true. Everything she said and she’s been so consistent. They tried to jail her.
Damian Coory: They did jail her.
Malcolm Roberts: That’s right.
Damian Coory: She actually served a couple of months or something.
Malcolm Roberts: She got out on appeal. They infiltrated her party, destroyed her party, destroyed it from within. That’s Labor and Liberal. They also called her racist and other labels which are completely false. I mean you’re not one nation because you have division. You’re One Nation because you believe everyone has the same entitlements. So she’s far from racist, but what they did was they called her racist in the hope that people would not vote for. And that worked for a while, but now people are saying she’s not racist. They realise that and they’re saying I want someone who’s truthful and accurate. And so they’re moving to Pauline because of that. And also quite frankly, our policies, and I mean this sincerely, are the best I’ve ever seen of any political party in this country. They’re comprehensive, holistic and they’re targeted.
Damian Coory: Now the News poll analysis reveals that particularly male voters seem to be moving away from the Coalition under Susan Ley and if, you know, if Peter Dutton and Scomo had a women problem, then Susan Ley’s got a men problem. Not that you care that much about that though, but anyway, the gains that you’ve made though, as opposed to the gains of other independent and minor right parties, they seem to have picked up men, but you’ve got gains from both genders. You’re doing something right in terms of appealing to women as well. How do you read that?
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it’s not because we’ve got a female party leader, it’s because what we say – we go out and listen, and I mean really listen. The Coalition and the Labor Party pretend to listen, but people know they’re not listening. They can’t listen because they’ve already got their policies stitched up and the policies are almost identical between Labor and Liberal. And we’ve been calling them the UNI Party because that’s what they are. Pauline is the only opposition to the UNI party and people can see that. So that’s something. But with regard to men, it’s older people, younger people. Older people are probably saying my grandkids have got no chance of getting a house. The younger kids are saying, in their 20s, are saying where do we get a house? How do I get a house? How do I even rent a house? How do I find a house? How do I rent it? How do I have children without the house?
Damian Coory: And women are concerned about the future of these young people, obviously. So, moving from gender to age breakdowns, if we look at those, the Liberal and National Party votes have fallen the most among older voters, which is surprising. It’s very grim, though, among people aged 18 to 34. So, I think in March, it was 28% of that group, that age group, and now it’s only 18% – six months later.
Malcolm Roberts: Less than a fifth.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s incredible.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. These policies are appealing to everyone right across the board, all ages. But they understand the energy problem has been manufactured and what do the Liberals do? Instead of – and I talked with Tony Abbott, I talked with John Howard, I talked with Corey Bernardi when he was a Liberal. And other people are saying why the hell don’t you just tell the truth? We know you’re a sceptic. Why don’t you come out and just say it? They can’t mount the argument. Whereas we’ve come out and said climate change is a scam – it’s rubbish and demolished it, and now it’s coming true.
Damian Coory: Well, I think they let the other side set the agenda and then they follow …
Malcolm Roberts: Got it.
Damian Coory: in a frightened way. They’re not leading. And if you don’t lead, if you don’t have a strong position, then you can’t really get people to follow you. And I think this sort of fear of trying, or trying to play the middle all the time on issues where, you know, maybe there’s not a middle and people need an alternative. Strongly put.
Malcolm Roberts: People want the truth and we have been calling out the truth forever – since I’ve been in politics, and Pauline, ever since she’s been in politics. When we’re very – we’re not afraid to say the truth and what we do is – Pauline’s insisting on this and I’ve always insisted on it because in my past people’s lives depended upon me getting the data. So we get the data and then we open our gobs.
Damian Coory: Another thing that’s interesting too is your share of people aged over 65, which has doubled from 5 to 11%. So you’re doing very well with the the older demographic and people say “oh, well, they’ll be dead soon” forgetting the fact that of course more people come into that demographic that demographic doesn’t go away. The people in it change, but the demographic doesn’t go away. And so it’s important, I mean this is an important part of our community. These are the elders. These are what we used to think are the wise ones and that we shut up and listen to. We don’t do that so much anymore. We listen too much to the young. But isn’t that a – is that a sign that people are maturing into One Nation, I guess or maturing into more conservative ideas still as they get older?
Malcolm Roberts: Yes. And that’s always been the case. We’ve been particularly high amongst the aged people over 60 / 65 for quite a while. But what we’re seeing now is grandparents coming to us and saying, my kids, my grandchildren cannot get a house, cannot get a future. They’re paying ridiculous energy prices for this scam on climate change. Property rights are being stolen. They’re concerned. Retired people have more time on their hands and they do the research and older people, you know, I’m a grandparent now, we’ve got one grandson, but I don’t mean this in a negative way, but I’ve got more time, more interest, more focus on my grandson than on my own children – when at the same age.
Damian Coory: You’ve got more time.
Malcolm Roberts: So I’m very concerned about his future. And then that applies – that’s what grandparents are telling us. Where do their grandkids get a house?
Damian Coory: Yeah, well, I mean, you know, it’s funny because I often think doing this show and I know you, in politics is like – we swim in a sea of left wing assumptions, right?
Malcolm Roberts: We don’t.
Damian Coory: Personally we don’t, but I mean the country does. And we think that just because these people have got the microphones and the television cameras and you know, that they control what people think and they have a great influence over it. There’s no question of it. But ultimately, I think people do – are waking up. I think we are seeing a shift. I think it’ll be like America where that shift comes politically before it comes through the media or you know, but I think there’s something being missed by our talking classes, our chattering classes in relation to what is really going on with the grassroots level and what people really care about. Right?
Malcolm Roberts: You’re absolutely right. I’ve agreed with everything you’ve said so far. The chattering classes – they’re a manifestation of the left. They’re a vehicle for the left. I don’t like calling them left and right because the terms are confusing.
Damian Coory: Yeah, it’s simplistic – have to have some way of …
Malcolm Roberts: I use the terms control versus freedom. And the right is usually free and the left is usually control. All of the major control freaks throughout human history, well with very few exceptions, have been lefties – have been have been controlled side of politics, communist, socialist. That’s you look at Stalin, Mao, Hitler. Hitler was a was a lefty, he was a socialist. So they’ve mostly, all of them come, have come from the left side of politics, the control side of politics. And, and they weave a very attractive tale because it’s emotionally based, It’s not factually based. And what they do is they create victims, they set up victims, whether it be transgenders or whatever. And then they appeal to those victims. And what they do is essentially cripple those people. Damian, those people are made to be victims. And they’re in victimhood. That means they’re dependent on the government. And I don’t mean just financially, I mean morally and in their own, in their own psyche. So it’s really very crippling what they do.
Damian Coory: They want to create a welfare state.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly.
Damian Coory: They want the dependency on government.
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. Exactly.
Damian Coory: Control people.
Malcolm Roberts: Yeah. And in my first speech in parliament in 2016, September, I- we’re not supposed to in our first speech, criticise people, not not directly anyway. So I didn’t, I refrained. But I looked across at the Greens when I said part of the agenda in parliament is anti human. And I looked specifically at the Greens and then my second speech, I labelled them as anti humans. So the lefties are very much anti human. If you look at Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Maurice Strong lefties, all of them lefties and they’re anti human.
Damian Coory: Malcolm, just I want to ask you, what is One Nation’s plan to build on this momentum? I mean, you’ve got this great sort of turn around happening now. Could this be the moment that we- because a lot of people keep asking me, “when are we going to see a great party emerge that’s going to dominate the the conservative side of politics in Australia?”
Malcolm Roberts: How do we keep the momentum? We keep doing what we’re what we are doing. We go ahead and listen and then we speak accurately as representatives of the people. That’s our basic job, to serve the people by putting in place policies and actions that meet people’s needs. But above all, listen to people so we can understand their needs. That’s the first thing. The second thing is keep telling the truth. We’re known to be outspoken, but factually correct and data-based. So we’ll keep doing that and keep developing good policies. Our policies are resonating with people of all ages.
Damian Coory: I think that’s a very important point. You know, keep it fact based, keep it as truthful as you can. At least you know, you’re putting a consistent message out, consistent story out and people can see it and they can trust you more than any other comment I get, and you probably hear it too, is, you know, “why don’t the minor right leaning parties all join?” You know, why don’t they all join?
Malcolm Roberts: There are there are subtle differences sometimes mark differences between the between us and the micro-parties. So that’s one thing. And in democracy you keep people, you keep parties, ideologies, positions alive. You don’t try to bury them.
Malcolm Roberts: So
Damian Coory: it doesn’t hurt to have a bit of variety. We’ve got that preferential voting system. So that helps because people can, you know, use it to kind of vote in the order
Malcolm Roberts: Exactly. And so the way to work together, and we’ve said this for for years now, is to recommend that our voters who vote for us vote, vote for the other the micro-parties 2, 3, 4, put them ahead of them, the conservatives, the fake conservatives, the Liberal/Nationals and the Labor Party. So that’s the same. That’s one way of doing it. But the other thing it’s very important to remember is we reached out to all the micro-parties and they all said, “yeah, yeah, that’d be great preference, you know, give- recommend our party be preferenced.” “Yeah, yeah, yeah.” Where did they put us? Rennick put us 6. In the seat of Rankin he put us behind the- behind the- No! behind the Labor Party.
Damian Coory: Oh, OK. That’s not-
Malcolm Roberts: And on the Senate, he put us #6. We put him #2 same with the other micro-parties. And the reason is, and we said this before the election, Damien, that we were the only party that was capable of getting a senator elected in every state. And we came, we got three states senators elected. We came very close in each of the other three, two incredibly close. And so-
Damian Coory: Instead it might not know who watched this show. There’s that in Queensland. The Senate race was very tight for the last spot between you and Gerard Rennick.
Malcolm Roberts: Well, it ended up not being tight at all. We didn’t even rely on his preferences-
Damian Coory: Right. So you you cleanly won.
Malcolm Roberts: And he merged with Katter’s. So when you look at his personal vote, it was very small as a party. But the other thing to remember is that it’s just-
Damian Coory: That division is not helpful, though. I think a lot of people would say, you know, that we’d like to see you and Gerard working together. But, you know, we understand that people have different views in politics. Obviously, your decision to put him second is a signal that you stand by your values, that it’s not about the political game in the end.
Malcolm Roberts: Correct
Damian Coory: Right. And I guess that’s where, you know, he’s probably going to consider where he where he stands. And I’ll give him the opportunity to come on and talk to that again sometime, I guess. But yeah, no, I get it. It’s tough. And well-
Malcolm Roberts: He also told some lies about One Nation, and kept them going even though I pointed them out and he motioned that he agreed that they were lies, that he kept them alive. So Pauline doesn’t do that. I don’t do that. We tell the truth and that that’s what we’re famous for.
Damian Coory: OK, well, good. Keep it up. That’s we need more truth in politics. There’s no, no question about that. I want to just play a clip of Donald Trump speaking at the- we haven’t talked much about the issues, but I do want to discuss quickly with you immigration. We’ve got time to do that.
Malcolm Roberts: Sure.
Damian Coory: I’d like to play this clip of Donald Trump’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations.
Malcolm Roberts: Oh, fantastic.
Damian Coory: Yeah. In which he said- well, he was talking about the question of of immigration and open borders and where the United Nations is sort of- or the ideas of the United Nations permeating through national governments are sort of led us. So let’s have a listen to that one, John.
Video – Donald Trump: “The UN is supposed to stop invasions, not create them and not finance them. In the United States, we reject the idea that mass numbers of people from foreign lands can be permitted to travel halfway around the world, trample our borders, violate our sovereignty, cause unmitigated crime and deplete our social safety net. We have reasserted that America belongs to the American people and I encourage all countries to take their own stand in defence of their citizens as well. You have to do that because I see it. I’m not mentioning names, I see it and I can call every single one of them out. You’re destroying your countries, they’re being destroyed. Europe is in serious trouble. They’ve been invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before. Illegal aliens are pouring into Europe. Nobody has ever- And nobody’s doing anything to change it to get them out. It’s not sustainable. And because they choose to be politically correct, they’re doing just absolutely nothing about it. And I have to say, I look at London where you have a terrible mayor, terrible, terrible mayor. And it’s been so changed. So changed.”
Damian Coory: Yeah, this- the idea that anybody talking about immigration is a racist or anybody suggesting that, you know, that’s got to shift it’s. And he says there, you know, we’ve got serious social problems emerging in places like London now that anybody can see, that are the result of trying of too fast, too much immigration and trying to ram cultures together that don’t really coalesce, right.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, there are a number of problems with mass migration. I’m a migrant. I was born in India, OK? My mother was in North Queensland and my dad was Welsh, so he’s a migrant as well. So we’ve got nothing against migrants. Migrants have built this country literally, especially in the early days. But we’ve used to have standards on who could come in. Now we don’t have those standards. We’re letting terrorists in and we’re condoning them, keeping them here even when they break the law. So #1 is the problem is mass migration. He called it an invasion. And so it is. And it’s a deliberate invasion and it’s orchestrated by the UN and the World World Economic Forum. So that’s the first one. That’s-
Damian Coory: I think that sounds like a “wacky conspiracy theory”, Malcolm. But the World Economic Forum is real. It’s a global think tank if you like, or meeting every year of the top 1500 corporate leaders and the top 1500 government leaders from around the world. They meet in Davos every year. They have other meetings, but that’s the main one, and agendas are set.
Malcolm Roberts: Yes, correct
Damian Coory: Stuff is directly- it might not be, you know, Klaus Schwab in his little room with his hat. Well, it could be, but I hope it’s not. But it’s certainly a subtle, you know, there’s a subtle message that’s sent out about, you know, like the United Nations. And the reason we criticise the United Nations is because they’ve strayed from what they’re supposed to be about into this territory of, you know the sustainability goals, which are quite left wing when you look at them, right? They shouldn’t be doing that stuff. And the WEF does the same thing. “Here’s some guidelines, you might want to follow. Ooh, here’s some capital to follow those guidelines.”
Malcolm Roberts: There are two things to remember about the UN. It was created to be a vehicle for transferring wealth from we the people around the world to the globalist billionaires and the globalist corporations. BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, First State, they’re interconnected. So that’s the first thing. And that’s been stated by many, many senior UN bureaucrats, particularly Maurice Strong. The second thing about the UN is that it’s a vehicle to put in place an unelected socialist global governance. Now, we haven’t got time to unpack that, but I can unpack that, I’ve unpacked that in writing many times. Their model for unelected socialist global governance, they’ve stated is the EU, which is a unicameral parliament where the bureaucrats do the dictating and the rest of it, the parliament, is the façade.
Damian Coory: They’re not elected. Yeah.
Malcolm Roberts: So these are actually what’s going on. The second thing is that it’s destroying our culture, mass migration, and that’s deliberate because then, when individuals- basically there are two ways of structuring, just two basic structures for society, human society, family and nation-state, and both are being destroyed deliberately by the United Nations. These are campaigns, their social, their sustainable development goals, SDG’s are just ways of getting parliaments and, and unfortunately our parliament is complying with it, passing legislation to put in place those controls. The third thing is it’s the quality of the people coming in. We used to have migrants coming into this country who immediately went to work and improved our productive capacity. We’ve got grifters coming in, terrorists coming in. We’ve got people coming in who are saying that they want to kill us. I mean, what the hell are we doing!?
Damian Coory: Yeah, its crazy.
Malcolm Roberts: And the fourth thing is multiculturalism. The the strongest nations in the world are not multicultural. They’re monoculture. They tolerate other religions, they tolerate other races, they tolerate other nationalities. But above all, they’re proud of themselves. Taiwan, Japan, Korea, South Korea, China, Singapore, United States. People said in the early days, Bob Hawke did it and especially John Howard. “America is multicultural.” Rubbish. America above all, in America you are American. You’re very proud of your Polish ancestry, your Asian ancestry, your Indian ancestry, but you put them to the side because number one, you’re American. This is- what we’re doing is having our culture and our cohesion destroyed in front of our eyes. And it is deliberate because that way the nation-state falls into the background. Borders being smashed in Europe and the strong leaders like Orbán and Hungary and then the new president in Poland and others are saying :”no, we’re closed, our borders.” And that’s what we’ve got to do. We’ve got- and we’ve got to send home around 100,000 people here illegally. 100,000, and that’s just the start. We need to get into remigration, send people back to where they came from.
Damian Coory: All right, Malcolm Roberts, thank you very much.
Malcolm Roberts: Unless they’re productive.
Damian Coory: Unless they’re productive. Yeah, well, that’s a reasonable ask. Productive and peaceful and, you know, willing to integrate and assimilate to a certain extent with Australian culture. Yeah. It didn’t come out of nowhere. All right, Malcolm, thanks so much for your time. I’d love to have you back on the show and talk more. Senator Malcolm Roberts there from One Nation in QLD.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/DamianCoory.jpg?fit=1414%2C688&ssl=16881414Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-11 11:38:342025-11-11 11:38:49The Other Side Podcast
Albanese wants you to pay $1 billion to host a party for climate billionaires to fly in on private jets and lecture us on “reducing our carbon footprint”.
The “Conference of Parties” has previously told the world to stop eating red meat, stop driving affordable petrol and diesel cars, and generally commit economic suicide on the altar of net-zero.
One Nation says ditch this nonsense and restore in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the BBQ and an affordable four wheel drive in the garage.
Transcript
One billion dollars—that’s how much the Albanese Labor government expects hosting a United Nations climate talk fest in Australia will cost taxpayers. The United Nations’ Conference of the Parties involves millionaires, billionaires and politicians bouncing around the world in fuel-guzzling private jets. Now the government wants Australians to pick up the tab for this party. What would all these people be talking about if they came to Australia? At last year’s Conference of the Parties, known as COP, the first order of business for attendees was fuel up the gulf stream, with 644 luxurious fuel-guzzling private jets descending on Dubai for last year’s Conference of the Parties. For drivers though, COP organisers this year will cut a brand new highway through tens of thousands of acres of untouched Amazon forest in Brazil. The second order of business is to tell everyone else in the world to reduce their carbon footprint.
The next order of business for attendees is to tell Australians to stop eating their abundant supply of organically raised chemical-free meat. Only we lowly peasants would be banned from eating healthy protein and forced to eat bugs or lab grown horrors, of course. The climate activist billionaires will still be able to afford a good steak. The final order of business for the climate lecturers is to tell those Australian freaks who take their four-wheel drives and camping gear out into the bush to appreciate nature that those cars are banned. Australians are being faced with a choice—pay a billion dollars to be lectured by out-of-touch climate billionaire parasites or reject all this nonsense and save trillions of dollars. One Nation stands for Australia with Australians. We believe in cheap power, paddock grown meat on the barbecue and an affordable four-wheel drive in the garage. We believe in putting Australia first. We will continue to put Australia first.
I was invited to speak at ‘The Misdeeds of AHPRA’ conference held in Sydney on Saturday, 3 May 2025. As it was election day, I couldn’t attend in person and was asked to pre-record a video, which I happily did.
My brief video exposes the many serious conflicts of interest among Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) board members. The conference organisers used it to open the day.
AHPRA faced heavy criticism during the COVID period. Established in 2010, AHPRA was meant to be an independent body overseeing medical practitioners. Yet its board members are deeply intertwined with government and academia, raising questions about its independence.
Recent surveys by the Australian Medical Professionals Society (AMPS) reveal that over 82% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency. Investigations drag on for years, causing significant mental and financial strain on practitioners.
AHPRA’s actions during the COVID period, including prosecuting medical professionals for speaking out truthfully to their patients and the public, have eroded public trust and severely crippled our healthcare service.
It’s time for a thorough review and reform to restore confidence in our healthcare system.
Transcript
Hello, I’m Senator Malcolm Roberts, Senator for Queensland with One Nation.
Thank you for the work you’re doing at this conference.
AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) was heavily criticised during the COVID period. And deservedly so. For those at home, I’ll give a quick background to AHPRA.
The national scheme for registration and regulation of medical practitioners that the Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Agency (AHPRA) administers, was implemented in 2010 under the Rudd-Gillard-Labour Government. The so called national law is not a Commonwealth law. Instead it is implemented by each state passing the same legislation, with Queensland acting as the host jurisdiction.
Any proposed amendment to the national law must be approved by the Council of Health Ministers, then passed by the Queensland Parliament, then other states. In 2010 the Federal Government legislated to recognise medical professionals licenced by AHPRA to prescribe under Medicare and the PBS.
AHPRA replaced state based powers with a national independent system of registration and standards for practitioners. AHPRA now hosts fifteen boards, each regulating one area of the medical profession.
AHPRA act as the independent administrator and the boards are the policy makers in their own area. Except that AHPRA is not independent.
AHPRA Chair – Miss Gill Callister – doubles as the Chief Executive Officer of Mind Australia, a commercial operation which provides mental health services, including under the bloated NDIS.
Mind Australia receives additional funding directly from state and federal governments. Board member – Miss Barbara Yo – doubles as Chief of Monash Health, a Victorian government department. In other words, a public servant.
Ari Freiberg is an Emeritus Professor of Law at Monash University, which receives half a billion dollars a year from the federal government. Linton Morris is on the board of Alfred Health, another public servant, as is Geoffrey Moffat, who’s on the board of WA Country Health. And so it goes on and on.
Everyone of the AHPRA board is an academic funded by the government, or is a bureaucrat funded by the government.
How can these people be considered independent? They are NOT independent.
As Kara Thomas pointed out in a January Quadrant article, the recent Bay versus Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency court judgement specifically noted that while the pandemic was “an extraordinary period of history,” it did not authorise AHPRA to “abrogate the right of persons to a hearing before an apparently unbiased tribunal.”
Or extend AHPRA’s role to “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.”
That’s exactly what AHPRA did.
The spawn of the medical establishment rushed to defend the medical establishment at a terrible cost to the public’s confidence in the medical industry.
The Australian Medical Professional Society (AMPS) recent survey of medical practitioners found 82.6% of healthcare professionals believe AHPRA lacks fairness and transparency in handling complaints and 78.5 percent report unfair treatment.
Unfair treatment!
These numbers reveal and represent AHPRA damning failure. Unfair treatment includes investigations that last for years, career destroying delays and devastating financial and mental health impacts, including suicides.
Many health professionals contemplate leaving the profession entirely.
The acceptance of anonymous complaints and the punitive nature of investigations without proper vetting has created a culture of fear where doctors have said they now practise risk averse defensive medicine, which is not medicine.
This is not incompetent – it’s deliberate. The culture of fear has been created to rob medical professionals of their will to practise medicine in the best interests of the patient.
This is the opposite of care.
Instead, AHPRA has engineered a situation where doctors practise in the best interest of the pharmaceutical industry that AHPRA works for. One example of this is the way in which AHPRA looks the other way when 1500 Australians die every year from an overdose of a medication prescribed by one of Australia’s 88,000 prescribing medical professionals.
In the last 12 months AHPRA prosecuted 31 people. Only two of these relate to prescription drugs of any kind. And yet in Senate estimates, AHPRA advised me they had prosecuted 21 medical professionals for speaking the truth about COVID.
AHPRA prosecuted one practitioner in part for their anti trans position. AHPRA is fighting a rearguard action against the overwhelming shift in public attitude away from invasive medical procedures on children.
Why? Because this will be a billion dollar industry next financial year. If you want the best pronunciation of AHPRA, try this one: cha-ching, cha-ching, cha-ching – the cash registers tune.
During Senate estimates, I asked AHPRA about their cultural safety strategy, which requires all registered health practitioners to acknowledge colonialism and systemic racism.
This is politics, not medicine. Wherever power has been consolidated into a single body, their power has grown.
They become a beacon for every self interested pharmaceutical company, attracting staff prepared to behave in the most egregious way in return for power and a public service salary.
A Senate review in 2022 made fourteen recommendations, including an urgent, in depth review of their processes. That review has never happened. None of the recommendations have been actioned.
Kara Thomas’s article in Quadrant contained a set of sensible recommendations, including devolving these powers back to the States. One Nation supports each of her recommendations.
In short, AHPRA is a failed, corrupting and destructive experiment and must be shut down immediately.
I’ll give the last word to Ms Callister, AHPRA’s Chair, who reposted this tweet in 2018 – “Power comes at a price. Those in the top job have made many compromises to get there”.
Clearly those compromises include absence of professionalism, care, accountability, fairness, decency, transparency, honesty and independence.
