The Debt Trap: Labor Government’s Housing Mirage

,

I have expressed grave concerns that we are signing our young Australians up to be “debt slaves” to the big banks. It’s one thing to offer a “leg up” onto the property ladder, but it’s another thing entirely to push them into a lifetime of unmanageable debt.

During my questioning of Housing Australia, I pointed out a massive flaw in how they report their success. The department “brags” about a low default rate — only 11 claims out of 250,000 — yet admit that they stop tracking borrowers the second they refinance or exit the scheme. Think about that. If the families under the most financial stress are the ones forced to refinance or leave, they vanish from the government’s data. We’re essentially flying blind, ignoring the very people who might be “going backwards.”

I’ve said it before on the Senate floor, and I’ll say it again: this scheme is “smoke and mirrors.” Pumping more low-deposit buyers into a market where there aren’t enough houses to go around, the government is just upping the price of entry-level homes. This completely ignores the root of the problem—supply, caused by mass immigration. We’re watching house prices increase and the very people this was meant for— the younger Aussies — can’t even afford the ‘starter’ homes.

I’m not going to let this rest. We need to see the real numbers, not just the cherry-picked stats that make the government look good.

Australians deserve to know if their “dream home” is actually a debt trap.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll try to be brief. I refer to data on how people who are taking on these 95 per cent mortgages are actually faring, because I have grave concerns that the government is just signing up first home buyers to be debt slaves to the banks. Firstly, does Housing Australia track participants who later refinance or discharge their lower deposit guaranteed loans with a different lender?

Mr Rimmer: I’ll pass that question to Mr Langford in a minute. The five per cent deposit scheme has been in place for five years now. Over 250,000 guarantees have been issued. Only 11 of those 250,000 have been paid, at a total cost of about $500,000, a relatively small amount of payment per claim. Out of all 250,000 Australians who were supported into purchasing a house through this program, 11 have fallen into very significant arrears.

Senator ROBERTS: If you don’t track participants who later refinance, how do you avoid a survivorship bias in your arrears metrics if the borrowers most at risk of stress are those who refinance?

Mr Langford: We only have a relationship with the borrower until the point they exit the scheme. There is no ability for us to track what happens to them beyond that.

Senator Ayres: For everybody who enters the scheme, it’s their first home. It’s not unusual for somebody to refinance. They have their foot on the ladder, so they might go and buy a larger home, a different home, a home in a different country town or whatever it is. If you are apprehensive that there might be something in addition to the 11 out of 250,000 people experiencing difficulty, everybody who has a mortgage, every Australian has challenges from time to time meeting their mortgage—

Senator ROBERTS: We certainly do.

Senator Ayres: That’s right. These people are no different from everybody else. It’s just that they’ve got a leg up because they fit the criteria of the scheme. Of course, we want them to have that first step on the ladder, to grow—to grow families and to grow in opportunity. That’s a good thing.

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is if we’re tracking to see whether they’re getting a leg up or a push down. That’s what I want to track.

Senator Ayres: The evidence in this scheme is that—

Senator ROBERTS: I’m trying to go through this quickly for the sake of everyone. Could you please provide on notice counts by year since 2020 of scheme backed loans refinanced or discharged?

Mr Rimmer: We’ll take on notice what information we have that could be useful to answer that question.

Senator ROBERTS: And where possible, with any available reason as to what they’re doing?

Senator Ayres: Yes, they’ll do their best to provide that to you.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s all we can ask for.

Senator Ayres: But don’t take it from that those are bad outcomes. Those are overwhelmingly good outcomes.

Senator ROBERTS: My office and I want to get the data to understand this.

Senator Ayres: We’ll do our best to provide what can be provided.

Senator ROBERTS: Your reports show the share of loans ‘in advance/on schedule/90-day plus arrears’. But you explicitly state you do not receive participants’ current income or valuation data and rely on lender hardship programs. Why is Housing Australia not collecting borrower-level hardship outcomes?

Mr Langford: In the way that the scheme’s designed the relationship is between the borrower and the bank. We are providing a guarantee ultimately to the lender. For a range of reasons, including privacy, we don’t get updated information from the applicants.

Ms Jarman: Further to that, each month we do get from the lenders the actual number of borrowers under the scheme in 90-day-plus arrears or in hardship.

Senator ROBERTS: Can you table or give me on notice the number of scheme participants flagged as in hardship by panel lenders by state and lender?

Ms Jarman: Yes. I don’t have the state breakdown here. I do have the overall number. We can take the state breakdown on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: And the resolution number? I don’t expect you to have the data here. How many scheme backed loans have progressed from arrears to default and resulted in a Commonwealth guarantee call?

Ms Jarman: Some 11 claims have been paid under the scheme since its start in 2020.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you provide the number and value of claims against the guarantee by financial year, and the cohort in terms of which guarantee scheme they are and geography?

Ms Jarman: Yes, we have that data.

Senator ROBERTS: You’ve previously told me that roughly 61.5 per cent of scheme loans are ahead, 38.4 per cent on time and 0.1 per cent in 90-day-plus arrears at a point in time. Do you have an update on those figures?

Ms Jarman: We do. As at the end of October, the in-advance number is 75 per cent of all loans, the on schedule is 23 per cent, the arrears number is 0.6, and the hardship number is 0.8.

Senator ROBERTS: What’s the cohort composition behind those figures—loan age, borrower, income band?

Ms Jarman: I don’t have that breakdown in front of me.

Senator ROBERTS: Can we get that on notice?

Ms Jarman: Yes, we could provide further detail there.

Senator ROBERTS: Debt-to-income and loan-to-value at origination versus latest?

Senator Ayres: Just at an aggregate level.

Senator ROBERTS: Per year.

Mr Langford: Do you mean per year of origination?

Senator ROBERTS: Yes.

Mr Langford: We’ll do our best to provide what information we have on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Without longitudinal borrower data, these metrics really are incomplete. Can you provide distribution tables for scheme borrowers by debt-to-income bands, loan-to-value ratio bands and income quartiles at origination and latest available?

Ms Jarman: We can take that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: The Reserve Bank finds that highly leveraged borrowers are most likely to fall into arrears in the current environment. Of your five per cent deposit borrowers, how many are in the bottom income quartile? That’s the one that the RBA refers to as going backwards.

Mr Rimmer: I’m sure Housing Australia will do their best to find that. My understanding is that the arrears rate for loans under this scheme is lower than the arrears rates in the market as a whole. My colleagues may wish to correct that if it’s wrong.

Ms Jarman: That’s correct. When we speak with our panel lenders, the feedback that they provide is that with the cohort of borrowers under the scheme the arrears performance is equivalent, if not favourable, to their other borrower cohorts.

Senator ROBERTS: We’d like to see that in the data.

Senator Ayres: We’ll certainly provide that, but that’s the evidence that’s been given time after time on this question and it fits with our experience. Working people are very disciplined about meeting their mortgage commitments.

Senator ROBERTS: They certainly have good values.

Senator Ayres: And that’s what’s going on here. That is a very good story, and an improvement on the last set of figures; 75 per cent of Australians are ahead as a result of this scheme. That’s a very good outcome.

Senator ROBERTS: What proportion of arrears and defaults sit in the going backwards quartile?

Ms Jarman: Sorry. What do you mean by the ‘going backwards’ quartile?

Senator ROBERTS: The bottom income quartile.

Ms Jarman: I don’t have any arrears data broken down by borrower cohort in front of me.

Mr Langford: If there’s a range of these statistical matters that you’re interested in, we’d be very happy to receive those and see what we can provide.

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put them in writing for you.

Mr Langford: That would be much appreciated.

Senator ROBERTS: Have you run stress tests for the guarantee book to estimate how many will go from on time to arrears or default by quartile and debt-to-income or loan-to-value ratio bands?

Ms Jarman: Yes, every year.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we get that?

Ms Jarman: Yes, you can.

Senator ROBERTS: Once a participant refinances or exits, does Housing Australia have any visibility of their subsequent hardship or default outcomes?

Ms Jarman: No, we don’t.

Senator ROBERTS: How can parliament be confident that public reporting is not undercounting stress by removing the most vulnerable borrowers from your data?

Senator Ayres: You can’t refinance if you’re in hardship, right? That’s not a realistic thing to happen. If somebody can’t meet their obligations, they won’t get refinanced; 11 people haven’t met their obligations out of the 250,000. If they purchase a new home, they’re not doing it under the scheme, they’re doing it using the improved equity. People point to bad outcomes out of house prices going up, but there are good outcomes. House prices lift, they get increased equity, they get up the next step on the housing ladder, and then they’re out of the scheme. That’s a good thing. There’s no downside to either of those propositions. We’ll provide what we can. I understand the point you’re making.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you please provide counts on notice of scheme loans exited via refinance and any post-exit arrears or default?

Ms Jarman: We can provide the discharge reason, but I can’t provide information once they’ve discharged. I don’t have visibility of that from the lenders.

Senator ROBERTS: You can’t get it from the lenders?

/by

Bluesky vs. X

,

During Senate Estimates in December, I asked the eSafety Commissioner why social media platforms like X are being targeted, while Bluesky — a known hangout for the left — seems to be getting a free pass.

The Commissioner claimed there’s no “political bias” and that Bluesky has not been exempted – they’re just focusing on where the most kids are. She called Bluesky a “young company” that’s still finding its feet. It looks like a double standard to me — conservative platforms get targeted, while ‘left-wing hangouts’ get a free pass for being ‘low risk.’

Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers based on politics. We need transparency, not a “dynamic list” that changes whenever a bureaucrat feels like it. Whether it’s the Labor Party or the Coalition, Australians are sick of the double standards and the “Big Brother” tactics.

I’ll keep speaking up to make sure your voice isn’t silenced by bureaucratic overreach. We need one rule for everyone, and total protection for our free speech.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

CHAIR: It wasn’t my intention.

Senator ROBERTS: No, I know that. Thank you for appearing again. I have, perhaps, an insight. Since COVID, people in Australia are very wary of government. That’s not just the Labor Party; that’s both. Commissioner, you have exempted Bluesky from your under-16 social media minimum-age restrictions, yet Bluesky is almost identical to X, as I understand it. It currently allows 13-year-olds or younger people saying they are 13 to sign up, and they have no age verification. Do you understand, Commissioner, that you have an obligation to discharge your duties without the perception of political bias? Your decision to exempt a left-wing hangout and to include a conservative hangout, X, looks like political bias.

Ms Inman Grant: Bluesky has not been exempted. They present a very low risk. They have actually identified themselves as an age-restricted social media platform. They probably have 50,000 Australian users—a very small number of young users. They’re building up their age inference tools. They’re a very young company. What we’ve decided to do—we’re talking to a range of companies that could be age restricted social media platforms, whether it’s Yubo, Yope, Lemon8 or other ones that we know we’re going to go to. But you missed the opening statement, where I said our focus—these assessments that we’re doing are voluntary. I don’t have specific declaratory powers in terms of who is in and who is out, so I can’t say anyone is exempted. It’s up to the legal teams of those companies to determine whether they’re in or out. Where we will focus our compliance is where the vast majority of young people are. For the purposes of transparency, fairness and due process, we developed the self-assessment tools. Then we did some initial assessments so that we could at least have a body of major companies that would fit the criteria set forth by parliament. We’ve got 10 that we’re starting with, but I’ve always said that this will be a dynamic list. If we see that there are significant migratory patterns with young people that are going over to Bluesk —again, we’ve had three conversations with them—we expect that they will start applying some of their age assurance tools. They’re just at the beginning of that journey.

Senator ROBERTS: So what you’re saying, Commissioner, as I interpret it, is that you’ve got objective criteria that you assess platforms against.

Ms Inman Grant: We developed a self-assessment tool, so there are consistent assessment criteria. The criteria we have to use are the criteria that was in the legislation that parliament passed. That primary test is around whether or not a particular site—if it didn’t meet an exclusion, say, the messaging exclusion, the online gaming exclusion or the education and mental health exclusion, we had to do a sole-and-significant-purpose test. If its sole or significant purpose was online social interaction, then our preliminary view—it is not a determination—was that they were an age restricted social media platform.

Mr Fleming: Senator, just to give you a pointer, it’s in section 63C of the Online Safety Act. The criteria are set out in the act, and, if someone meets those criteria, there are a set of rules that the minister made. If the rules apply to that platform, then they’re out of the scheme. That’s how it works. To reinforce the point the commissioner made, there’s no determination that platforms are in or out. We’ve just expressed our preliminary view based on our assessments against the criteria, like the platforms can do for themselves. Then we focused on where most of the kids are, and that’s where we’re going to focus our initial efforts.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Minister, your government chose to use legislation against social media platforms. However, the commissioner has then included search engines in the scope of age restrictions, using an industry code under the Online Safety Act. Couldn’t you have simply done the whole thing under existing powers and created an industry code of practice, mandatory if necessary, for age control of social media instead of this whole blunt instrument legislation—an industry code as opposed to enforcement?

Senator Green: I’ll let the eSafety Commissioner answer because there would have been advice given to government about the best way forward. This is a very important step forward that we’re taking, and legislation was required.

Senator ROBERTS: Well, I asked you because I’m not allowed to ask—

Senator Green: No, you are allowed to—

Senator ROBERTS: for an opinion of an officer.

Senator Green: No, it’s not an opinion.

Senator ROBERTS: If the minister wants you to, that’s fine.

Senator Green: You’re asking why legislation was required. They can answer that question.

Ms Inman Grant: The industry codes were included in the Online Safety Act of 2021 under the then coalition government. What they decided was that they would split the technology industry into eight different sectors, from search engines to social media sites to ISPs to some broader categories, including the designated internet services and relevant electronic services. What Paul Fletcher, who was my minister at the time, decided was that he wanted to continue the tradition of co-regulation that had existed for many years across telecommunications and ensure that the industry developed the codes. We would decide whether or not they met appropriate community safeguards. If they did, we’d register them. If they did not, then I would create standards, and that would be a disallowable instrument that would require additional parliamentary scrutiny. It took 4½ or five years for all this deliberation, for this to happen. In most other jurisdictions, the regulator writes the code, but, with respect to the search engine code that I think you’re referring to, I don’t know if you missed the interaction I just had with Charlotte Walker—

Senator ROBERTS: I did.

Ms Inman Grant: They were written by Google and Bing, and they pretty much codify safe search practices that are used today. So, come 27 December, if you’re searching the internet and you come across violent pornography or explicit violence, it will be blurred. This is because 40 per cent of kids tend to come across this kind of violent conflict. The search engine is the gateway, and it’s unexpected, it’s unsolicited and it’s in their face. If you’re an adult and you want to continue through, you can do that. You only have to be age verified if you decide to search the internet with a Google account on, for instance, and a lot of families may choose to have a Google account on so that they can have different age-inappropriate settings set up. But, if you’re concerned about it, you just use DuckDuckGo, Bing or whatever other one. The other thing that I think is really important about the search engine code is that, if there’s a person in distress who is seeking to take their life, rather than the search engine taking them directly to a lethal-method site, it will redirect them in the first instance to an Australian mental health support provider. We all know that suicide is a terribly damaging thing for families and communities. So, if we can give someone in distress the support that they need rather than the directions in terms of how to take their life, any family would be grateful.

Senator ROBERTS: I’m sure they would. X currently—

Senator Green: I’m sorry, Senator, I misunderstood your question at the beginning. I thought you were asking about the minimum age legislation, so I apologise.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s alright.

Senator Green: I understand now what you were asking, and the eSafety Commissioner has given a very good answer.

Senator ROBERTS: X currently has, in early deployment, routines which do the following: pattern matching to determine age without the use of personal identifiers, such as a digital ID; pin protected parental controls—I tend to think government should not be undermining parents—to allow parents to set guardrails for their children on content that will be granulated to individual accounts, keywords or topics; and interaction monitoring to identify what could be harassment based on the pattern of posting, the words used and the ages of the people involved to stop offending posts being seen by anyone but the poster. If industry can do this by themselves, why did we need legislation? Why wasn’t a simple code of practice used instead of this ‘big brother, big stick’ drama?

Ms Inman Grant: Is that a question? I would just say in response—

Senator ROBERTS: It looks like the platforms are developing new technology.

Ms Inman Grant: I would just say that we had a very constructive meeting with X. They walked us through a number of the tools. They did say they were going to use age assurance with Grok, which could have some interesting outcomes. But a large number of parents don’t utilise parental controls. Sometimes it’s because they’re too difficult for parents to find or to work. This was a bipartisan act that the parliament obviously started. The momentum started in South Australia and then in New South Wales. But my view, after talking to so many of the ministers, the Prime Minister and the opposition leader, who supported it, was that they wanted to do something monumental. They wanted to create a significant normative change.

Senator ROBERTS: That’s what scares us.

Ms Inman Grant: One normative change that isn’t scary, I would think, is that we know that 84 per cent of eight- to 12-year-olds already have social media accounts, and, in 90 per cent of cases, parents have helped them set them up. Why? Because they wanted them to be exposed to harm early? No. It’s because they’re concerned that their kids’ friends are all on the sites and their kid will be excluded. What this change does is delay them from being exposed to all the harmful and deceptive design features. They can also sit down with their kids and say: ‘Hey, you’re not ready for this. You’re not going to be on it and your friends shouldn’t be on it either.’ So it takes the FOMO, exclusionary element out of it, and this is what we’ll be measuring.

Senator ROBERTS: So the government excludes them instead of their friends? It should be the parents, shouldn’t it?

Ms Inman Grant: They’re setting a standard like you’d set a drinking age or the age for cigarettes. They’re setting an age for social media that they think is the right age and—

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on. Commissioner, the search engine code included a grace period of 12 months to allow search companies to write their code to comply. As I just indicated, social media companies are close to a technological solution that will also solve their compliance. Will you allow a grace period to allow social media companies to properly write, test and deploy age-verification technology in an orderly manner—in other words, delay?

Ms Inman Grant: We’re following the letter of the law, but what we’ve said is that we are looking for systemic failures. We don’t expect accounts to immediately disappear overnight. We also have another requirement beyond the deactivating of the under-16 accounts on 10 December, which is preventing under-16s from creating accounts. We accept that that’s going to be a longer-term journey for a lot of these companies, and many that we’re talking about here already have very sophisticated age-inference tools or AI tools. Some of them will be supplementing them with third-party tools that have been tested with the age assurance technical trial. Again, they’re taking a layered approach. We will watch closely. If they have glitches, we’ll talk to them about it. What we care about is that they’re clear with us about the tools and the success of validation or the layered approach they plan to take. If it’s not working, the other requirement is continued improvement, which the technology is doing every day. So in some ways we will be providing a grace process.

Senator ROBERTS: It seems that you accept that this rushed introduction with insufficient time for social media companies to get the software right, with no time for testing and very little public education, could be a recipe for chaos.

Ms Inman Grant: I think they’ve had plenty of time and they’re all technically capable of achieving this.

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, noting the time, we’re due to take a short break. Do you have a final question? Then we’ll take a break and rotate the call after that.

Senator ROBERTS: Why was the decision made to time the introduction for school holidays, which is when children will be wanting to access social media to stay in contact with their friends, sports and activities?

Ms Inman Grant: It was written into the legislation.

Senator ROBERTS: It was one of the reasons we opposed it.

Senator CANAVAN: It’s killed Christmas.

Ms Inman Grant: That’s a legitimate concern. Kids are—

Senator CANAVAN: They’ll get new gadgets that they won’t be able to use.

Ms Inman Grant: Only for gaming.

CHAIR: That’s a good note.

/by

Why No Charges After Four Lives Lost?

,

I asked the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions about a decision that has shocked many Australians — the choice not to lay charges over the 2023 Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays.

Four Defence personnel — Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock — lost their lives. Comcare’s investigation identified two serious breaches of law, yet charges weren’t pursued. Media reports suggest that decision is now under review, and Ms Sharp confirmed that she is personally conducting that review. It’s ongoing, with no timeline for completion.

I asked why charges weren’t laid when the evidence pointed to potential offences. Ms Sharp explained the prosecution test: first, is there a prima facie case? Second, are there reasonable prospects of conviction? And third, is it in the public interest? She said the evidence didn’t meet the second test — reasonable prospects of conviction. That’s what’s being reviewed now.

— Senate Estimates | December 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today. I’ve got two sets of questions; they’re both fairly brief. Firstly, I want to go to your decision not to lay any charges in relation to the 2023 Defence Taipan helicopter crash in the Whitsundays. Four Defence Force personnel—Captain Danniel Lyon, Corporal Alexander Naggs, Lieutenant Max Nugent and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock—died in the crash off the Queensland coast, as you would be aware. Comcare, the country’s workplace, health and safety investigator, delivered a brief of evidence on an investigation to you where they identified two significant breaches of law— category 1 and category 2 offences. Media reporting indicates that the decision to not lay charges may be under review. Is that accurate? If so, is your review still ongoing, or has it been finalised?  

Ms Sharp: Thank you for your question, and I’d like to thank the committee for its interest in the work of my office. Before I answer your question, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the loss of lives—the loss of Captain Danniel Lyon; Corporal Alexander Naggs; Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent; and Warrant Officer Class 2 Joseph Laycock, known as Phillip Laycock. I also recognise the grief of their families. Your information is correct. The decision that was made not to lay charges in relation to the briefs that were referred from Comcare is under review. That’s a review I am personally conducting, and that review is ongoing.  

Senator ROBERTS: When do you expect it to be finished?  

Ms Sharp: I can’t give you a date for that. I’ll give it the attention it deserves. It’s an important matter and needs to be done thoroughly.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why did you decide to not lay those charges in the first place, when the federal investigator laid a brief of evidence on your desk that very clearly identified potential offences?  

Ms Sharp: Prosecutions are taken in accordance with the Prosecution policy of the Commonwealth. This is a publicly available document. It outlines the steps that are undertaken to determine whether a prosecution can be laid. The first step is whether there’s a prima facie case: has there been an offence committed? The second step is: are there reasonable prospects of conviction? This involves a thorough analysis of the evidence contained in a particular brief of evidence. It’s only then, if there are reasonable prospects of conviction, that the third stage of the test—whether the proceeding is in the public interest—is considered. In this case, it was determined that there were not reasonable prospects of conviction, based on the evidence contained in the briefs referred by Comcare.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is that what you’re reviewing?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The families want this to go to court. You’d be aware of that, I’d say.  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: The workplace investigator says this should go to court. The commission of inquiry has had extensive evidence, and you say, ‘No, we aren’t laying charges.’ Why not? What turned you against it?  

Ms Sharp: As I said, the evidence that was referred in the briefs by Comcare was considered. On the basis of that evidence, there were not reasonable prospects to convict. I understand the family’s desire for this matter to go to court. All of the things that the family have identified are relevant to the public interest. I can say that if there were reasonable prospects, the prosecution of these charges would clearly be in the public interest. But that’s the third stage of the test.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do any of your employees who worked on the referral for this Taipan helicopter crash have any current or previous association with the Department of Defence? You can take that on notice.  

Ms Sharp: Not to my knowledge, but I’d have to take that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Do you feel you have adequate resources and budget to take on this matter?  

Ms Sharp: Yes.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I appreciate your direct answers; it’s refreshing. Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?  

Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.  

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?  

Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?  

Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed? 

Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much. 

/by

The Data is Missing — and They Know It

,

During this Estimates session with the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water of Australia (DCCEEW), I questioned the government on two issues: secretive appointments that erode trust and climate claims without evidence.

I quoted Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, and asked the Minister a simple question: what impact has Mr Kaiser’s appointment had on morale within the department? The Minister assured me he has “absolute confidence” in Mr Kaiser and claimed there’s no evidence of a negative effect on morale. I moved on — however noted that he left out some controversial aspects of Mr Kaiser’s background.

I went on to ask Minister Watt a simple, direct question: You claim we are facing “drier and warmer” summers — where is the specific data to back that up?

Instead of providing a source, Minister Watt resorted to his usual script. He tried to laugh it off as a “conspiracy” and claimed I simply “refuse to believe” the experts.

If the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO have the data, why is it so hard for Minister Watt to produce it?

I won’t be put off by snide remarks. I will keep asking the same question until the Australian people get the transparency they deserve.

We cannot base massive economic policies on feelings and forecasts that no one is willing to defend with data.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. Minister, following on from my last question, I will quote from a news report. Gabrielle Appleby, a constitutional law professor at the University of New South Wales and director of the Centre for Public Integrity, said: The fact that they commissioned— that’s your government— the Briggs review, have yet to release it, and are still making appointments through this outdated, opaque, and problematic process is particularly concerning … hugely corrosive. Even if the individual is the right or the best or a good person for the job, it just smells of jobs for mates, it smells of cronyism, and it smells of a conflict of interest. These are the types of issues that undermine public trust in government. In my experience, both public servants and private sector employees are usually wonderful. What is the impact of this appointment of Mr Kaiser on morale in your department?  

Senator Watt: I have absolute confidence in Mr Kaiser’s ability to do the job, and that’s certainly being borne out—  

Senator ROBERTS: With respect, I asked for your opinion of the effect of his appointment on the morale of the people in the department.  

Senator Watt: I’ve seen no evidence that it’s had a negative impact on morale.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Can I ask a second question?  

Senator Watt: You are making an imputation or implication in relation to Mr Kaiser, and I’d repeat the point—  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m just quoting what an independent person said.  

Senator Watt: Mr Kaiser comes to this job having been the director-general of the premier’s department in Queensland, the director-general of the state development department in Queensland and the director-general of the resources department in Queensland, on top of a lengthy private-sector career. With that kind of background, I’m not surprised that he’s doing a very good job as the secretary.  

Senator ROBERTS: You omitted some of the controversial aspects. Moving on to my second question, you said in your opening statement, Minister, that we’re facing drier and warmer summers. Can you give me the source of that data, please—the specific location? No quips about ‘hard to convince’.  

Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I thought we’d get into climate conspiracies by about 4 pm; I didn’t think we’d get there by six minutes to 10.  

Senator ROBERTS: You’re avoiding the question. Could you give me the specific location, please?  
 
Senator Watt: You and I have had many conversations in estimates hearings—  

Senator ROBERTS: And we’ll continue to have them.  

Senator Watt: about whether climate change is real or not. I have failed to persuade you that climate change is real. The Bureau of Meteorology has failed to convince you that climate change is real. CSIRO has failed to convince you that climate change is real. What you see on your TV has failed to convince you that climate change is real. I don’t think I’m going to be able to convince you.  

Senator ROBERTS: Is your forecast of drier and warmer summers cyclical; is it a change in climate? Can you give me the specific location? I will keep raising this until you give me the specific location of variables.  

Senator Watt: I have no doubt that you will keep raising it.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has provided it.  

Senator Watt: Many witnesses at estimates hearings have presented the evidence.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it?  

Senator Watt: You’ve just chosen not to believe them.  

Senator ROBERTS: Why can’t you provide it? 

/by

Questions CASA Won’t Answer

,

In this Estimates session, I asked CASA about an incident that raised serious safety questions where a Qantas flight made an emergency landing in Sydney after the captain suffered chest pains. I wanted to know if a full medical review had been done since the event. CASA couldn’t answer on the spot and agreed to take it on notice.

I asked whether the pilot had received a COVID-19 mRNA jab and if CASA’s medical investigation screens for conditions linked to adverse vaccine events. Again, no answers — just promises to take it on notice.

Then I pressed CASA on something I’ve raised before: their refusal to provide the number of times “myocarditis” appears in their medical record system. They admitted they could do the search however argued it would take too much time and might be misleading. I made it clear — I want the data.

Finally, I shifted to another concern: wind turbines being installed on prime agricultural land. I asked whether CASA considers the impact on aerial operations like crop dusting. CASA confirmed they provide advice on aviation safety but don’t make the final decision — that’s left to local councils.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you have the call.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing. I want to ask about the Qantas plane that made an urgent landing at Sydney airport in March after the captain suffered chest pains. Has a full medical report been done on this pilot for his CASA licence after this event? 

Ms Spence: I don’t have that information in front of me, but I’m happy to take it on notice and provide you with a response.  

Senator ROBERTS: No-one has that information?  

Ms Spence: No, sorry.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did the pilot have a COVID-19 mRNA jab?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident, but I’m happy to provide that on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Did CASA’s medical investigation specifically screen for the conditions associated with adverse events from COVID-19?  

Ms Spence: As I said, I don’t have any information on that incident. I’m happy to take it on notice.  

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move slightly. I’m assuming you’re still refusing to draw the number of times the word myocarditis appears in your medical record system and provide it to the committee, even though you’re capable of doing it.  

Ms Spence: I think we gave you information in response to your questions on notice explaining the time associated with doing a search for the terms you mention and how long it would take to do that.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you are still refusing. You’ve made your position clear. You can do it. You just think it could be misleading. Now you’re saying it might be too much work. I want to ask if you’re still maintaining that you will refuse to provide that answer. I’ll ask you to take it on notice once again. The proper process is for the minister to raise a public interest immunity claim. Are you aware of that?  

Ms Spence: What we can take on notice is whether there have been further references to that term in our system since the last time we gave you that answer and then we can provide you advice on how long it would take us to do any more detailed analysis about the basis on which that term was used.  

Senator ROBERTS: Can you say that again, please?  

Ms Spence: We can take it on notice to provide you with an update on the number of times, based on a search, that those terms have come up in our system since the last time. We can also provide you with advice on how long it would take us to do individual analysis of each time those words came up.  

Senator ROBERTS: What I want is the information with no qualifications. I just want the information. If you’re not going to provide it, I want a public interest immunity claim from the minister.  

Ms Spence: Taking it on notice is the process that’s normally followed when there’s—  

Senator ROBERTS: If you’re not going to give me the data that I want—  

ACTING CHAIR: Senator Roberts, you’ve asked the question. It’s been answered and taken on notice. We have limited time, so I suggest you move on.  

Senator ROBERTS: Have you ever been consulted in relation to wind turbines that are being put up on prime agricultural land and the effect this will have on aerial agricultural operations like crop dusting?  

Ms Spence: Our views are often sought in relation to the establishment of wind turbines. We provide our views on it. We don’t have a decision-making role as to whether or not those turbines can be installed.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you do give guidance?  

Ms Spence: We provide advice on what the impact might be.  

Senator ROBERTS: Some of these issues were raised over 10 years ago with CASA, I understand, directly. Are you being asked about these developments today?  

Ms Spence: Yes. We’re still being asked. As I said, we don’t have a decision-making role, but we certainly provide advice on any aviation impacts for the decision-maker, which is usually a local area council.  

Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t make a final decision on that?  

Ms Spence: No.  

Senator ROBERTS: You just provide safety advice?  

Ms Spence: That’s right. We don’t have any decision-making role in those areas.  

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Thank you. 

/by

Culture is No Excuse for Crime

,

Why are courts reducing sentences for child sex offenders based on cultural background? This deeply troubling question was one I raised during Estimates.

I cited a case where a convicted child sex offender had his sentence reduced because the judge believed his cultural upbringing made him think the crime wasn’t seriously wrong. Australians are rightly horrified. I asked whether such reasoning could ever apply to Commonwealth offences. Ms Sharp assured me that while courts consider personal circumstances, the gravity of the offence remains. Still, the fact this even happens is alarming.

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Turning to another case, I’m alarmed by the recent trend in some states to reduce sentences for heinous crimes because of historical cultural experiences. I’ll get to the federal implications here. One recent state case—this is a state case I’m citing— involved a person from overseas who was convicted of child sexual offences and had his sentence reduced because the trial judge felt that, because of his previous exposure to such activity, it would be unfair for him to be severely punished if he believed what he was doing was not seriously wrong. I think that’s horrified a lot of Australians, and constituents have contacted us. Since when has the law reduced sentences simply because the defendant thought it was okay to commit sexual offences against children?  

Ms Sharp: I’m not sure that that’s how the law operates; you’ve conflated a number of factors. When a sentence is imposed—I am really speaking about the role of courts here, which is outside my direct operation. When courts are determining what sentence to impose, they consider a whole range of factors. Many of those are set out in the Crimes Act, but some are set out by the common law, by the courts as they develop the law of sentencing over time. Those factors include the personal circumstances of both the victim and the offender.  

Senator ROBERTS: A lot of our constituents would be very upset with the decision. They’re telling us they are. They think the judiciary needs to be re-educated, but that’s not for you; I accept that. Can you reassure the Australian public that such a claim would not result in a similar discount if the offence was a Commonwealth one?  

Ms Sharp: Senator, I’m not sure precisely what the claim is. I can say that we make submissions to courts about what we think the appropriate sentence is—what we think are the appropriate factors relevant to sentencing, but those factors do include the personal circumstances of an offender. That’s simply the state of the law, and that’s set out in the provisions of the Crimes Act which deal with how sentences are to be imposed in relation to federal offences.  

Senator ROBERTS: Isn’t it pretty clear cut that molesting a child, sexually abusing a child, sexually assaulting a child, is exactly that? The law would be pretty clear cut on that, wouldn’t it?  

Ms Sharp: Is exactly an offence? Yes, it is an offence.  

Senator ROBERTS: And the sentence would be lessened if the male comes from a country where paedophilia is allowed? 

Ms Sharp: No. Senator, I’m not sure of the particular details of the case about which you’re speaking. At a general level, at a high level, the personal circumstances of an offender are relevant to determining what the appropriate sentence is for every case. It’s not a question of whether that lessens the gravity of the offence. It’s just one of the factors that go into the mix in determining what is the appropriate sentence for a particular matter.  

Senator ROBERTS: I’m at a loss for words. Anyway, thank you very much. 

/by

Remote Control Over Your Home

,

 I raised with the ACCC a disturbing new “emergency backstop” that allows energy providers to remotely control our homes and car batteries.

The government and energy giants call it “grid stability.” Let’s call it what it is: remote control over your private property. You paid for the battery, you generated the power, yet they want to flip a switch and stop you from exporting electricity whenever it suits them.

I asked the ACCC Chair if she’s worried about this overreach. While they claim “conditions and regulations” will protect competition, we’ve heard that story before. Australians shouldn’t have to ask for permission to use the energy they produce in their own homes.

We need answers, not just “monitoring.”

— Senate Estimates | October 2025

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to ask this question about the 19 May media release, ‘ACCC proposes to allow collaboration between energy providers’. I have many questions here, but I’ll probably keep these over till next time. Are you aware that this public key infrastructure service—I’m talking about batteries and access to home batteries and car batteries—which consumers pay for, will enable distribution network service providers to remotely limit or prevent electricity export into the grid by consumer energy resources in times of significant excess production known as an emergency backstop mechanism? Are you worried about this remote control that will affect householders?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We are aware of that purpose. It was put to us, particularly by the Australian Energy Market Operator, in terms of powers that are needed to ensure the stability of the grid. We also imposed conditions in terms of diversity of governance and other aspects to ensure that the ability to use that infrastructure would enable continued competition and continued access for the management, for example, of virtual power plants and home batteries so that it wouldn’t be restricted to only the distribution networks themselves.  

Senator ROBERTS: Do you have confidence in those restrictions or regulations?  

Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We carefully consulted on them. We put them in place because we were satisfied with them, but we will also monitor that.  

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you 

/by

Say Its Name, Albanese: Islamic Terror

,

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition.

On December 14, 2025 – an Islamic terror attack occurred in Australia.

Two individuals associated with the foreign ISIS group, one of whom ASIO was supposedly ‘watching’, went to an Australian beach and started murdering innocent people.

On Australian soil. A massacre of innocent people.

These individuals and their anti-human murderous intent are presumed to be products of an Islamic theocratic ideology which is part of a network of militant Islamic groups that engage in a combination of regional conflicts, power struggles, and the global act of intifada in which they seek to spread Islam ‘by the Sword’ and subjugate the peoples and religions of the world.

Islamic terror is not a response to the behaviour of the Australian people. Indeed, it has been forming caliphates for over 1,400 years. To make any insinuation that Australians and their speech are somehow to blame is an insult to rational thought.

These statements about Islam and its history of creating violent militancy are factual statements that will no doubt become criminal hate speech if the Prime Minister and his government are allowed to shamelessly exploit the Bondi Islamic terror attack.

As we speak, the Prime Minister and his ministers are busy creating a political firestorm to fabricate the feeling of existential terror – the purpose is to rush people.

To panic people.

To pass the single, most dangerous piece of legislation this nation has ever seen.

An Islamic terror attack took place, and yet this omnibus bill doesn’t have the guts to name the ideological perpetrator. Look at it. Where is the call to identify radical Islam?

Where does it cite the ideology that is the chief cause of fear among Australians?

Australians are smarter than that. Go online – before social media is banned – and listen to what people are saying. They spotted the oversight immediately.

The title of this bill is a real-time rewriting of the narrative. The Prime Minister has repackaged Islamic terror as some sort of vague antisemitism and the impossible-to-define ‘hate speech’.

This matters because Islamic terror is not a reaction to criticism of Islam, criticism of mass migration, support of Australia’s Western heritage, our Christian foundation, our demands for women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, or other Western-centric thought.

Nor do French satirical cartoons or Salman Rushdie’s literary works cause Islamic terror.

Islamic terror exists to oppress, to kill, and to convert.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Let me repeat – this bill will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Islamic terror’s hatred – its antisemitism – its desire to ‘behead the infidels’ – which was shouted on the streets of Sydney ten years ago and with no response from authorities, politicians, or this Parliament – stems from its radicalised religious belief that is an ideology for structuring society.

An inhuman, uncivilised society.

Shutting up Australians and interfering with what should be the sacred, unassailable right to free speech and political communication – is not an act of protection. It is an act of aggression.

The Australian people asked you, Prime Minister, to stop Islamic terror. To deport the Islamic hate preachers. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist had access to firearms. To find out why people on an ASIO watchlist were able to travel to known Islamic terror training areas.

They want to know why your government has not proscribed various known Islamic hate groups despite our allies doing so. They want to know why your government brought back female members of the Islamic State terror group despite the community telling you no.

And why your minister lied to cover up the ISIS brides’ return as it was being planned – and while it was underway.

They want to know why people holding Jewish and Australians flags are routinely arrested while those carrying Hamas, Hezbollah, and ISIS flags are not.

They want to know why current and former members of government marched beneath a portrait of the Ayatollah whose Iranian regime serves as the heart of Islamic terror – exporting it to the world including Australia.

And cruelly treats its own citizens.

Why are you, Prime Minister, presenting to us this omnibus bill which fails – catastrophically – to confine itself to the religious ideology that is murdering Australians, attacking the Jewish community, and spreading hate and violence in our country?

You and your government were given a very specific and narrow request from the people of Australia: get the Islamic terrorists out of this country or put them in jail.

What you have done instead is sloppily and dangerously draft an astonishingly extensive omnibus bill – which must be the work of months, not weeks – to make it nearly impossible for the average Australian to voice their God-given dissent, concern, and disgust at various policies and cultural changes to our country.

It is the codification of blasphemy known under the new name, ‘Islamophobia’.

As the late, great, left-wing figure Christopher Hitchens said: ‘Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons. Resist it, while you still can.’

I look around and think how far the left have fallen.

This bill is, without question, without any doubt, an abuse of Parliament’s power.

It’s a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition the likes of which we have not seen in a hundred years.

The Prime Minister hopes that obstructing the Parliamentary process with grief and fear will be his means for creating a moral panic and that my fellow Senators will act rashly.

This bill extends the victims of the Bondi Islamic terror attack to all the people of our nation.

If this bill is passed, those who voted in favour will be betraying everything our ancestors built, everything they believed in, and slamming the door to democracy.

We make a tragedy worse – we multiply the fear – when government puts into law a document expressly PROTECTING the agents of Islamic terror and jails the Australians who try to warn against it.

This bill is the opposite of what the Australian people asked members of Parliament to do.

I believe my role is as a servant to the people of Australia. I was elected to the Senate to help shape the law and to serve Australians and to serve Australia – not to expand the reach of government into the realms of petty censorship.

After all, was it not the Senate that censured my Party Leader, Pauline Hanson, for wearing a burqa to warn that we were sleep-walking into radical Islamic terror? Two weeks later, her warnings were made real and yet she is denied a place to vote on the very issue for which she was silenced.

This bill must be voted down – in its entirety – and re-written to serve the true purpose for which it was intended: to stop Islamic terror.

It should be renamed the Combatting Islamic Terror and Hate Preachers Bill – or nothing.

As many have pointed out, our existing laws were sufficient to stop the previous terror attacks, to deport hate preachers, to disband terror networks, and arrest those who march in support of terror groups.

And yet we do NOT use those laws.

Why? Are police afraid to arrest Islamic terrorists? Are courts afraid to convict? Is the Labor government afraid of the next election?

We are not at the limit of the law – so why are we sitting here drafting new ones?

If the old ones are not used to combat Islamic terror – what makes anyone think the news ones will be?

It is far more likely – and I put this to the Australian people – that by Australia Day, it will still be acceptable to state and federal governments for demonstrators to break the law and walk under the Hamas-aligned pro-Palestine banner shouting the genocidal ‘from the river to the sea’ – while it will be illegal, or at least dangerous, to fly the Australian flag and call for an end to mass migration.

Come on. Let’s face truth and put Australians’ safety first.

Enacting ruthless, politically motivated censorship against the Australian people – and specifically conservative Australians – will not stop a single Islamic terror attack.

Say its name, Albanese: Islamic terror by Senator Malcolm Roberts

This bill is a licence to arrest dissidents, halt debate, and silence political opposition

Read on Substack

/3 Comments/by

The Great Australian Sell-Out

,

The “Australian Dream” hasn’t just faded—it’s been sold out.

Young Australians are being forced into a impossible choice: become a lifelong debt slave to the banks, or pay rent to a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock forever.

Here is the reality the major parties are trying to dodge: 👉 It now takes 30 years to save a deposit near the city – a national tragedy. 👉 The government is using insane mass migration to prop up GDP and hide the fact that we are in a per-capita recession. 👉 We’re giving tax breaks to foreign investment funds to “Build to Rent” while local families are priced out of auctions. 👉 Bureaucracy is stopping our tradies from actually building the homes we need.

We don’t need cringeworthy TikToks or “election bribes” disguised as subsidies. We need a government that isn’t afraid to speak the truth about the root causes.

While the “Uniparty” of Labor, the Liberals, and the Greens runs and hides from these facts, One Nation is the only party standing up for everyday Australians. We’re committed to putting your family’s future ahead of global corporate interests and fixing the migration numbers so the next generation can actually own a piece of Australia.

It’s time to put Australia first. It’s time for One Nation.

Transcript

I move: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: 

The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more. 

The government has offered young Australians starting out in life two equally terrible options: either become a debt slave to the banks forever or rent from a foreign corporate landlord like BlackRock and never actually own a home. Successive Liberal-National and Labor-Greens governments—uniparty governments, that is—have failed to address the root cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration. Why would they do that? The answer is simple: necessity. After years of selling Australia out to their foreign masters, such as BlackRock Inc, Australia’s domestic economy was performing so badly that immigration became the government’s lifeline. 

Australia has had negative per capita income for five successive quarters. What that means is that everyday Australians are going backwards. Their small pay rises do not compensate for inflation. 

The reason the Australian economy as a whole is not in recession is the spending from new arrivals, as they furnish their homes and buy clothes, appliances and so on. This feeds on the GDP. But, per capita, we’re in recession. It’s economic sherbet. Once the sugar hit wears off, these new arrivals wind up in the same cost-of-living recession as Australians. 

Instead of developing infrastructure, reducing red tape, reducing green tape, reducing blue UN tape and getting private employment going again, the government takes the easy way out: more migrants, and more, and more. Decades of mass immigration have led us to this place we are in today, where we have 4.7 million visa holders in the country who are not citizens of Australia. We now have absolute confirmation that neither Labor nor the Greens, the Liberals or the Nationals are capable of solving, nor can they be trusted to solve, the real cause of the housing crisis: mass immigration. 

And it’s a crisis. The latest CPI data shows that housing has now risen 5.9 per cent in the last year—an accelerating rate of increase. And electricity, by the way, went up 37 per cent, as those election bribes Labor gave you—sorry, electricity ‘subsidies’—started to expire. According to CoreLogic, it now takes someone on the average wage 12 years to save for a home deposit on the outskirts of Sydney and 30 years to save for the deposit on a home close to the city—30 years, for a deposit! Servicing a home loan now costs 42 per cent of income. The point at which a mortgage is considered to be impaired used to be 30 per cent. That’s insane! It’s a tragedy for young Australians. 

The blame for this rests squarely with the Liberal-National and Labor-Greens parties. You have taken the option of homeownership away from young people with your insane mass immigration and your net zero agendas. You, and you, have allowed foreign multinational corporations and superannuation funds to bid up the price of Australian homes, and you’ve stood idly by while young people have walked away from auctions in tears. Instead, you make cringeworthy TikTok videos. You make promises that are not and cannot be kept, because you run and hide from the real reasons for the crisis: the Ponzi scheme that mass immigration has become. You run and hide. 

Here’s what One Nation wanted this parliament to vote on today: 

That, in the opinion of the Senate, the following is a matter of urgency: 

The urgent need to address the failure of the Albanese government to fix home ownership for the next generation, with mass-migration adding to the 4.7 million non-citizens in the country, tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords like Blackrock under ‘Build to Rent’, foreigners continuing to buy Australian homes and red tape stopping tradies from building more. 

Yet the other parties want to remove the facts, the data, from One Nation’s motion. No-one wants to talk about the fact that there are 4.7 million visa holders—people who are not Australian citizens—in the country right now, all needing homes. No-one wants to talk about the tax breaks being given to foreign corporate landlords BlackRock Inc. No-one wants to talk about foreign ownership of Australian homes—no-one, except One Nation. 

There is a reason why One Nation is the most trusted party in the country on the issue of migration—that’s what the polls are saying quite clearly. The reason is simple: we care; they don’t. One Nation will govern for everyday Australians. It’s time for a One Nation government now. 

/1 Comment/by

Australians Are Being Sold a Lie

,

Let’s call “Net Zero” what it really is: a massive wealth transfer to parasitic billionaires – making you poorer, your bills higher, and our country weaker.

The reality is: ✔️ High electricity prices driving up the cost of food, groceries, and transport. ✔️ Record high closures and insolvencies of established businesses. ✔️ Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industries are struggling to stay afloat while the government chases “green” pipe dreams that don’t work. ✔️ BILLIONS in debt being dumped on our children’s shoulders.

Billions of dollars is being wasted on “carbon abatement” and “green hydrogen” schemes that physics and chemistry tell us are a sham. Meanwhile, mass immigration is being used to mask the true cost, forcing you to cut your standard of living just to meet their impossible targets.

A One Nation government will: ✅ Abolish Net Zero, terminating the net zero transition, scrapping carbon accounting for businesses, and shutting down any project where cutting losses is cheaper for the taxpayer, or environmental damage is too great—running existing assets only until they they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. ✅ Repeal fraudulent flood maps being used by mostly foreign owned insurance companies to price gouge consumers, raking in record profits. ✅ Stop the subsidy “gravy train.” ✅ Use our own affordable energy to keep the lights on and the prices down. ✅ And most importantly – stop the mass immigration that’s crushing our housing and infrastructure. Remigrate the hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing. REMIGRATE — SEND HOME – DEPORT!

Since 2005, Australia’s population has surged 40%, yet this government is demanding we slash total carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels by 2035 —meaning every single Australian is being forced to pay the price to accommodate mass migration. The more the population grows, the harder you are hit – and it will only get worse until we have the courage to say: enough is enough – not one cent more.

We must stop the madness before there’s nothing left to save.

Australia belongs to us, not the globalists.

Transcript

Let’s call net zero for what it really is: fraudulent, supposed science covering up income redistribution protected with big brother government measures—that’s it—making everyday Australians economically, environmentally and socially worse off. Net zero measures are driving up the price of electricity and increasing prices with flow-on effects throughout the economy—food, groceries, clothing, transport, travel and accommodation. Everything you buy goes up if electricity goes up. Manufacturing, smelting and heavy industry all use electricity and are struggling to stay in business. 

In 2024, there were 5,136 closures of established businesses, meaning those in business for five years or more. In 2024, there were 10,497 business insolvencies—up almost 30 per cent on 2023. Has anyone on the Greens benches bothered to ask what these Australians who have lost everything think about what you and net zero have done to their businesses? Has anyone asked? We have. Some of these measures are idiocy—green hydrogen, green steel, green aluminium. This technology does not work. That is proven. It does not work, and it never will. Physics and chemistry tell us that. It’s nothing but a scheme to farm parasitic subsidies, without which the idea would not even be contemplated. 

These appropriations bills channel billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into the pockets of crony capitalists, lining up by pigs in a trough, and there’s Minister Bowen, throwing more and more taxpayer money into the trough—wasted, but who pays? The people pay. Small businesses pay. These appropriation bills contain significant allocations for net zero measures. 

Firstly, the department of climate change and energy—$1,234,567,890. There’s $1.2 billion for what? Support for net zero emissions by 2050 through renewable energy initiatives and emissions reduction programs. This is the stuff that comes out of the south end of a northbound ball. No. 2, $987,654,321—nearly $1 billion for what? Funding for decarbonisation projects and clean energy infrastructure to achieve low emissions targets. Carbon is in every living organism’s every cell. And then No. 3, $456,789,123 almost half a billion dollars. What have we racked up so far? $2.7 billion. For what? Investment in carbon abatement strategies and sustainable development to mitigate climate change impacts—carbon is in every cell of every living organism. This is just one appropriation bill. This gravy train for the government’s parasitic, big-business mates—collecting subsidies, feeding off subsidies—has been going on for years, encouraged by both major parties and the Greens. Yet the Albanese government is projecting deficits in every year of the 48th parliament totalling over $100 billion. That’s money that will be needed to be borrowed and debt that everyday Australians will have to repay—$3,700 for every man, woman, baby and child in this country plus interest, and we’re already paying interest in such a large quantity that it’s almost the single largest line item in the budget. 

A One Nation government will abolish the net zero transition. Our policy includes terminating all projects and removing all carbon dioxide accounting requirements on businesses, repealing fraudulent flood maps being used by insurance companies to price gouge consumers and to generate record profits for mostly foreign-owned insurance companies. Think of BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, Colonial First State et cetera, the global wealth funds. They own and control our insurance companies. We will terminate any existing project that’s at a stage where termination is cheaper for the taxpayer than the continuing or where the project is too damaging to the natural environment to continue operation. We will, of course, use the generation that has been put in place until they inevitably fail in 10 to 15 years. And, most importantly, our immigration policy will remigrate hundreds of thousands of people who have broken their visa conditions, and we will limit new arrivals to people holding skills we actually need, especially in housing—remigrate, send home, deport. 

Remember, net zero is not reducing carbon use per person. It’s supposedly reducing Australia’s carbon dioxide production to 2005 levels in total by 2035—supposedly. Think about this—Australia’s population has grown by 40 per cent since 2005. That means we all have to reduce our carbon dioxide production by an extra 40 per cent, and this figure goes up with every new migrant arrival. The pain is only just getting started unless the Senate has the courage to stop this madness and the integrity to stop this madness. Join One Nation in saying to this government, ‘Not one cent more—you’ve blown trillions.’ I foreshadow my amendment on sheet 3466 to remove net zero funding from this appropriation bill. Thank you. 

/2 Comments/by