I asked Mr Sivaraman, the Race Discrimination Commissioner, whether he stood by his comment that “the bile of racism” is spilling into public forums and many political debates. He confirmed that he does. I then questioned whether simply asking about migration intake numbers is racist, and he agreed that it isn’t necessarily so, though he warned that targeting certain groups can make it problematic.
I raised the fact that there are four million non-citizens in Australia while we have record homelessness, and that years of mass migration have put pressure on housing, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. I asked if acknowledging these facts makes someone racist. Mr Sivaraman said linking migration directly to these issues is overly simplistic and can lead to scapegoating, though I clarified I never claimed migration was the sole cause—just a significant factor.
We discussed fairness for migrants themselves, who sometimes lose housing when new arrivals come, and the mismatch between the skills Australia needs and those brought in under migration programs. Mr Sivaraman agreed that failing to recognise migrants’ skills is a real problem and mentioned campaigns to address this. I pointed out that, in construction, only a tiny fraction of arrivals have the promised skills, which raises serious concerns.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Sivaraman, as Australia’s race discrimination commissioner, you say ‘the bile of racism’ is spilling out into the public forum and many political debates. Do you stand by that comment?
Mr Sivaraman: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Is questioning the migration intake numbers racist?
Mr Sivaraman: In and of itself, it doesn’t have to be, no. It’s a question of what’s associated with that and whether certain groups get targeted.
Senator ROBERTS: There are currently four million people in this country, our country, who are not Australian citizens taking up beds while Australians are homeless—there is record homelessness—after years of unprecedented levels of mass migration. We have been at record numbers for multiple years in a row. That’s not saying anything disparaging about those people who have arrived; that’s just a fact. It is just a mathematical fact that, if we continue to accept arrivals at the rate we are, our schools, hospital, dams, transport and housing are going to become even more overwhelmed than they are. That’s a fact. Is anyone who acknowledges that fact a racist?
Mr Sivaraman: I think to simply connect, in a very linear way, migration to the various problems that you’ve described would not be accurate. The problems that you’ve—
Senator ROBERTS: What is inaccurate about it, Mr Sivaraman?
Mr Sivaraman: The problems that you’ve alluded to, like housing and the cost of living, are complicated problems with many different sources. Migration is one of the many different factors that may or may not contribute to those issues. Directly linking them is something that I wouldn’t agree with, and it’s that simplification that often then leads to the scapegoating of migrants, and I think that can be problematic.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me how I’m scapegoating migrants, when I am one? And can you tell me how it’s simplifying the issue?
Mr Sivaraman: It is a simplification of an issue if you directly say that there is only one cause for the significant problems that you’ve—
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say there was only one cause. It’s the significant factor.
Mr Sivaraman: Even that, in itself, is a simplification. It can be any number of factors that contribute to those issues.
Senator ROBERTS: We know for a fact that we’ve got record homelessness, and the government is bringing in record numbers of people year after year after year. They haven’t got anywhere to go, Mr Sivaraman. We even see migrants coming here, being given housing and then being turfed out when the next wave of migrants comes. Is that fair to the migrants?
Mr Sivaraman: I’m not sure if I can take it further. Homelessness is obviously a serious and significant issue. Simply pointing to migration or migrants as the problem, or the cause of that issue is overly simplistic.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the misalignment between the skills we need in this country for people to get straight to work and bringing in people without those skills and them not being able to find work? Is that dehumanising to the migrants? Is it dehumanising to the people here?
Mr Sivaraman: Senator, I’m glad you raised that issue. I think there is a real problem with the failure to recognise skills, experience and qualifications of migrants, which often leads to people being underutilised and dampening their productivity in the workplace. I note that Settlement Services International are running a campaign now called Activate Australia’s Skills, because we do want to fully utilise the skills of migrants that come here so that they can contribute to our workforce. That’s a really important issue.
Senator ROBERTS: But, if they don’t have the skills—for example, in construction, the government is bringing in, supposedly, construction workers with skills in construction, but only 0.6 per cent actually have those skills and experience. How are they going to build houses for the other 99.4 per cent?
Mr Sivaraman: I’m unaware of the statistics you’ve quoted, so I can’t speak to those statistics specifically. But in a general sense there is a lot of research and data that shows that we have failed to recognise the skills and qualifications of migrants, and that is a significant detriment to the Australian economy.
Senator ROBERTS: This is my final question before moving on to Dr Cody. I understand in your role as Race Discrimination Commissioner you are being paid $398,450 per annum—almost $400,000—plus 15.4 per cent super. Are those pay figures correct? Mr
Sivaraman: I think that they would be, yes. I’d have to check the Remunerations Tribunal determination.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BDW7RDGSdAs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-06 13:24:262025-11-06 13:24:33Mass Migration Has Consequences—Acknowledging Them Isn’t Hate
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is yet another example of the wasteful, agenda driven legislation that a One Nation government would abolish. For three decades, Australians have been held hostage by the costly green climate scam – climate fraud. This Bill continues that trend—now with a hint of desperation.
One Nation stands with everyday Australians. In contrast, the Liberal-Labor-Greens alliance has long served the interests of globalist elites, foreign corporations, unelected non-government organisations, the UN and the World Economic Forum.
Minister Chris Bowen — otherwise known as the “Minister for Blackouts” — is acting like a addicted, compulsive gambler chasing losses, dragging the nation deeper into debt. If the government truly believes in the merit of this bill, it should table the rules and show Australians exactly where the money is going.
The net zero transition is not helping the environment — it’s harming it. It’s driving up costs, strangling businesses and pushing families into poverty.
It’s time to face reality: net zero is a scam. Only One Nation has the courage to call it out, and a real plan to put Australians first—by restoring affordable energy, rejecting imported UN and WEF ideologies, and putting more money back in your pocket where it belongs.
Transcript
The Future Made in Australia (Production Tax Credits and Other Measures) Bill 2024 is a perfect example of the garbage legislation a One Nation government would abolish. For 30 years, Australia has been held hostage to the green climate scam/climate fraud. With this legislation, the boondoggles continue—this time with a hint of desperation.
The bill has three schedules. The first introduces a hydrogen production tax credit of $2 a kilogram of hydrogen. This is supposedly to encourage the production of hydrogen for use in processes that contribute to the meeting of net zero targets. There it is again, raising its ugly head: net zero targets. There is a reason that green hydrogen is going up in flames faster than the Hindenburg. If hydrogen were commercially viable there would be a queue of companies producing and using hydrogen, but there aren’t. There would be a queue of bankers lending for new hydrogen production. That isn’t happening either. In fact, the reverse is true: companies and banks are pulling out. One Nation has a different strategy to encourage production. It’s called the profit motive.
Eighteen months ago Canadian gas giant ATCO scrapped plans for one of the first commercial-scale green hydrogen projects in Australia, despite strong funding support from the government. Why? Because the numbers did not add up. In a sign of the times, Shell withdrew from a project to convert the Port Kembla steelworks into a hydrogen powered green steel project in 2022. Only last week BlueScope announced a $1.15 billion upgrade to the same Port Kembla plant to produce steel for another 20 years using coal. The Hydrogen Park project in Gladstone, in my home state, was suspended after the Queensland government and the private partner withdrew. Despite the hype, this project would have only produced enough hydrogen to power 19 cars, while employing a handful of people. On the other hand, the Port of Gladstone’s container-handling development, a real project, which One Nation has championed for years and which will be starting construction shortly, will bring thousands of jobs to Gladstone, with $8 billion of private sector investment—real breadwinner jobs, real future productive capacity.
Now, there have been some promising developments in hydrogen powered cars, mostly from Japanese makers. With zero tailpipe emissions, a longer range and faster refuelling, they contrast with the high cost and impracticality of EVs, electric vehicles, to achieve the same outcome. But the Japanese are trialling these on the basis that they may be legislated. The Japanese are covering their options. It should be noted that this research is being conducted in the private sector, acting out of a profit motive. Nothing our government has done will develop this technology. Consider Honda, for example. It is a disciplined, respected car maker—one of the leaders in the world—with an amazing culture. It is a leader in hydrogen. It’s marking time. It has hydrogen powered vehicles on the road, but it’s using its shareholder money to support them, prudently, just in case they’re legislated.
There’s nothing in the hydrogen schedule of this bill that will provide Australian taxpayers with value for money—nothing—and it’s a bloody lot of money: $6.7 billion over 10 years. I can just see Chris Bowen and Mr Anthony Albanese tossing out another few billion, $6.7 billion, to add to their trillions that will be invested eventually in this net zero madness. One Nation opposes schedule 1 of the bill, and if the bill is passed it will be repealed when One Nation repeals all of the green climate-scam legislation.
Let’s move to schedule 2. Schedule 2 of the bill creates production tax incentives for transforming critical materials into a purer or more refined form. The materials in question are those that are used in wind, solar and batteries to firm unreliable, unaffordable, weather-dependent power—more money being thrown down the sewer. This section of the bill is directed at an industry that already receives government support through other schemes, including the Critical Minerals Facility, which offers loans, bonds, equity guarantees and insurance; the National Reconstruction Fund, which offers concessional loans, equity and guarantees; the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, which offers concessional loans, equity and letters of guarantee; and the Critical Minerals Research and Development Hub, which offers in-kind support via free research and development—not free to the taxpayers funding it but free to the company—which is separate to the normal research and development tax incentives from the Australian Taxation Office. We’re tossing money at these people, and it’s wasted. How much assistance does one industry need? How much, government? After all this assistance, who gets to keep the profits generated from all this taxpayer largesse? The processors do. The critical minerals proposal in schedule 2 will cost $7 billion over 11 years—another $7 billion. ‘What’s a billion here or there?’ says the government.
The Albanese government is socialising the costs and privatising the profits. We pay for their development and the costs, and the companies take the profits. Worse, there’s no requirement that the recipients are Australian owned. What are you doing with people’s money? What would actually help critical minerals in Australia is One Nation’s proposal for a northern railway crossing from Port Hedland in the west to Moranbah in Queensland to open up the whole Top End and provide stranded assets like critical minerals with access to manufacturing and export hubs.
Let’s move on to the third schedule, the final schedule. It’s even worse. The bill changes the rules in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act to allow Aboriginal communities wider borrowing powers. The new rules are not specified. Those will come later from the minister. Not only is this a failure of transparency, it creates a second round of debate when the rules are released. It creates more uncertainty. Rules written under proposed legislation should be included with the legislation so the Senate knows exactly what it is voting on and how the powers will be used. But we don’t, and yet you’re going to vote on this. Without those rules, One Nation cannot support this schedule either.
In One Nation, we support the people. The Liberal-Labor-Greens, though, have decades of serving masters outside the party—globalist, elitist, parasitic billionaires, foreign corporations, non-government organisations, the United Nations and the World Economic Forum alliance. The Senate is open to conclude, given the location of this provision within a bill about injecting money into the net zero scam, that net zero is the destination for this extra borrowing—financing Aboriginal corporations to create their own government subsidised businesses and doing things private enterprise won’t touch.
Minister for Climate Change and Energy, otherwise known as ‘Minister for Blackouts’, Chris Bowen, member of parliament, is behaving like an addicted, compulsive gambler who has done all of his own money and is now dragging his friends into his black hole. If this bill is passed, the Aboriginal community will be shackled with debt for pointless financial boondoggles that have no chance of commercial success—none. If this is not the intention, then the minister must table the rules. Let’s see what the government does intend.
The net zero transition is destroying Australia and doing nothing for the natural environment. It is hurting the natural environment. The public are turning against the whole scam now that they realise the cost benefit is not there. It’s costing them money and needless suffering. Business is turning against net zero because its carrying the full cost of soaring power prices and extra green tape. It’s now coming out in the papers—the mouthpiece media. Minister, give it up, turn on the coal- and gas-fired power stations and save Australia from more suffering.
I’m now going to raise some additional points, related points, explaining what underpins the hydrogen scam and climate fraud. The Senate seems to be populated, mostly, with feeble-minded, gutless senators. Never has any empirical scientific data been presented as evidence, within logical scientific points, proving that carbon dioxide from human activity does what the United Nations and World Economic Forum and elitist, fraudulent billionaires claim—never, anywhere on earth. Or do such uninformed, gullible proponents in parliament have conflicts of interest? For example, the teals and possibly the Greens, it seems, receive funds from Climate 200, which spreads money from billionaire Simon Holmes a Court, who rakes in subsidies for solar and wind. Are the teals, including Senator Pocock, and the Greens gullible, or are they knowingly conflicted and pushing this scam? Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. One Nation has a plan to put more money into Australian pockets, giving you choice on how you spend your money rather than letting these people here waste it for you with the needlessly high cost of living.
Why do electricity bills keep skyrocketing when we switch to LED lights and star appliances, and when we get power from huge solar and wind generators? The people have been conned by the energy relief fund, which has suppressed what they see in their electricity bills. When that fund comes off soon, you’re going to be in for a nightmare, a shock. Only One Nation has the policies to put more money into people’s pockets now. For some insight from overseas, President Trump says it so well in his 20 January executive order:
The United States must grow its economy and maintain jobs for its citizens while playing a leadership role in global efforts to protect the environment. Over decades, with the help of sensible policies that do not encumber private-sector activity, the United States has simultaneously grown its economy, raised worker wages, increased energy production, reduced air and water pollution …
That’s exactly what we’ve been saying for years, for decades in fact, in One Nation. And that’s exactly the opposite of what the Greens, the teals, the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the Nationals are pushing with net zero.
I have one final point. I remember Scott Morrison as prime minister at the time, a few years ago, introducing some green hydrogen scheme incentive, with more subsidies from taxpayers to foreign, predatory billionaires. He said at the time that a price of $2 per kilogram for hydrogen would be fine. We worked out that the price of electricity at that price for hydrogen is $200 per megawatt hour, which is exorbitant. It’s almost 10 times what the fuel costs are for coal. What he didn’t tell you at the time, and what Labor has blindly followed, was that the actual price of hydrogen was $6 per kilo. Pipedreams are now becoming nightmares for people across Australia.
Only One Nation opposes the climate fraud and the net zero scam. Only One Nation will pull Australia out of the United Nations World Economic Forum’s net zero target. We are importing ideology from the United Nations and the World Economic Forum, and we are importing poverty and deprivation. One Nation, though, has a plan to put more money into Australians’ pockets, to give you choice on how you spend your money.
Right now, the Prime Minister has the authority and sole discretion to decide how many advisers each senator receives—an authority he’s used to punish those who challenge him.
Advisers are vital for researching and scrutinising legislation, engaging with constituents, and holding the government accountable. Cutting staff for senators who oppose him does not pass the pub test. It’s not just unfair—it’s undemocratic. What is the Prime Minister afraid of? Is it scrutiny, truth, or the rise of One Nation? His actions show he fears accountability and seeks to silence those who stand up to him.
The staffing decisions reveal a disturbing pattern. Senators who vote with Labor—David Pocock, Tammy Tyrrell, Lidia Thorpe, Jacqui Lambie—kept all their advisers. Those who challenge Labor—Senator Ralph Babet and One Nation senators—had their staff cut in half. Senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor, had no advisers before or after the election. Queensland, which I proudly represent, has ten times Tasmania’s population and a vastly larger economy, yet Tasmanian senators receive more than double the staff. This inequity across states is blatant and raises serious concerns about bias, discrimination and political bastardry. The Prime Minister’s refusal to meet with Senator Hanson and me together, his lack of consultation, and his disregard for administrative law and workplace safety standards show a pattern of vindictive, chaotic governance.
This bill is a practical, fair solution supported by Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation. It sets minimum standards for staffing while preserving the Prime Minister’s discretion to allocate more. It ensures that support for senators is not subject to political whim.
Previous Liberal PMs treated all senators fairly—PM Albanese does not. He promised transparency and fairness, but his actions betray those values.
Transcript
As a servant to the people of Queensland and Australia, I support this bill to restore fairness, integrity and justice to allocation of staff in crossbench senators’ offices, to protect accountability in parliament and to guard democracy. The Prime Minister currently has the authority and sole discretion to determine the number of parliamentary advisers to crossbench senators.
Here’s how he allocated staff in the previous parliament, and then after the recent election. Firstly, the crossbench senators who largely vote with Labor. David Pocock had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Tammy Tyrrell had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Lidia Thorpe had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was unchanged—two advisers. Jacqui Lambie had three advisers before the election—three! After the election, it was unchanged—three advisers.
Secondly, let’s move on to the crossbench senators who often oppose Labor in the Senate. Senator Ralph Babet had two advisers before the election. After the election, it was cut in half, to one adviser—one! One Nation senators had two advisers each before the election. After the election, on average, it was cut in half, to one adviser each—one!
Thirdly, crossbench senator Fatima Payman, who resigned from Labor in the last term, embarrassing the Prime Minister and the Labor Party, had zero advisers before the election—nil! After the election, she had zero advisers—nil, none!
Next, consider this: the Prime Minister sacked both of my advisers. He bypassed me, their employer. The parliamentary adviser’s duty, the personal adviser, is to assist senators with researching proposed legislation, assist senators in writing speeches, advise on parliamentary tactics, help prepare questions for Senate estimates hearings, be the first point of contact for community groups, and deputise for the senator in meetings when the senator is engaged in the chamber or elsewhere in the state. The Prime Minister radically gutted the staffing of those senators who hold the Labor Party accountable. This does not pass the pub test, nor any test for fairness, integrity or justice.
When the Prime Minister cuts the staffing of those senators who take positions opposing his, he has an obvious conflict of interest. The incentive for the Prime Minister is to cut the resources of his political opponents, seeking to take political advantage and to cut us off at the legs. Reducing the number of support staff for a senator effectively reduces the ability of a senator to function on behalf of the electorate and provide an effective opposition, a foundation of our Westminster system of democratic government. This is an abuse of taxpayer funds and of the nation’s top political office—that of Prime Minister—to cripple senators with the courage to hold the Prime Minister’s government accountable and to reward those senators who support the Prime Minister’s agenda. This Prime Minister seems to forget that parliament does not serve him. He serves the people through the democratically elected parliament.
The state I proudly represent, Queensland, has 5.7 million people. Tasmania has 575,000. The state I represent has around 10 times the number of constituents as Tasmania. Queensland is 25 times larger in area that Tasmania. Queensland has more diverse regions and climates and a much larger and more diverse economy. Queensland’s gross state product is 12 times larger than Tasmania’s. Yet the Prime Minister allocates more than twice the number of advisers to each Tasmanian crossbench senator than to each Queensland crossbench senator. Senator Whitten’s state of Western Australia has an area almost 40 times that of Tasmania. He has to get around that. The state of New South Wales has a population 14 times that of Tasmania’s. The disparity between our states and the Australian Capital Territory, with its tiny population, are even more striking than with Tasmania.
This treatment of different Senate offices is inequitable and raises issues of bias, discrimination and political bastardry. This clearly shows the Prime Minister to be incapable of fairness and clearly displays his vindictiveness, incompetence and biased behaviour. Is he aiming to cripple One Nation after we received a huge increase in votes, doubled our members in parliament and came close to having a total of seven senators elected? One of our candidates for the House of Representatives achieved two-party preferred status and came close to being elected. Is the Prime Minister afraid of One Nation’s rise? Perhaps the Prime Minister is sensitive to criticism or to being held accountable. He reportedly found $886,000 of taxpayer money to splash on refurbishing the new Greens party room, his partners in the government’s communist coalition. By the way, the journalist who exposed this news was banned from parliament for a week. Of what is the Prime Minister afraid?
Further, after his gutting of our staff, the Prime Minister and his chief of staff refused to meet with Senator Hanson and me together. He insisted that he and his chief of staff would meet with only one of us. In my subsequent meeting with the Prime Minister and his chief of staff, I raised three main issues: the unfairness of the Prime Minister’s staffing allocation; that the Prime Minister’s actions breached recognised processes expected under administrative law provisions; and that the Prime Minister was imposing needless stress on staff who are already working hard in the taxpayers’ interest.
Let’s next consider the process the Prime Minister chose to follow. On 23 June 2025, Prime Minister Albanese notified Senator Pauline Hanson of his decision to slash half the parliamentary staff allocation for each One Nation senator, from two each to one each. In doing this, he had exercised a discretion authorised under sections 4(1), 11(3) and 12 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, the MOPS Act. In determining these allocations of parliamentary advisers and implementing these notices of allocation, the Prime Minister breached important provisions of administrative law, which is defined in common law as decisions from courts, including the High Court. The breaches include that he gave no reasons for his decision; he had not consulted or sought input from any One Nation senator; he did not act in good faith; he did not act with a proper purpose; he had not considered relevant matters; he had not acted on reasonable grounds, given that One Nation had doubled its number of senators from two to four, with no increase in personal staff offered; he did not act based on supporting evidence; and he had not provided procedural fairness to affected persons, including personal parliamentary staff and senators.
Senators and affected staff were given no opportunity to put their case to the Prime Minister before he made his decision to slash staff allocations. He or his office ordered the employment of my staff to be terminated before my staff were made aware—the only senator’s office in which that occurred. I was given 12 minutes notice to respond to a communications deadline late on a Friday evening, and I worked that night until 10.30 pm and did not check my emails—12 minutes notice to respond! The Prime Minister had not properly considered the merits of the decision. He has still not indicated that he had evaluated all relevant evidence. He had not acted reasonably or fairly, as senators were not allocated staff on the basis of need. Nor were senators treated evenly. Some senators had savage cuts made to their staff, while others had no cuts made at all. The Prime Minister did not inform senators that he had made a decision that affected them. Some senators found out via the media.
Our Australian courts have clearly recognised that the exercise of administrative discretion, including the decision to reduce support for selected senators, must follow the procedural principles set out in Australian case law. The Prime Minister did not follow these principles. The process he stumbled through appears to be different for every crossbench senator.
The decision also flies in the face of the recent Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet review of health risks to parliamentary staffers from workplace stress and excessive work demands that lead to workplace health and safety issues. A Parliamentary Workplace Support Service review into the resourcing of parliamentary staff concluded:
Staffing levels overall are not adequate to meet all the parliamentary and electorate work demands placed on staff in some offices.
This translates to the fact that personal staff are overworked and translates further to a workplace health and safety issue.
The way in which the Prime Minister slashed some senators’ staffing and caused staff to be brutalised shows he does not care about workers. If the Prime Minister supports a fully functioning parliament and democracy and supports accountability, then he should ensure that members and senators are provided with reasonable resources, including qualified and professional advisers as personal staff. After securing re-election based on promises of transparency, the Prime Minister appears to have abused his position, disrespected Australian law and courts and jeopardised democracy for his political advantage. The Prime Minister shows he is incapable of fairness and competence. He will be more able and likely to hide with a reduced opposition. That hurts Australia. It hurts democracy. This is clearly a further example of the Prime Minister seeking control over democratic processes.
I remind everyone that always beneath control there is fear. Why is he afraid of democratic scrutiny? Why is he afraid of losing the control that he covets? Why is the Prime Minister afraid of me? I’m not a big bloke. Is he afraid of my work as a crossbench minor party senator? Is he afraid of my passion for exposing the truth and serving constituents? Is he afraid of my teamwork with my staff, making us more effective as a team? Is that why he dismantled my team and stressed them needlessly? Is he, with just one year’s experience in the real world, afraid of my diverse practical experience, including underground coalface miner, vineyard labourer, engineer, mine and project manager, executive leadership consultant, and board director? Is he afraid of One Nation rising, or does he still have blind prejudice towards One Nation, as revealed in his adjournment speech of May 1998? Last week during question time in the House of Representatives, why did he try to ridicule me, a small-party crossbench senator? Doesn’t he realise that name-calling and labels are the refuge of the ignorant, the incompetent, the dishonest or the fearful and are signs of fear?
Before the election, the Prime Minister promised transparency and fairness. His actions show why I take note of people’s actions, not their words. What’s important is what we can do, not who we can be. In other words, what we do matters; our title matters not.
This new bill’s co-sponsors include Senator Payman, Senator Babet, the Liberals and One Nation—indicating a unity of support. Under this new bill, the government retains over 520 staff and access to hundreds, perhaps thousands, of departmental staff. The bill provides fair allocation of staff to government, opposition, Greens, other parties and crossbench senators. This bill is well considered, well written and fair. The bill offers career progression for crossbench staff. It nominates only minimum standards. The Prime Minister still has the freedom to allocate more and to exercise his discretion.
We are all tired of partisan politics that threaten to destroy our country and our democracy. This bill will ensure that support for senators and for Australian democracy is not subject to the whims of a recalcitrant prime minister who puts his own needs ahead of the effective operation of this chamber. Both preceding Liberal prime ministers allocated equal numbers of personal advisers to each crossbench senator, showing that they both saw merit in fairness and in democracy. Prime Minister Albanese hides from, buries, prevents and kills democracy.
One Nation welcomes the spirit with which many diverse senators approached this issue’s resolution in a united way. This bill is a sensible, practical and responsible solution to digging the Prime Minister out of the ridiculous and embarrassing hole he has dug for himself. All One Nation senators support this bill. I encourage all senators to support this bill. I say to all Australians: the ABC, and the media generally, won’t report this issue, so, if you’re concerned about the Prime Minister’s abuse of power and taxpayer money, please share it and spread it. Bringing back and restoring our country starts with the people driving parliamentary accountability.
I recently asked questions of the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) about its refusal to engage with complainants who hold critical information—information that could help expose corruption at the highest levels. One such individual is economist John Adams, who has referred serious allegations involving the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Despite providing extensive documentation, Mr Adams has been shut out of the process. The NACC confirmed they do not consult complainants before deciding whether to investigate. This raises serious concerns about transparency and accountability.
I also asked whether the NACC has served any legal notices or conducted compulsory examinations of the Prime Minister. Their response? “I’m not in a position to answer that.” The NACC “hides” behind confidentiality provisions in the Act, refusing to confirm or deny any action. Why is the federal body so secretive? Australians deserve to know if their leaders are under investigation.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the NACC refusing to engage with complainants in either preliminary investigations or corruption investigations—complainants who have critical information which can help the NACC fulfil its mission? One person, who has given me permission to name, is John Adams, and he has referred the Prime Minister and ASIC officials. Why haven’t you talked to him?
Mr Reed: Mr Adams has made a number of referrals to the commission. We go through a process of triage and then assessment, and the outcome of that, if it goes from tier 1 triage to tier 2 assessment, is then considered by the NACC Senior Assessment Panel to determine whether or not there’s a corruption issue that could be investigated.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you make that decision without consulting the complainant?
Mr Reed: What happens is that people make referrals, and we assess them. We decide whether or not we’re going to proceed with any further work. Eighty-four per cent of the matters—
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, I accept what you’re saying. Can you make those decisions to take it from one stage to the next without taking to the complainant?
Mr Reed: It depends on what material the complainant has provided. Mr Adams has provided enormous amounts of material.
Senator ROBERTS: He’s diligent.
Mr Reed: He is just one of those individuals who is very invested in one particular matter, and the commission has spent a significant amount of time considering the material that he’s provided and has made decisions about that matter. I don’t think that Mr Adams is happy about that or will ever be happy about the outcome. So we don’t have to go and talk to individuals who made referrals.
Senator ROBERTS: I accept that you don’t have to.
Mr Reed: It’s just the reality of it.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Reed, has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia?
Mr Reed: We have received 6,055 referrals since our inception, and it’s just not possible that we’re going to talk to all of them, and, in many ways, there’s no requirement to. Sorry, I missed your question.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC served any legal notices on the current prime minister of Australia. If so, how many and when?
Mr Reed: I’m not in a position to answer that. We don’t talk about the work that we do. We don’t talk about referrals, unless they’re on the public record. We don’t talk about investigations. We don’t talk about where notices are served.
Senator ROBERTS: Why not?
Mr Reed: It’s just the nature of the act. The act requires us to do things confidentially and largely in private. That’s the reality of the act.
Senator ROBERTS: Has the NACC compulsorily examined the Prime Minister?
Mr Reed: We will never talk about the work we’re doing until we publish a report at the end of the work we’re doing.
Senator ROBERTS: Does the same apply to ministers, not just the Prime Minister?
Mr Reed: I’m not going to enter into a debate about the work that the NACC is undertaking in any of its investigations. It’s not appropriate to talk about it here.
Senator ROBERTS: In October 2021, the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption published a media release indicating that Premier Berejiklian was under formal investigation for corruption. This publication led to the resignation of the premier. Does the NACC have the approach of informing the public if a minister of the Crown or the head of a Commonwealth government or agency is under investigation for corruption? You’ve already said no, but it has happened before in a different state, in a different jurisdiction.
Mr Reed: I worked at the New South Wales ICAC for five years. I very much understand how it operates. It has a different legislative base, a different approach. They ultimately end up in public hearings as part of an investigative process, but most of the work they do is done privately. If I can quote some figures to you out of the most recent annual report of the ICAC, they had one public inquiry in 2023-24, which occurred over 11 days, yet, in the same time period, they undertook 36 of what we would call private hearings and what they call compulsory examinations over 30 days. The bulk of the work done by the New South Wales ICAC is done in private. Then, when they get an investigation to a particular point, they have the option to go to public hearing. There are provisions that relate to that, and they use that option on a regular basis, but it’s a different bit of legislation.
Senator ROBERTS: In May 2024, the Prime Minister of Australia and senior ASIC officials were referred to the NACC after allegedly facilitating an illegal cover-up of a company called ABC Bullion. Are you familiar with that? It occurred during an official investigation.
Mr Reed: We don’t ever comment on matters that are referred to us or where they’ve ended up unless it’s been put on the public record previously, and most matters have not. So I’m not going to answer either positively or negatively about that particular referral.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, the NACC has resisted in engaging the key witness, so we’ll move on to the last issue. Given that there have now been two senior judges finding that Ms Brittany Higgins lied about not receiving support from her employer Senator Reynolds, will the NACC reopen the complaint about Ms Higgins receiving a $2.4 million payment of taxpayer money based on lies, being that she would never be able to work again.
Ms O’Meagher: In relation to Ms Higgins, she wasn’t a Commonwealth public official at the time of the conduct you refer to, so it’s not within the jurisdiction of the commission.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/RymAnuwJk1s/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-05 15:44:192025-11-05 15:44:25Is the NACC Protecting Power Over Truth?
Labor’s decision to slash the withholding tax for foreign corporate landlords from 30% to just 15% is a slap in the face to everyday Australians. While families struggle to buy a home, Labor is rolling out the red carpet for global giants like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—offering them tax breaks to build rental stack-and-pack apartments that Australians will never own.
Let’s call it what it is: build-to-rent is build-to-never-own. It’s designed to lock Australians into a lifetime of renting from foreign billionaires, while those same corporations pay less tax than the hardworking people they’re renting to.
One Nation has been warning about this for years. We believe in the Australian dream—owning your own home, not renting it forever from a global landlord.
We stand with Australians, not greedy foreign corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda.
Transcript
Senator Bragg’s disallowance seeks to throw a spanner in the works of the build-to-rent scheme. That’s a very good thing and One Nation will be wholeheartedly supporting it. Foreign corporations used to pay a 30 per cent withholding tax on housing investments like build to rent. Labor cut that in half, to 15 per cent.
Let’s be clear: this Labor government said to foreign, corporate landlords like BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard and first state, ‘We’ll cut the amount of tax you pay in half.’
Forget the Australian dream of owning your own home. Labor’s dream is that you live in a stack-and-pack shoebox apartment paying rent to BlackRock forever, while those foreign corporations pay less tax than you do. That’s what build to rent means.
Whenever you hear ‘build-to-rent’, remember ‘renting forever to a foreign corporation, a foreign corporate landlord and a foreign global wealth investment fund’. They’ll build homes, for sure, and Australians will never, ever own them—never. It’s built to rent forever. I’ll quote from the Economics Legislation Committee report into the Treasury Laws Amendment (Build to Rent) Bill 2024 and the provisions of the Capital Works (Build to Rent Misuse Tax) Bill 2024. The provisions of the bills include ‘reducing the final withholding tax rate on eligible fund payments—distributions of rental income and capital gains—from eligible managed investment trust investments from 30 per cent to 15 per cent, starting from 1 July 2024’. So there you go—a tax cut in half for those global, corporate, predatory investors, who own almost everything and are determined to own everything. I’ll say that again: they own almost everything and are determined to own everything.
The report states:
The draft legislation was adjusted as a result of this consultation to ensure the government’s policy objective of incentivising foreign investment in BTR—
Build-to-rent—
including affordable housing supply, is achieved.
They are admitting that the objective of the bills is incentivising foreign and predatory corporations into owning your home. The report also states:
The Property Council advised the 15 per cent tax rate for investment in housing is already available to Australian investors. The MIT—
managed investment trust—
withholding tax rate applies to withholding tax that goes back to overseas investors—
Predators and parasites—
but foreign investors can also capital partner with Australian investors.
That is the most telling part of all. This bill would only change the tax treatment of foreign, predatory, multinational corporations. That’s all. There’s nothing for Australians. Australian companies could do it. Foreign companies pay a penalty—that’s a good thing. Yet the Labor Party of Australia would change that; you in the government would change that. Are Labor the party for Australia, or are they the party for global, foreign corporations? Build-to-rent answers that question clearly. Clearly Labor are for the foreign corporations like BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and First State. One Nation, though, is for Australians owning their own homes.
I’m going to do something a little unusual and quote extensively from the coalition senators’ dissenting report on the build-to-rent bills—an outstanding report. I hope you don’t mind, Senator Bragg. It goes to the very heart of what’s wrong with the new Labor Party:
Build to Rent has had minimal cut-through in Australia because our tax settings are designed to favour individual, ‘mum and dad’ investors, not institutions. That is appropriate.
This legislation seeks to tip the scales in favour of institutions through tax concessions, in order to make Build to Rent projects profitable for industry super funds and foreign fund managers. Labor thinks that institutions need a leg up over Australian first home buyers.
Why? The report continues:
Dr Murray was critical of the Bill’s attempted perversion of our tax arrangements:
It’s not clear to me why local investors shouldn’t be advantaged over foreign investors in Australian housing. I don’t see that there’s a good argument … for levelling the playing field there. It’s not clear to me, if the intention is to attract super funds into this, why owning your own home via your super fund and renting your own home from your super fund is better than owning your own home and using that money to buy what is the best asset to own in retirement.
That’s just like One Nation policy. The report goes on:
At the public hearing, the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (‘ASFA’) suggested that Australians would prefer Black Rock and Cbus be the nation’s landlords—
Really? You would?
and described mum and dad investors as undertaking a ‘hobby activity’—
How condescending; how arrogant—
Senator BRAGG: Do you think the Australian people want to rent their house from a super fund?
Mr Clare: I think that they would be very happy with institutionally owned residential property where there is an option of having longer-term tenancies rather than the more-typical-in-the-market situation where there is a lack of assurance of continuity of tenancy because it’s a small-scale, hobby activity for individual landlords.
The report continues:
This is the view of a vested interest. Most Australians would not agree with this proposal.
Other witnesses did not share ASFA’s view. Grounded Community Land Trust Advocacy told the Committee:
Senator BRAGG: Are you concerned that we are seeing a corporatisation of housing in Australia?
Mr Fitzgerald: Absolutely. This is delivering horrifying results in the Northern Hemisphere, and this legislation makes no account of that—
No account of what’s actually happening—
It perplexes me that this government, which purports to be in support of labour—
That is, workers—
is allowing rent-maximisation strategies to come through unabated. Yes, I agree: pushing mum-and-dad investors out of the housing market will result in less competition—
An oligopoly for the big fellas—
What we’re seeing in the Northern Hemisphere is a horrific new software program called YieldStar, which in Atlanta coordinates rental increases for 81 per cent of rental properties. The board of supervisors in San Francisco has now banned this as a monopolistic practice—
Yet you want to bring it in—
There’s just nothing in this legislation that even prepares us for what’s coming.
The report goes on:
The Housing Industry Association pointed to the importance of Australia’s housing market maintaining a focus on individual ownership.
Senator BRAGG: But isn’t it the case that the character of the housing market in Australia is largely focused on individuals? … Do you think that’s a good or a bad design feature?
Mr Reardon: I think that is a very positive outcome, with the association and connection with home and with location, and a sense of place and purpose—all of those dynamics.
This is reinforcing what we already know and what Senator Bragg has already discussed. Mr Reardon goes on:
All the evidence shows that people who own their own home are far less likely to be incarcerated and more likely to be gainfully employed. All of the evidence shows positive economic, social and cultural outcomes.
Personal responsibility is a cornerstone, a foundation of a safe and productive society. Personal responsibility enables and is the basis for a safe and productive society.
Senator Bragg’s report then says:
Australians are not interested in subsidising institutional investors. When asked what organisations would be the key beneficiaries of Build to Rent tax concessions, Treasury confirmed that foreign fund managers would be at the centre:
There are a lot of foreign investors using the MITs because of the withholding tax concessions and other benefits from using that structure, but there can also be domestic investors using the MITs; they just get a different tax regime. Those investors will be working in partnership with commercial developers to develop these buildings.
The report continues:
Cbus Super has previously committed to scaling up in the Build to Rent sector, announcing a plan to scale up its portfolio to approximately $2 billion in apartments.
Some of the most alarming evidence from the public hearing was that the passing of this Bill could see Australian taxpayers subsidising foreign governments in their investment in our housing market. Dr Murray warned:
I find it interesting because we’ve already even got foreign investment funds doing build to rent. What’s even funnier is that the largest one is a foreign government. We’ve got the Abu Dhabi Investment Council, who owns the Smith Collective on the Gold Coast, which is 1,251 build-to-rent dwellings, and we’re now proposing to offer them a better tax treatment for something they’re already doing—through a foreign government. I find that a bizarre outcome of this proposed bill.
It is bizarre. The report continues:
Approaches like Build to Rent endeavour to emulate the corporate housing model which has seen a downturn in the United States housing market.
Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US—
I will digress from Senator Bragg’s dissenting report for a minute. The bankers in the United States said in the 1920s that their dream was a combination of predatory behaviour and legislation to get a monopoly and own every house that they could in the country—to control people—because once people have their residence at stake, they are easily controlled. The report says:
Fund managers have become the predominant landlords in the US. According to the US Government Accountability Office (‘the GAO’), large institutional investors emerged following the global financial crisis, purchasing foreclosed homes at auction in bulk and converting them into rental housing.
In 2023, corporate housing funds held $1 trillion USD in assets. In Atlanta, Charlotte and Jacksonville, institutional investors own 25, 18 and 21 per cent of the rental stock respectively.
That is what you are wanting here. We don’t want it. The report continues:
This corporate housing model, in order to generate a return on investment for institutional investors, relies on individuals being locked into a cycle of perpetual renting—
This is exactly what we’ve been warning for the last five years. It continues:
There is a growing consensus in the US that this model has failed and is hurting prospective first home buyers. Lawmakers from both sides of politics are introducing legislation to limit institutional investment accordingly—
Watch what’s happening; this has failed—
While the US is moving away from corporate housing, the Australian Labor Party is forcing Australians into it.
Well, Senator Bragg, I’m not ashamed to admit we probably couldn’t have written it better ourselves; thank you.
Build-to-rent is an abomination that destroys the Australian dream of owning your own home. One Nation raised this cruel reality years ago. One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations.
An honourable senator interjecting—
Senator ROBERTS: Let’s see if you repeat that: One Nation rejects making Australians forever renters to a cartel of greedy foreign corporations, predatory parasitic corporations and parasitic predators driving the World Economic Forum and the United Nations agenda, on your conscience. All Australians should be able to work hard and one day own their own slice of this great, big, wonderful country with so much potential. Only One Nation has the policy to make this real for everyday Australians.
Australia watched the Treasurer turn the cabinet room into a stage for business and union bosses instead of using it for real cabinet deliberation. The roundtable wasn’t about shaping policy—it was about rubberstamping what the government had already decided. Their attempt to link productivity to higher taxes collapsed, and Australians are left wondering why this government keeps chasing revenue instead of fixing its spending problem.
One Nation will fight the Albanese government’s tax hikes and end the wasteful net zero transition that’s draining billions a year while driving private enterprise away. We will restore fiscal sanity by cutting unnecessary spending, imposing an eight-year residency requirement for Social Security, and cracking down on fraud in agencies such as Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS, and the PBS.
Smaller government and a sensible energy policy will deliver real productivity gains and prosperity for Australians—especially our young.
Transcript
Last week, Australia watched the Treasurer host business and union bosses in the cabinet room. The irony escaped the Treasurer—using the cabinet room to hold a policy debate cabinet itself should be doing. The usual suspects were not there to help form government policy; they were there to rubberstamp the policies the government intends to implement in this parliament. The roundtable even failed to achieve that. We know this because the ABC leaked the outcome of the week before. That communique remains in Treasurer Chalmers’s drawer, abandoned and unloved. The core intent—making productivity about taxation—failed.
One Nation will oppose the tax hike the Albanese government will still try to introduce to cover its growing financial black hole caused largely through the increasing use of taxpayer money to pay for a net zero transition from which private enterprise is walking away—indeed, running away. This government doesn’t need more revenue; it needs to spend less money. One Nation will abolish the net zero transition, saving the government $30 billion each year in direct expenditure and generating that much again in extra revenue from a revitalised economy. One Nation will impose an eight-year residency requirement on access to social security, taking tens of billions of dollars off the cost of Centrelink, Medicare, the NDIS and the PBS and giving auditors and police a chance to investigate and prosecute the rampant fraud. Net zero insanity, deficit spending and throwing cash at new arrivals are robbing our children of their future.
Smaller government and a sensible energy policy are where productivity improvements will actually come from. One Nation’s policies will restore wealth and prosperity for all who are here, especially our young. The Albanese government will just take your money and leave working Australians with less—much less. A One Nation government, though, will restore Australia.
I thank Senator McGrath for this motion, which One Nation supports. This government is flooding the country with new arrivals who need a bed to sleep in. Home construction is 500,000 homes behind, and this figure is not reducing; it’s growing. A sensible party would simply impose a moratorium on new buildings until housing catches up. That’s One Nation policy.
This, though, is not a sensible government nor an honest government. The roundtable received a proposal to force Australians with spare bedrooms to take in new arrivals or pay a penalty tax. Elderly Australians living in their family homes, with children moved out and bedrooms galore, are terrified of this idea. Current best practice is for the elderly to stay in their homes for as long as possible. Now they are to be turfed out through taxation and forced into retirement homes. In answer to my question on this topic to Minister Gallagher yesterday, I did hear a qualified denial. The minister did not rule the idea out, though; rather she used vague words like, ‘The proposal was not raised while I was in the room.’ Really? That’s not a clear statement. The idea must be dismissed and never considered again.
I would raise this simple question: what’s a bedroom? Does ‘bedroom’ mean any room that can be used to house a new arrival? Studies, rumpuses, garages turned into granny flats? Who will make these decisions? SBS, who promoted the idea, has clearly never watched Doctor Zhivago, a movie depicting life under Soviet rule, which depicted this very thing. The Soviets actually did this, so it’s an idea with precedent. Will the government include compulsion in addition to taxation? Will all those Australians who are buying their homes under Help to Buy or government guaranteed mortgages, who have the government as the shareholder or guarantor on the mortgage, be forced to comply? Will they? Who knows, because no-one is saying. They won’t deny it.
I call on the Prime Minister to rule out any new taxes on the family home, including land tax, bedroom tax and grave tax.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ON3w73M5OnU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-04 13:11:582025-11-04 13:12:08Hands Off Our Homes
I’m an immigrant, and I love this country deeply. Like many others who marched in the March for Australia, I came here legally, embraced the culture, and built a life as part of the Australian community—not separate from it. We weren’t born here, but we’re proud Australians.
What we’re standing up against isn’t immigration itself—it’s immigration without assimilation. We’re tired of politicians pushing mass immigration without thinking about the social and economic hardship it causes. We’re fed up with being called racist or hateful just for wanting to protect our way of life, our jobs, and our communities.
Australians aren’t against migrants — we’re against policies that prioritise foreign workers over Aussie ones, that erode secure employment, and that replace permanent jobs with insecure subcontracting. Labor used to stand for workers, but now they’ve abandoned the working class in favour of globalist agendas, predatory billionaires and their corporate interests.
The truth is diversity is not our strength. Our strength lies in people from all over the world with different backgrounds coming together as Australians, respecting our laws, values, and culture. That’s the Australia I believe in – the Australia I marched for. If you love this country, if you want to contribute and be part of a united Australia, then join us.
Transcript
Immigration without assimilation is an invasion.’ So read the T-shirt that a lovely, older immigrant lady wore in the Cairns March for Australia on Sunday. Many of the tens of thousands of Australians who marched for Australia on Sunday were not born here. Like me, they’re immigrants. I spoke with marchers from all over the world, of every religion and skin colour. They are wonderful Australians who came here as migrants legally, who love this country and who have built a life in Australia, not on top of it—not those who impose their religion, their culture, their intolerance and their perpetual hate onto Australians and who marchers rightly criticised. Marchers criticised politicians and others who hate this country so much that they seek to flood Australia with like-minded arrivals to destroy our culture and to carve off religious and ethnic enclaves in order to divide us. The Australian public are not against immigrants. We’ve had a gutful of excessive, mass immigration—a simple distinction that the unhinged rants from Greens and Labor senators yesterday were designed to cover up. I appreciate the far left in this country have disappeared up their own nobility complex and have completely abandoned any pretence of democracy, decency or civil discourse. Vile, unhinged abuse devoid of facts—indeed, devoid of any relevance to the motion I presented yesterday—doesn’t work on One Nation. It doesn’t work on our supporters and it doesn’t work on those who attended the many marches for Australia. Our beautiful country can embrace and lift up only so many people before the economic and social costs cause the elastic of society to snap back, which is the process you’re watching with confused looks on your faces and fear in your eyes.
The immigration debate is not an argument about someone’s past nationality, religion or skin colour. It’s an argument about wealth, opportunity and security. Former Labor prime minister Julia Gillard knew this to be true. In an address to the University of Western Sydney in March 2013, then prime minister Gillard promised Labor would ‘stop foreign workers being put at the front of the queue, with Australian workers at the back’. She said:
We will support your job and put Aussie workers first.
What a difference 10 years makes! Now those foreign workers are being advanced to the front using DEI, and Australian workers are being told not to apply. Often, the application is not even for a job with secure employment, an award or guaranteed conditions. In the new Australia, jobs are now a subcontracting arrangement requiring an Australian Business Number, an ABN. A microbusiness with a single customer—the same business which used to employ Australians on permanent employment, with awards protecting wages and working conditions—is no more. In just 10 years, the Greens have pushed Labor so far to the left they have abandoned their working-class base, embracing a UN/World Economic Forum sustainability agenda which gives their members less and foreign, predatory billionaires more.
It’s no surprise that marches included members of the AWU, the CFMEU, the ETU and other unions who’ve seen their wealth, opportunity and place in Australia be reduced. Labor has failed to defend Australian workers from employment arrangements that destroy the standard of living of everyday Australians. Instead of listening to the public, rightly complaining, Labor came into this place yesterday and ranted against One Nation. They name-called, lied and misrepresented out of confusion and fear. One Nation has a message for this government: go back to your masters at the World Economic Forum, go back to your owners—the world’s predatory billionaires—and tell them Australia has had enough. We’re not going to be ground zero for your evil plan to tear apart Australian society, culture and cohesion and rebuild in the image of the World Economic Forum. Everyday Australians want our country back. Our success is inevitable because our Australia, built on family, on community and, yes, on national pride, is paradise compared to your ugly vision of a society based on an ever-changing agenda relying on intimidation and bullying.
Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam found that the greater the diversity in a community the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and the less they work on community projects. A massive new study based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America supports those who marched on Sunday. In the most diverse communities, neighbours trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogeneous settings. The study found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. Ask the five tight monocultures—Japan, Taiwan, China, South Korea and Singapore. Diversity is not our strength. Our strength is Australians who’ve come here from all over the world, with different races and religions providing different perspectives on life, working together as a community of Australians old and new. One Nation welcomes anyone who loves our country, who wants to join in and who wants to pull their weight, follow our laws and, in so doing, lift themselves up. If that’s the Australia you love, please join One Nation and help us reverse the decline of our beautiful country.
During this session of Estimates, I asked questions on the COVID vaccine redress scheme. By the closing date, 4962 claims had been lodged, yet only 522 have been paid—amounting to $50.9 million. A large portion of applications were rejected, withdrawn, or remain under assessment, with 722 still in progress. I pressed for details on why so many were refused, and it was confirmed that hospitalisation was a key eligibility criteria, a policy set by the Department of Health.
I questioned why compensation offers under the COVID vaccine redress scheme are so small, given the evidence of significant harm suffered by claimants that included lifelong disability. Mr Turnbull responded that this question should be directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, as the compensation policy and parameters are set by them, not by Services Australia. While Services Australia administers the scheme, they advised that payout levels and eligibility rules are dictated by the Department.
Mr Turnbull stated that he did not have the average payout figure on hand and would take that question on notice. However, he explained that payouts are calculated based on various categories of loss, including specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, and pain and suffering. Additionally, lump-sum payments are available for claims involving death.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending tonight. How many applications for redress were received by the COVID vaccine redress scheme before the closing-down date?
Mr Turnbull: We received 4,962 claims by the closing date.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many were successful?
Mr Turnbull: To date, 522 claims have been paid, to the value of $50.9 million.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. How many applications were refused. Was that the rest of them, or were some partially paid?
Mr Turnbull: Of the remaining, 2,670 were not payable, 1,048 were withdrawn and there are 722 claims at different parts of the assessment process.
Senator ROBERTS: What was the most common reason for being refused?
Mr Turnbull: We assess each claim against the criteria—for example, the different vaccines that are eligible, the different conditions—
Senator ROBERTS: They’re all covered?
Mr Turnbull: Yes. I’d have to check what the most common reason is, but—
Senator ROBERTS: Can you take that on notice, please.
Mr Turnbull: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: One of the criteria to be satisfied, apparently, is that the applicant needed to be hospitalised. Is that correct?
Mr Turnbull: I believe so, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is that?
Mr Turnbull: We don’t set the policy. If you’re asking about the particular policy parameters of the scheme, those questions are better directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. They set the policy parameters, and they’ll have their rationale for that. Our role is to then administer the payment against the criteria that they set.
CHAIR: Senator Roberts, this session is really just on the service delivery aspects.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. How many complaints have been made about claims being rejected—appeals, I guess.
Mr Turnbull: We would need to take that on notice. What I can tell you is that we do have a review process. For example, at the moment we have 144 claims that are undergoing a review of the decision. The agency has also finalised 161 review decisions. That gives an indication of the total number who, having received the assessment—
Senator ROBERTS: The agency has reviewed them? They’ve already reviewed them?
Mr Turnbull: There are 144 that are being reviewed. There are 161 where the review process has been finalised.
Senator ROBERTS: How many applications are still being processed?
Mr Turnbull: There are 722 applications still being processed. They’re at different stages of that assessment process. Of the 722, there are 221 with Services Australia at the moment for assessment, there are 344 claims where we are requesting further information from the applicant to support the claim, there are 103 claims with an expert panel—that’s either an expert medical panel or an expert legal panel—and there’s another group, which is 54 claims, where we’ve made an offer and the applicant has six months to decide whether or not to accept that offer. That’s the break-up of the 722 on hand.
CHAIR: I’ll get you to wrap up, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. What’s the average payout that has been made, and how are payouts calculated?
Mr Turnbull: I don’t have the average payout with me. We would need to take that on notice. Payouts are calculated based on a range of categories of loss—for example, specified out-of-pocket expenses, lost earnings, paid and gratuitous care, loss of capacity to provide domestic services, pain and suffering. There are also lumpsum payments for claims involving death.
Senator ROBERTS: Last question—very simple. Why are the offers of compensation so small, taking into account proof of the significant damage that complainants have suffered, including some being crippled for life— debilitated for life?
Mr Turnbull: I think that particular question is best directed to the Department of Health, Disability and Ageing because it relates back to the policy.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/5DTGK-6VenM/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-11-03 08:21:292025-11-03 08:21:36COVID Vaccine Compensation: Why So Little for Lifelong Harm?
“I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around XX and XY ….”
— Australia’s Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during Senate Estimates.
How can you advise the court on sex-based rights if you don’t understand the science? Seriously!
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’d now like to go to Dr Cody, and the intervention in Tickle v Giggle, please. Thank you for appearing, Dr Cody. Tickle v Giggle is the case of someone who was born a biological male being stopped from joining a women-only app. What are you arguing in your intervention? How much are you being paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men to be allowed into women’s spaces?
Dr Cody: The role that we have within the case Giggle and Tickle is intervention, or amicus curiae: helping the court to understand the interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the amendments from 2013, and also how the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women applies, whether or not there are special measures, and their understanding of section 5 and section 7 of the Sex Discrimination Act. We were given leave by the court to assist them to understand those issues and also the constitutionality of the Sex Discrimination Act. In terms of the cost, we have two counsel who were briefed. Both agreed to appear on a capped fee basis, so that’s a reduced fee. One was paid $13,000, and the other one was paid $10,000.
Senator ROBERTS: What I actually asked, Dr Cody, was how much are you paid by the taxpayers to go in and bat for biological born and developed men?
Dr Cody: My salary is similar to that that you mentioned for Commissioner Sivaraman.
Senator ROBERTS: About $400,000 a year, plus 15.4 per cent super?
Dr Cody: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Just so I can be clear, your position is that the law means a biological man who identifies as a transgender woman can enter a female-only space?
Dr Cody: I would question whether or not Roxanne Tickle is not a man. She is a trans woman. She has gone through various processes and has transitioned, and she’s a trans woman. So she has access—or sought access and was provided access—to the Giggle for Girls app, and then was taken off the access to the Giggle for Girls app.
Senator ROBERTS: What sort of chromosomes does she have—XX or XY?
Dr Cody: I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: You can’t?
Dr Cody: No, I can’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Wow. Can someone who was born with XY chromosomes change to XX chromosomes—a male change to a female?
Dr Cody: I don’t believe so, but I’m not a scientist. There are many variations of chromosomes. There are hormonal variations, there are chromosomal variations, there are genitalia variations—there are a lot of variations which are along a spectrum.
Senator ROBERTS: Would you agree that a piece of legislation can’t change a person’s sex—if born a man, they are a man; if they’re born with XY chromosomes, they’re a man and they stay a man?
Dr Cody: No, I would not agree.
Senator ROBERTS: You don’t agree? If a woman took a case to court today trying to stop a person with a penis who identified as a female going into a women’s bathroom, which side would you be arguing for if you were there as a friend of the court?
Dr Cody: No. I would need to know more facts. I can’t make a judgement on that in particular.
Senator ROBERTS: Coming back to your previous answer, you talked about XX and XY and how you didn’t really know the answer. How can you make a decision on sex?
Dr Cody: The issue around me not being able to identify whether someone has XX or XY is because I haven’t tested them. I’m not a scientist. That’s not my area of expertise.
Senator ROBERTS: If a person was born male, that’s XY. Someone born female is XX.
Dr Cody: Not always.
Senator ROBERTS: No?
Dr Cody: No.
Senator ROBERTS: Can you give me an example of when not?
Dr Cody: Because there are also people who have innate variations of sex characteristics, so they may be identified as male at birth, but in fact later find out that they have XY chromosomes or XX chromosomes. So it is more complex than just XX being female and XY being male.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll agree with that, but it’s a very, very tiny proportion of the population. Someone who was born a man, a boy, has XY chromosomes and cannot change to XX—is that correct?
Dr Cody: If their chromosomes are XY, then I don’t believe their chromosomes can change. But, I repeat, I’m not a scientist, so I haven’t studied whether or not they can change it.
Senator ROBERTS: So, if you’re not a scientist, how do you know which side to take in a court case?
Dr Cody: I’m not taking a side within a court case. Our role is as amicus—that is, to provide clarification and help to the court in understanding the legal issues that are in dispute.
Senator ROBERTS: So how can you clarify if you don’t understand?
Dr Cody: I understand the law. What I don’t understand is the science around the XX and XY, unless the evidence is before the court. So my role is to assist the court with understanding the legal argument.
Senator ROBERTS: On my reading of what you’ve said in Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Roxanne Tickle, the position on biological males in female spaces seems pretty clear at the Human Rights Commission. Could you explain?
Dr Cody: What would you like me to explain, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: What your position is.
Dr Cody: On which issue?
Senator ROBERTS: The Human Rights Commission’s position on biological males in female spaces. Could you please explain your position on that.
Dr Cody: What do you mean by ‘biological males’, Senator?
Senator ROBERTS: Someone born as a male, XY chromosomes.
Dr Cody: If they are a man, and depending on which space they are wanting to enter and why that space has been created—if it’s a special measure, for example, for ensuring the quality of women—then there may be good reason to exclude men from that space.
Senator ROBERTS: What would be some of the reasons?
Dr Cody: For safety reasons, for example.
Senator ROBERTS: What sorts of safety reasons?
Dr Cody: There is certainly a reason why men would be excluded from a domestic violence refuge for women.
Senator ROBERTS: Female prison?
Dr Cody: Female prisons are also made for women, and therefore men would be excluded from a women’s prison.
