Since its inception in July 2023, the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC) has spent over $140 million of taxpayer money. Yet, despite having more powers and more staff than its predecessor, the results so far are underwhelming: just one conviction, two simple investigations, and ten historical cases carried over from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity. That’s a staggering cost for such limited outcomes.
I acknowledge that corruption investigations are complex and take time—but Australians deserve transparency and accountability, especially when such vast sums are being spent. The fact that the Commissioner won’t front up to answer questions only raises more concerns. Taxpayers have a right to know how their money is being used, and I’ll keep asking the hard questions until we get the answers.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Since being established in July 2023, the NACC has spent north of $140 million of taxpayer funds. Correct me if I’m wrong, but with more powers and more staff this time, the NACC has concluded one prosecution, 10 historical investigations from the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, two NACC initiated simple investigations, with one conviction—is that correct?
Mr Reed: At the moment—
Senator ROBERTS: One hundred and forty million.
Mr Reed: the commission has 38 corruption investigations underway, and 12 of those are joint investigations. We’ve got 33 preliminary investigations, which are part of the assessment process. We finalised 10 investigations, nine when it became clear that corrupt conduct would not be found and one where a corruption finding was made in a report provided to the minister, which is one of the matters that I put in my opening address. We’ve assessed 5,103 referrals. That’s 84 per cent of the 6,055 that have come in. So the NACC is a very busy organisation. The investigations of corrupt conduct are complex. They take time, and any organisation like this will take more than two years, usually, to complete investigations. What I said in my opening address was that, as the commission enters this next phase—this third year of operations—complex investigations will reach completion, and the commission’s operational achievements will gradually become more visible. That’s the reality of a new organisation picking up a significant workload, picking up a workload from a predecessor organisation and having to complete that work at the same time as dealing with the referrals that have come through. It’s not a straightforward, simple exercise, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: I didn’t say that.
Mr Reed: These are complex matters.
Senator ROBERTS: But $140 million in two years, plus a commissioner who won’t front and be held accountable to taxpayers, raises many questions.
Mr Reed: The annual appropriations are on the record. They were agreed to as part of the forward estimates before the NACC commenced. We’re still recruiting people into roles. The fact that the commissioner is not here is not a lack of accountability; it’s the accountable authority that you’ve got sitting in this chair, and it’s the accountable authority who is expected to be at estimates. I don’t see that there’s anything wrong with the commissioner not being here.
During this Estimates session, I raised questions regarding the management of Lyme Disease. Unfortunately, my concerns appeared to fall on deaf ears. I was repeatedly told the same narrative—that there is no evidence of Lyme Disease existing in Australia—and it was evident that the so-called “experts” had no interest in exploring this issue further.
There was no substantive response to my request for a comprehensive epidemiological study to be done on tick-borne diseases, nor was there any acknowledgment given of the many individuals living with poorly diagnosed and inadequately treated tick-related illnesses.
The remainder of my questions will be submitted on notice, with the hope of receiving detailed and meaningful responses.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to build on questions from earlier tonight and turn to Lyme disease. For several decades, the risk of harm from tick-borne diseases has been recorded, published, reported and presented to the department of health and the ministers’ offices and advisers at the time. Some of this has even been done through the government’s own infectious disease bulletins. Doctors are verifying Lyme disease—we’ve heard that anecdotally—in Australia. I’m going to talk later about epidemiological studies and records that the department has. In the meantime, could you please specify the dates and events when evidence of the harm of tick-borne diseases has been presented to the department and the actions that have been undertaken to protect Australians historically. You can take it on notice if you like.
Ms Quilty: We’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I acknowledge that in 2016 and 2025 we had very limited Senate inquiries into Lyme disease and tick-borne diseases. The terms of reference were very vague and the recommendations were vague. I’m going to ask about the implementation. But at least the term ‘tick-borne diseases’ was recognised. We still don’t know the full extent and the nature of the entire tick-borne disease problem. Why haven’t these tick-borne disease infections been quantified with a study of the population in the form of a human epidemiological study? There are a lot of people suffering.
Senator Green: We’ve answered quite a lot of these questions before.
Senator ROBERTS: Not these exact—
Senator Green: No, but a study has been done. Anyway, I’ll let the officials answer. We’re just going back over—
Senator ROBERTS: Has an epidemiological study been done?
Senator Green: Not one of those types, but—
Ms Quilty: I’m happy to be corrected, but we’ll take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: As far as you know, no studies have been done epidemiologically.
Ms Quilty: Not that I’m aware of.
Senator ROBERTS: Why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results of thousands of test results for tickborne disease?
Mr Martin: I’m not aware of the data you refer to being withheld. Some of the tickborne diseases are notifiable, and we do collect information on those. I think one of the challenges is that there are a range of conditions which patients believe may be caused by ticks but, as I’ve mentioned in an earlier answer, there’s not necessarily evidence that the pathogen that would cause that disease is present in Australia. I think that it’s challenging to collect information where we don’t have that causal pathway—
Senator ROBERTS: Have you been given or have you collected samples?
Mr Martin: Samples of?
Senator ROBERTS: Infection.
Mr Martin: There are established diagnostic tests for different tickborne diseases.
Mr Comley: I think the evidence that was tendered earlier was that the bacteria that cause the Lyme disease have not been detected in Australia. It’s not that there aren’t people who contract it overseas and come here. There is also evidence that there are other tickborne diseases that are present in Australia, but not Lyme disease—for the bacteria that’s required to be the cause of the disease.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll say it again: I don’t understand the exact health system, but why is the Public Health Laboratory Network’s own diagnosis data being ignored with these diseases when they hold the results for thousands of tests for tickborne disease? Why is that being an ignored? What’s been done with it? What’s going to be done with it?
Mr Comley: I think we’re struggling to describe which laboratories you are talking about. Can you provide evidence of that. We’re happy to take on notice whether there is any evidence of that effect in Australia. I think the evidence tendered earlier in this estimate session was that there wasn’t such evidence in Australia, but we’re happy to take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m told that there is evidence held by the Public Laboratory Network’s own data.
Mr Comley: We’ll take that on notice, unless the CMO would like to comment.
Prof. Kidd: Senator, there is evidence of tickborne infectious diseases that people have contracted in Australia. There are a number of those infections which are recorded, for which people are tested: some of the Rickettsial infections, Queensland tick typhus, Flinders Island spotted fever, Australian spotted fever, Q fever—due to Coxiella burnetii. There’s data on each of these particular tickborne diseases, which will be in our laboratory systems and which are brought together. The issue about Lyme disease—we’ve talked about that before.
Senator ROBERTS: I am told that hospitals have discharge records, with some stating tickborne illness, Lyme disease, Babesia, rickets, Bartonella et cetera, yet accurate and reliable testing for all these diseases in Australia does not occur. Are you able to provide a quantification of this? This is a public health threat.
Prof. Kidd: I think we’ll need to take that on notice from the PHLN.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand. Why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases—as part of the responsibility of the Department of Health from the 2016 Senate inquiry—be done to complete an epidemiological study? Can you take that on notice?
Ms Quilty: Yes, we have.
Mr Martin: We can. I think it might take me a moment to find it, but I think the government’s response to the most recent inquiry—
Senator ROBERTS: It’s very vague.
Mr Martin: It does go into the feasibility of—it is not feasible, necessarily, to collect data on everyone who may have been bitten by a tick in Australia. We do have a system around notifiable diseases, where that is nationally collected and reported upon for particular pathogens. I can take it on notice and provide further information on some of those practicalities.
Senator ROBERTS: We’ve got readily available tickborne disease testing panels in Australia for livestock and domestic animals, especially for exports, I’m told. We don’t want to hurt people overseas. Veterinarians know that sometimes it’s necessary for animals that are sick with tickborne disease to be put down. The question raised is: are we doing nothing about humans? Are we going to start putting humans down? That’s pretty far-fetched, of course, but I’m saying that there are lots and lots of people who are sick and crippled a bit and nothing seems to be done.
Senator Green: I understand, but perhaps you could put a question to the officials that they can answer for you.
Senator ROBERTS: On my frustration.
Senator Green: You can express your frustration in the Senate chamber next year.
Senator ROBERTS: I don’t have Lyme disease, but I know people who have, and I know people who’ve got tickborne diseases, and there’s been no epidemiological study done. This has been going on for decades.
Senator Green: I understand. There have been inquiries, responses to those inquiries and the officials have answered your questions.
Senator ROBERTS: I know you, Senator Green. You would not be proud of the studies that have been done in the 2016 Senate inquiry.
Senator Green: I’m very aware of the inquiries. I know that a lot of good senators from this place have been involved in those inquiries and have taken evidence from people who are affected, and the government’s responded to those inquiries.
Senator ROBERTS: I say again: why can’t the study of this data for all vector-borne diseases be part of the responsibility of the department of health and be done to complete an epidemiological study? You’ve taken that on notice.
Senator Green: We’ve taken that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’m early this time.
CHAIR: You are early this time. I’m very grateful for that. Senator Liddle.
At Estimates, I asked Professor Adriana Platona why the Australian Government and CSL took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Hepatitis C – as it later became known as. That question was left unanswered.
I asked why, even after safer 80-degree heat-treated products were available in the UK from 1985 for both Factor VIII and Factor IX, Australia continued to allow hepatitis-infected factor concentrates to be used—until 1990 for Factor VIII and 1993 for Factor IX. That question, along with five others, was taken on notice.
I made it clear: a Royal Commission is warranted. The government has failed to deliver justice to victims, unlike the toothless 2004 inquiry that achieved nothing.
Victims of this scandal deserve answers. They deserve to know why they were infected.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll start with the National Blood Authority and tainted blood. These questions are from constituents. In the UK, from 1985, factor concentrates began to be heat-treated at 80 degrees for 72 hours. That’s in Britain. Australia, though, chose to go with an alternative heat treatment method of 60 degrees for 72 hours, which at the time was considered to be a method to inactivate HIV, although it was noted that it was not likely that the 60-degree method of heat treatment would inactivate Non-A, Non-B hepatitis, which came to be known as hepatitis C. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories take the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilia patients to receive a product that would likely infect them with Non-A, Non-B hepatitis—hepatitis C?
Professor Platona: Thank you, Senator, for your question. Australia has one of the safest blood systems in the world, and the testing for hepatitis C and HIV was introduced in Australia much sooner than it was in the UK. So the situation between Australia and the UK is not comparable. In 2004, there was an extensive inquiry into hepatitis C and the blood supply in Australia. Many of the questions that you have raised were discussed extensively around April 2004. People have provided submissions, testimonials. There was an extensive inquiry at the time. Many of these issues were discussed extensively at the time.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Professor. We’ll get to those points in a minute. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—by the way, you didn’t answer my question as to why the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories took the unacceptable risk of allowing its haemophilic patients to receive a product that would likely infect them. So I’ll move on to the second question. Why did the Australian government and the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories—and these questions, by the way, are from people who have had their lives damaged seriously—continue to allow patients to receive hepatitis infected factor concentrates, all the way up until 1990 for factor 8 and, unbelievably, 1993 for factor 9, when the UK were receiving the safer 80-degree treated product for both factor 8 and factor 9 concentrates since 1985? So we were five years behind and eight years behind.
Professor Platona: That is not my understanding of the fact. I would be very happy to check those facts for you and provide that on notice, with reference to the material submitted in 2004.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I’ve got five questions on notice in the interest of speed. Minister, these questions relate to events that occurred long ago—I acknowledge that—yet they still impact and kill victims today. There are people with their lives damaged seriously. That’s precisely why we need a royal commission into what occurred. The government cannot produce the answers that the victims deserve. These people are deeply upset, deservedly so—not deservedly so, but rightly so. We need a thorough investigation where people are compelled to give evidence and answer questions under oath, unlike the 2004 Senate inquiry which has been described as a toothless inquiry by prominent lawyer Des Collins, who was heavily involved in the UK infected blood inquiry. We don’t accept the 2004 Senate inquiry. Minister, don’t you think the victims of this scandal deserve answers as to what occurred and why they were infected?
Senator Green: I don’t think that’s an appropriate question that I can answer for you other than to say that the constituents’ issues that you raise continually in this committee are valid and that the officials have provided you, I think, very reasonable and factual advice. I don’t have any information that I can give you other than what the officials have given you. You’re very entitled to come here and advocate for your constituents and their concerns, but I don’t have any other advice I can give you.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/c3-Ut1EHZXQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-08 18:24:072025-12-08 18:24:13Blood on Their Hands: Victims Still Wait for Answers
FOI requests, and the information they reveal, are an important element of Senate Estimates. In the past, a reference to the FOI number would prompt a staff member to appear with the relevant information to enable discussion. At the start of my question, a staff member approached the table with their laptop open—most likely with the FOI document displayed—so that system still exists. Nonetheless, Professor Lawler avoided discussing the FOI.
Some Senators provide their questions in advance so the FOI can be ready, however this also gives the witness time to prepare an evasive answer and removes the possibility of an unguarded admission. The point of my question was simple: the TGA’s own guidelines—which the FOI meeting notes confirmed—state that single-use medicines and vaccines should not contain preservatives. That unguarded admission is exactly what I was referring to. Professor Lawler stated that preservatives relate to multi-dose vaccines, not single-dose vaccines.
This is the argument I will make moving forward. At the last Estimates, I reviewed data that clearly linked preservatives in vaccines with autism. Single-use vaccines do not contain preservatives (or should not). Why don’t we immediately return to administering vaccines in single-use doses that are certified and tested as preservative and contaminant free? Then we can monitor autism cases in real time.
Many mothers have told me their child’s autism began the day after their shots. This approach would quickly show us whether there is a link in the real world. Let’s take a simple, immediate step to address this issue, and then conduct a full review of vaccine safety and efficacy.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I reference freedom of information 26-2122, released 30 September 2025. It’s weirdly specific: the minutes of the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. I think that’s part of the TGA. Is that correct?
Mr Comley: That sounds to me like PBAC.
Prof. Lawler: Can I clarify which committee you referenced?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes: the pharmaceutical subcommittee of the advisory committee on prescriptions. They’ll be coming to the TGA pretty soon.
Prof. Lawler: No. We have a number of advisory committees, but we don’t have an advisory committee on prescriptions. We have an advisory committee on medicines and an advisory committee on vaccines.
Senator ROBERTS: Perhaps if I give you the question you might be able to tell me. Held on 24 March 2015 and regarding the matter of preservatives in single-use injections, the meeting concluded: … single-use injections should be preservative-free. … if an ingredient is added for a reason other than use as a preservative, then the sponsor should provide scientific justification for inclusion at that concentration. Is this guideline still current?
Prof. Lawler: I must admit I don’t have that document in front of me, so I’m finding it hard to respond to that on the fly.
Senator ROBERTS: You can take it on notice.
Prof. Lawler: I’m happy to do that. The best I can take it is that we look to preservatives predominantly for multi-use vials because, obviously, there’s a period between them being used first—but I’m happy to take that on notice and come back to you.
Senator ROBERTS: It sounds like the answer to the question, ‘Is this guideline still current?’ is correct, but I’m not going to hold it to you. Thank you for that. The next questions, possibly also on notice, are: have you allowed any single-use injection product to contain preservatives, and were all of those approvals compliant with your own guidelines?
Prof. Lawler: Again, given the first question, I’m happy to respond to that on notice, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: And could you provide the list of any that were approved. If you have allowed single-use injections to contain preservatives, why did you make the change to allow preservatives when your expert committee opposed the idea?
Prof. Lawler: My understanding is that the committee you’re referencing—what was the date of the—
Senator ROBERTS: It was 24 March 2015—probably before your time.
Prof. Lawler: It was well before my time. That is an older committee. I think, in the interest of providing you with a comprehensive response, we’d be happy to roll those up into one response, if that’s alright.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d just like to know if it’s still current.
Prof. Lawler: Absolutely.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know this too: Which multidose vaccines contain preservatives? Have you obtained safety data to show those preservatives are safe at the levels used?
Prof. Lawler: There are a number of branches across the TGA and also, potentially, ATAGI to which those questions apply.
Senator ROBERTS: Sure.
Dr Pengilley: To the best of my knowledge, the only use of preservatives in multi-use vials is for pandemic vaccines, and that, at the moment, is the influenza ones; COVID, just for clarity, doesn’t contain preservatives. We haven’t—
Senator ROBERTS: It does or doesn’t contain—
Dr Pengilley: Does not. I probably can’t go into applications we have and haven’t had, but, as far as I know, we haven’t registered a preservative-containing pandemic vaccine—say, an H5N1 vaccine.
Senator Watt has circulated an edited version of my exchange with the Special Envoy to Combat Islamophobia, which omits a large part of the discussion. This is the full exchange.
I asked the new Islamophobia Envoy about a report he delivered to the Government a few months ago which, in One Nation’s view, whitewashed Islamic terrorism and Sharia Law, while advocating for the suppression of criticism under the guise of stamping out Islamophobia. We have seen how this same approach in the UK has resulted in 65 Sharia law courts and the development of a parallel society between Islamic and Christian citizens—where criticism of Christianity is permitted, but criticism of Islam is not.
The Envoy lectures on Sharia Law at the University of Technology, so he should be well aware of its provisions and its incompatibility with Australian and Western civilisation.
One Nation will oppose Sharia Law and the development of parallel societies within Australia.
— Senate Estimates | December 2025
Transcript (Draft)
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Malik for appearing on notice. Could you please tell me how many staff you have? What is your annual budget and how much of that budget did you report titled A National Response to Islamophobia cost?
Senator Shoebridge: Good luck with that.
Mr Malik: So in regards to budget, I can take that on notice. I don’t have that at hand. In regards to staff, I began recruitment for my own staff from my office once the federal election results have been made clear. Up until that point I have been using or utilising the support of the Envoy Support team. Home Affairs did however provide me two staff full time staff, one of them is an office manager and the other is a communication Support officer. So they have been dedicated towards me, supporting me in social media, website management, proofreading, graphic design, printing and basically ensuring that my day to day affairs are in order.
Senator ROBERTS: What do you how many staff do you expect to have?
Mr Malik: I have recruited for five staff. I’m hoping to close. I’m finalising interviews for the final member of staff.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, thank you. Your report, a national response to Islamophobia, does not mention Sharia yet. Sharia law, should it be allowed in Australia, would replace Australian law, Australian courts, police and governance. How can you talk about opposition to Islam without addressing the elephant in the room?
Mr Malik: Sharia law? I don’t believe it is an elephant in the room. I mean, my role is to understand the reverse of that. My role is to understand what have been the impacts of the past 25 years upon Muslim communities who are facing the brunt of discrimination, marginalisation, exclusion. And so my job is to really understand that the question you raise is, is a good question because it highlights the misconception around Sharia law. A statement I made in the House of Parliament at the end of July was that when people talk about Sharia law, it’s always good to ask them what do they mean by Sharia law. So there tends to be different understandings of Sharia law. And I further said that most Muslims would be, would be difficult for them to address one of the principles of one of the five principles of Sharia law. So, a good question which highlights a challenge and which I hope to address in the coming months.
Senator ROBERTS: Your report – thank you. Your report does not include a definition of Islamophobia, but then makes more than 50 recommendations to solve the thing you haven’t defined. How can you call for extensive legislation and a large bureaucracy to combat something you can’t or don’t define?
Mr Malik: So the report does address that on the first page. It’s 54 recommendations. And there’s an argument amongst academics to how to define this term called Islamophobia. What academics are not disagreeing about are the impacts of this prejudice or hatred or racism. And one of the things I wanted to avoid is to avoid falling into the pits that Great Britain has fallen in and that is an annual conversation around the definition of Islamophobia masks all along the repercussions of this phenomenon of being ill advised or not being addressed. And so what I do say however, is in the Commission of inquiry I do ask whether or not Australia requires a definition of Islamophobia in the Australian context and whether that will hinder or progress the cause.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, Mr Malik’s report does not accept that people who may have a legitimate concern about Islam. For instance, the report does not mention ISIS, al Qaeda, nor does it mention that the latest briefing provided by the provided to the Senate by the ASIO Director General Mike Burgess showed 25 of Australia’s 29 prescribed terrorist organisations are Islamic based organisations. It seems that he’s simply redefining a factual and logical and genuine concern about Islamic terrorism as Islamophobia. Minister, how would measures designed to combat Islamophobia differ from measures to combat anti Semitism or the growing anti Christian hate coming from the hard left? Surely the words and actions directed to one group or the other would not differ in their legal implications.
Minister Watt: Well, Senator Roberts told you …
Mr Malik: …
Minister Watt: I think that question was to me.
Senator ROBERTS: Yeah, it was.
Minister Watt: Senator Roberts, I haven’t followed the work of either special envoy terribly closely. I’ve certainly followed media reporting of the work that both special envoys have done and I think that’s really valuable work at a time when social cohesion is deeply at risk in Australia because of the activities and language of a range of extreme groups in the community. And the last time I looked, Mr Aftab’s role was to advocate for the needs of Muslim Australians, particularly in the face of gross Islamophobia that has been going on in our country. Just as Miss Siegel has been engaged to advocate for the needs of Jewish Australians at a time when we are seeing gross anti Semitism in our country. And I would encourage you and other members of your party to think about that Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, all of the three: anti-Christian, anti-Semitism and anti-Islamophobia are religion-based hate. They’re not anti-religion.
Chair: Thank you.
Minister Watt: I don’t really know what point you’re making …
Senator ROBERTS: I know you don’t.
Minister Watt: But I have to answer questions from you and your colleagues on a regular basis in the Senate chamber, which I would describe as Islamophobic. So I would I would encourage you to think very carefully about the sorts of questions and sorts of statements that you and your colleagues make in the public domain at a time when we are seeing social cohesion under threat and when we are seeing at a time when we are seeing the rise of neo Nazis and other extremists with whom you sometimes associate. And you should think about that.
Senator ROBERTS: False.
Chair: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: I do not associate with neo-Nazis.
Minister Watt: ??? experience.
Senator ROBERTS: But let me tell you. You make comments about – let me tell you my comments are about pro Australia. I put Australia first -pro Australia.
Minister Watt: Well, you have your view of what Australia is …
Senator ROBERTS: We want unity.
Minister Watt: And it’s out of step with the majority of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: My party’s name is One Nation because we believe in unity.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/BcadgTrR71g/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-04 11:10:252025-12-04 11:10:44One Nation, One Law
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our Bill – silenced.
They called it ‘a stunt’.
They being the hypocritical globalists in the Senate, the media mouthpieces waiting at the doors, and the predatory activists desperate for something to be outraged about.
The stunt being Senator Pauline Hanson’s decision to wear a burqa in the Chamber, which has brought the suffocation of our democracy to the public’s attention.
Since being delivered a majority – despite the lowest primary vote in history – Labor has made little effort to maintain Parliament’s veneer of debate.
Their deals with the Greens have allowed Bills to be rushed into law. Dissent is silenced by shuffling One Nation speakers to the bottom of the list and then cutting the speeches right before One Nation were about to speak – as happened to us on the controversial Environmental Protection and Reform Bill. Inquisitions are being staged where ‘concern for truth and safety’ are brandished as a way to enforce censorship.
Rapidly, Parliament has devolved into a protection racket for the worst policy imaginable.
When democracy is denied, ‘stunts’ become the best way to signal the alarm.
Big state politics thrives on bureaucracy. Its defenders pretend their air of ‘superiority’ and ‘maturity’ equals sensible policy when – really – they are performing the same role as a million pages of bureaucratic bullshit holding down the truth.
Boredom, bureaucracy, and silence. That is how democracy dies.
Politics was never meant to perform with the mannerisms of a hospital coffee shop or library foyer.
The Senate was not envisioned as a stuffy room.
When we consider political speeches that changed the world, they were not monologues in praise of moderation. They were brave. Indeed, the moment that won Donald Trump the election was when he rose from the stage, fist raised, shouting, ‘Fight! Fight! Fight!’
‘In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.’ – George Orwell
‘Truth’ is exactly what Pauline Hanson was seeking.
When a Muslim woman is forced – either by her family, society, or self-imposed culture – to cover herself in a piece of black a cloth banned in over 20 countries, she is invisible.
When a Western woman with red hair and a knee-length dress does the same, the oppression is instantly visible. It is uncomfortable. We see ourselves – the West – treading the edge of religious oppression.
Wearing the burqa in the Senate was an act of truth-telling.
‘Truth’ that lends weight to the lie that Islam is a purely neutral force in the West.
Like most religions, it has extreme edges. This intense variation of Islam is the largest perpetrator of global terror. It runs slave trades in its conquered provinces where Yazidi women are kept as prisoners. It subverts the political systems of its host country, running parallel Sharia court systems and strong – unwritten – cultural laws that run contrary to the accepted customs of the local population. It marries little girls to old men overseas (who they are often related to). It compels relatives to murder young women who fall in love with the wrong man under the false banner of ‘honour’. And it denies the hard-earned rights of women in the West to autonomy by enforcing a type of garment used to subjugate women.
This is what Australians thought about when black robes concealed one of the most recognisable faces in Australian politics.
The Senate refused the debate and threw Pauline Hanson out with screams of ‘racism’ because no one standing opposite could begin a debate – let alone win one.
Forgotten by the press is that this bill was also about security.
It was about banning a range of face coverings – not just the burqa. It included Antifa rioters concealing their identity, balaclavas which have become a symbol of fear on the streets of Melbourne, and those who hide their face while burning the Australian flag. If the debate had been allowed, the public would have seen that this bill was bigger than burqa.
When Pauline Hanson made a similar point in 2017, politicians controlled the press.
They were perfectly capable of fabricating outrage by reprinting copies of the same header over every broadsheet. There was a consensus within the Establishment. A pact to protect ‘multiculturalism’ over the far more sensible policy of assimilation.
Social media existed, however it was owned wall-to-wall by Democrat-leaning Silicon Valley entities and sometimes part-owned by Saudi figures.
Today, things are different. Elon Musk’s purchase of X might not be perfect, but its alignment with free speech principles has allowed the people of Australia to have a say on the burqa.
To the media’s shock, they agree with Pauline Hanson.
They probably agreed with her the first time too.
Not only did Australians agree, they were furious at the behaviour of the Senate for first stifling debate and then throwing Senator Hanson out.
Even conservative members of the Liberal and National parties – no doubt believing their own press from 2017 – were caught off guard when voters criticised them for censuring Senator Hanson.
A note to the Liberals: you cannot praise Scott Morrison for his coal stunt and then condemn Senator Hanson. Nor is it advisable to follow up the next day with a stunt of your own, waving bits of paper behind Sussan Ley to mock Labor for their power prices.
As usual, it is one rule for the Lib-Lab uniparty and another for One Nation.
It is evident that ‘stunts’ themselves are not a problem – it was the topic of the burqa they feared.
Voters are smart. They know something is wrong.
We fought too hard for our culture and our values to weather this moral descent without complaint.
Young people are coming to One Nation because they see this cultural shift in the streets they walk every day. The Canberra Bubble never truly sees what’s happening to Australia except through the sanitised fantasy of outraged activists.
One Nation will not abandon the women of Australia, the people who fled here for safety, or those whose families built this nation from the ground up.
And we will not sit politely while the safety of Australians is put at risk.
Even if the Senate throws us out a thousand times, we will remain, because you elected us to serve you, not those in the Chamber.
Bigger than the burqa by Senator Malcolm Roberts
Why Pauline Hanson was censured and our bill – silenced.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/b69d5c74-8e91-4b3f-9e45-f7742d71a2bd_1494x1037.jpg?fit=1494%2C1037&ssl=110371494Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-03 18:10:072025-12-03 18:17:02Bigger than the Burqa
The Government is currently spending what will likely amount to $20 billion building and upgrading the Inland Rail line between Melbourne and Brisbane. However, Brisbane is constrained. Its ability to handle additional container traffic is very limited, and the railway connection from Toowoomba to Brisbane is almost at capacity. Widening the line is not possible.
For this reason, One Nation supports extending Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone, which has the space to expand to become Australia’s main container Port. This would reduce import and export times and lower the cost per container, ultimately reducing prices for consumers.
I asked the Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) where they were with this connection. The answer was – nowhere! How can we grow the economy and provide for the millions of new arrivals the Albanese Government is allowing in without a corresponding increase in our productive capacity?
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing tonight. The current planning for Inland Rail includes consideration of a connection to the Port of Gladstone. Where are we up to on that?
Mr W Johnson: I think I updated you last time that there were some interested parties, in terms of the Port of Gladstone, in connectivity to Inland Rail and the alignment of Inland Rail as it is. GreenLink, in particular, is the organisation that ARTC continue to have some interaction with. They’re progressing through what design operations and/or funding could look like for that in the future. We remain engaged with GreenLink, as ARTC. Inland Rail remain focused on delivering the project to Parkes, as it is today approved, and the enabling works north of Parkes. They’re not focused around any connection, at this point, with GreenLink. That’s what ARTC has been working with.
Senator ROBERTS:Regarding GreenLink, do they have the finance?
Mr W Johnson: I’m not sure of the exact status. I’d have to take that on notice, sorry.
Senator ROBERTS: Do they also have the intellectual property, the property feasibility study?
Mr W Johnson: My understanding is they’re working on both concept designs as well as funding programs, and they’re well advanced in those endeavours.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you working with IPG global?
Mr W Johnson: No. Sorry, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: The Port of Gladstone currently does not have a major container-handing function. An application to build one has been delayed for 11 years. What steps have you taken to ensure the Gladstone port is capable of accepting container traffic when the connection is completed? For clarity, it makes no sense to connect Inland Rail to the Port of Gladstone if the port can’t handle container traffic.
Mr W Johnson: There’s no work from ourselves in terms of the Port of Gladstone.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, just as an aside, the Port of Gladstone could be a development of major national significance, with regard to container terminals. Why is there a delay on that?
Senator McCarthy: I can take your question on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Minister. I’m deeply concerned with the delay, mainly, in the connection and the approval of Gladstone—the processing for a container-handling application. Going back to the ARTC, if the connection is not built, the Port of Brisbane becomes a primary container port. On notice, can you provide the data you have on the remaining rail spots to bring container trains to the Port of Brisbane, the capacity of the port and the expected volume of container traffic Inland Rail would generate from import and export traffic for the Port of Brisbane.
Mr W Johnson: Sorry, I’d have to take the details of container movements on notice; I’m happy to do so. We continue some interaction and engagement with the Port of Brisbane around what connectivity would look like in the future, but there are a significant number of products that are domestic bound from both North Queensland and also southern states into Queensland. That is the purpose of the connectivity of the existing and the future inland rail.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, going back to the previous question, is there any way you can get onto the Gladstone Ports Corporation and ask them to resolve the application immediately?
Senator McCarthy: I’d have to take that question on notice.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) should be renamed the Australian Institute for Breaking Apart Families. Their persistent pro-female, anti-male bias is unbecoming of a government agency.
During Estimates in October, I asked why they misreport domestic violence data to portray men as perpetrators and women as victims, when the actual data shows victimisation rates are almost equal.
I will continue monitoring this failed agency to see what other misinformation they spread.
— Senate Estimates | October 2025
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: My questions are to the Australian Institute of Family Studies. In June this year, this headline rang out: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence’. That was plastered across the news. There was widespread coverage of research from the Ten to Men study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, which found one in three men reported being violent towards their partners. Are you aware of that study?
Ms Neville: Yes, I am aware of that research.
Senator ROBERTS: The institute failed to mention in their report that almost a third—30.9 per cent—of the men surveyed were victims of similar violence, which included both physical and emotional abuse. The correct headline should have been: ‘One in three men report using intimate partner violence, and one in three men report being the victims of intimate partner violence’. Why did you misrepresent the data presented in your own study?
Ms Roberts: You are referring there to what we call bidirectional violence, which is acknowledged in the report. We did not explore deeply the question of men’s experience of violence because we were focused primarily on the experience of gender based violence, which is situated within the ethos of the National Plan to End Gender Based Violence. That was a significant factor. There were other issues, too, in terms of the scope of the report. I will now hand over to Dr Sean Martin, who is the leader of—
Senator ROBERTS: Let me continue, before we go to Dr Martin. The AIFS reported data excluded all the men who were victims, yet not perpetrators, of violence—a total of 355 forgotten survivors, or seven per cent of the sample. Why was this data excluded? Even if the focus of the report was on male perpetrators, surely, it provides important context for the community to know that almost as many men are victims as perpetrators of intimate partner violence. Are you peddling feminist propaganda at taxpayers’ expense? The taxpayers fund you. This is misleading.
Dr Martin: If I could address that question, I was involved in that report that you’re talking to. First of all, in terms of men’s experiences around intimate partner violence, our approach is driven by external expertise which suggested that the acute need was around data on perpetration of intimate partner violence. Of course, there are other estimates around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence, like the personal safety study, which points to one in 16 men having recently experienced intimate partner violence, and one in four women. That was very much known. The report itself, as you indicate, did include some information around men’s experiences of intimate partner violence. The reason we did that, as our director has just pointed out, is that we wanted to get a sense of this bidirectional relationship with intimate partner violence. We wanted to know how many men perpetrated or used intimate partner violence and how many men both used and experienced intimate partner violence. That was the approach that we took, because we had to limit the scope of this particular report. What we didn’t include in that report was men who solely experienced intimate partner violence. Again, that was done purely because we needed to contain the scope of the study. If we wanted to have a look at that specific issue, it would require a different analytical approach which was outside the scope of this particular report.
I moved a motion in the Senate to refer the issue of electricity smart meters to the Economics References Committee for inquiry. Why? Because Australians are being misled and left vulnerable.
The rollout of smart meters was promised as “voluntary”, yet it has now been made mandatory by this Labor government. These devices allow power companies—and governments—to monitor and control your electricity use. Worse still, energy companies can switch you to other tariffs without your consent. That means higher bills and less control over your own home.
Smart meters were sold as a way to help households save money, yet the reality is very different. Complaints have skyrocketed about unexplained tariff changes and complex pricing schemes that punish everyday Australians. And now, with Labor’s household battery scheme tied to “virtual” power plants, there’s nothing stopping your battery—paid for by you—being drained whenever the grid operator decides in the future.
This is not about helping consumers; it’s about control. It’s about protecting an unstable grid caused by the rush to unreliable solar and wind, at your expense.
One Nation stands with Australians against greedy power companies and foreign multinationals. We want transparency, accountability, and real consumer protections. We want to know what Labor is hiding. This inquiry is about giving power back to the people—literally.
The Vote
Transcript
I move:
That the following matter be referred to the Economics References Committee for inquiry and report by 1 April 2026:
The state of consumer protections in relation to electricity ‘smart meters’, with specific reference to:
consumer rights to opt out from smart meter installation;
‘surge’, ‘cost-reflective power’ or ‘flexible’ tariffs and their impacts on household power bills;
the Australian Electricity Market Commission rule change allowing electricity companies to change customers onto a punitive power tariff without their consent after two years; and
any related matters.
Three years ago, One Nation told the country:
Australia is firmly on the path towards a dystopian future with households having their access to electricity taken out of their hands and monitored, controlled and restricted by governments.
That’s control of your electricity use in the government’s hands and in energy company hands, including foreign multinational companies. That is control of your electricity and your access to it—whether you can use it and what you can use it for. This is only possible with the now mandatory rollout of smart meters, which are internet connected electricity meters.
For many years, the rollout of smart meters was promised as purely voluntary. The experience of people who voluntarily got a smart meter was absolutely terrible. Daniel Mercer from the ABC reported in April that the New South Wales energy watchdog had sounded the alarm, saying too many consumers were being hit with poor service and left worse off from the smart meter rollout. He wrote:
The watchdog said there had also been a major increase in the number of complaints related to sudden, unexplained changes to people’s electricity tariffs.
There were changes to their tariffs with no consent. He continued:
Such changes often involved customers being switched from flat rate prices, where they paid the same rate for a unit of power no matter when they bought it, to complex and dynamic charges.
Among these were time-of-use tariffs, in which customers paid more for power at peak times, and demand charges, which involved charging someone based on their single biggest half-hour of use across an entire month.
So, if you used a higher level of power for just half an hour, that put you onto a higher rate that was across all your electricity use for the entire month. He went on:
“The smart meter rollout aimed to increase flexibility and customer engagement with the energy market, by allowing customers to manage their energy usage and save money,” Ms Young—
the New South Wales Energy and Water Ombudsman—
said.
“But we aren’t seeing evidence of this in complaints that come to [the ombudsman], in fact, we are seeing the opposite.”
What was the Albanese Labor government’s response to all of these problems? Did they try to fix them? No. They doubled down. The Labor government in June made the smart meter rollout mandatory. This federal Labor government made the smart meter rollout mandatory. They said anyone going onto a smart meter couldn’t be put onto a punitive tariff. They did say that. This, though, is only temporary relief that will last just two years. After that, it’s open season for power company profiteering. The smart meters are a key part of the government’s emergency plans.
Think about why they need emergency plans. The energy minister, Chris Bowen, is spruiking his household battery scheme. What he isn’t telling Australians about is the fine print. To receive the government’s subsidy for a household battery, your battery must be ‘capable of participating in a virtual power plant’—virtual power plant; this gets more and more crazy. A virtual power plant, or VPP, is simply about being able to drain your battery, which you paid for, to the grid whenever your power company wants. Combined with an always connected smart meter, there’s nothing stopping the grid operator from draining a household battery whenever they want in the future—whenever they want—disregarding your need for electricity. By the way, you, the householder, pay for the battery. Home batteries—why are they needed? They’re needed to ensure stability—the stability of electricity supply. Solar and wind are inherently asynchronous, making them unstable. Coal, hydro, nuclear and gas are all synchronous; they’re stable, reliable, secure.
As the proportion of electricity from solar and wind increases, the grid becomes unstable. This is fact. It has happened overseas; it has happened here. As the grid becomes more unstable, the ability to reach into Australians’ homes to take over their batteries will be too tempting for you lot, the government. It will be essential, in order to protect our grid, to reach in and control your battery, drain your battery, which you paid for. It will be essential to protect the grid from their onslaught of solar and wind asynchronous generation. The government won’t be able to resist. We already have the data to prove it. Last year, Queensland’s state owned power grid throttled almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months. I’ll say that again: last year, Queensland’s state government owned power grid throttled back almost 170,000 air conditioners six times in just two months, under a scheme called PeakSmart, to try and protect the grid as it buckled under the net zero transition. Under the PeakSmart scheme—that’s a good name, isn’t it?—users were not even told their air conditioners were being throttled. They were not even told. I have, since the start, been aware of these meters being considered, because the so-called energy transition is really an energy reduction, an energy restriction, an energy control. The objective is control. I’ve been saying this since 2016. The objective is control—furtive, unexplained control of your access to electricity; furtive, unexplained, unaccountable control of your access to electricity. So much for transparency under you lot in the Albanese Labor government.
That’s why One Nation is moving this motion to have an inquiry into the rollout of smart meters and what consumer protections are needed. Right now, there are no consumer protections—none at all—and the public has been misled. Deceitfully, the truth is hidden. Why would they hide it? Because they’re out to get you, to screw you. What protections are actually in place to make sure power companies aren’t going to gouge Australians through a smart meter? Right now, it looks like nothing. The smart meter rollout was changed from voluntary to mandatory without any notice despite the many problems that had been raised and pointed out. Australians pointed out the many problems to the government: Why? Who benefits? It’s certainly not everyday Australians, who this Labor government dishonestly pretends to serve. Instead, it’s stealing. One Nation wants this inquiry to answer these questions and many more.
When it comes to Australians battling greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals, One Nation backs Australians every day of the week. We back you, Australians. I encourage the Senate to send the issue of smart meters to an enquiry and to back Australian consumers being protected from greedy power companies, including foreign multinationals in charge of vital parts of our essential infrastructure. Our electricity grid is arguably the most important infrastructure in our country. Will the government oppose this reference for a Senate committee inquiry and continue to hide the truth from Australians? Or will it be open? Will you be open, transparent and honest with the Australian people
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Hodgins-May): There are no further speakers. The question is that the motion put by Senator Roberts be agreed to. A division is required. We will defer that division to tomorrow.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/xS4uZcPrdAU/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2025-12-02 10:59:372025-12-02 11:00:21Your Battery, Their Grid: Read the Fine Print
Yesterday in the Senate, we saw something extraordinary – and disturbing. First they blocked a burqa ban, then they enforced one. This contradiction highlights that rules here don’t seem to apply to the people who make them. When Senator Hanson called out the growing influence of radical Islam in Australia, the Senate responded by censuring her instead of addressing the real problem.
Radical Islam is not about peaceful coexistence—it’s about undermining our freedoms, our laws, and our culture. We’ve seen religious leaders in Australia call for Sharia law, support terrorist organisations, and even claim that saying “Merry Christmas” is worse than congratulating a murderer. This ideology encourages followers to reject integration and cooperation with Australian society. That’s not diversity—that’s division.
To my Muslim constituents who value being Australian, I say this: our fight is against radicalism, not against you. But it’s time for the Senate to stop pretending there’s no difference between peaceful Muslims and radical Islamists.
Ignoring this truth makes Australia weaker, not stronger.
Transcript
Yesterday, the Senate blocked a burqa ban and then enforced a burqa ban. The rules here don’t apply to the people that make them. Senator Hanson chose to make this very point, and the Senate has now censured her, terrified of calling out the insidious growth of radical Islamic influence in Australia, an influence which makes Australia less, not more. It’s an influence which attacks Christianity and Judaism and attacks nonbelievers everyday it’s allowed to continue. It’s an influence which has seen multiple Islamic religious leaders calling for Sharia law in Australia and for support of the Islamic State, a terrorist organisation. Some Islamic religious leaders in Australia call Christmas ‘haram’, with one even claiming that saying, ‘Merry Christmas,’ is worse than congratulating murder. It’s an influence which actively encourages their followers to not integrate into Australian society, to not cooperate with Australian law and culture.
To my own constituents who see themselves as Australians and whose religion is Muslim, I say this to you: regrettably, the war against radical Islam has found its way to your door. This was, though, inevitable. It was the Labor prime minister Bob Hawke that radicalised some Australian Muslims when importing Sheikh El-Din Hilaly to head Lakemba Mosque, a man famous for calling Australian women uncovered meat and against the protests of Australian Muslims who correctly predicted his appointment would radicalise Islam in Australia. It’s now a Labor-Greens government that has attacked Senator Hanson with venom so as to silence her, temporarily, in the Senate despite her being elected duly to represent the people of Queensland and Australia.
Muslims can, of course, peacefully co-exist with Christians. Radical Islamists cannot. Senators, it’s a damning criticism of this chamber that you do not understand the difference or you choose to deliberately ignore it—
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Polley): Thank you, Senator.
