On Sunday 31 August, One Nation senators joined the tens of thousands who marched against the program of mass migration.
We believe in one Flag, one community, One Nation. Thank you to all who came despite the scaremongering.
We will not be shut down because the truth is politically inconvenient to Liberal and Labor.
Thank you to all Australians who turned out today for Australia and building a better country for our children.
One Nation moved to establish a Senate inquiry into the program of mass immigration.
On Monday 1 September, I asked the Australian Senate to establish an inquiry into the impact of immigration on our economy.
The Australian public and the government must be properly informed about the data and the impacts of this policy. Without that, there can be no genuine policy debate or discussion.
That’s why we want to establish this inquiry, to take the emotion out of the debate and deal with the facts and data.
See the Senators who voted NO to our inquiry 👇 Almost all Liberals, Labor and Greens teamed up to block the inquiry.
Live Debate: 1 hr 16 mins.
Mainstream media is out there gaslighting Australia, telling us that immigration is going down.
Can anyone point to the part of the graph where we aren’t currently at record migration levels?
Source: Number of Temporary Visa Holders in Australia, Department of Home Affairs.
On Tuesday morning, 2 September, One Nation senators signed a pledge to protect women’s rights.
Identifying as a women can’t mean biological women suddenly have their rights taken away from them.
One Nation is the only party who isn’t afraid to define what a woman is.
One Nation is the champion of free speech and have been since 2020 when we stood against the inhuman breaches of basic human rights imposed during COVID by both Labor and Liberal governments at all levels.
We support the Right to Protest Bill 2025—especially its recognition of peaceful protest—yet raise concerns about vague definitions and lack of protections for others’ freedoms, like movement and travel.
One Nation will always champion core freedoms and states’ rights, and we urge improvements to this bill to ensure clarity and accountability.
One Nation leads the way on freedom of speech. We have done so since 2020, with the horrific impediments against freedom of speech and the withdrawal of free speech and human rights that occurred with COVID mismanagement under both Labor and Liberal governments at a state and federal level. I start by thanking Senator Shoebridge, who has, largely through his work holding governments accountable—this one and the previous one—earned my respect for his work on human rights. I do not, though, trust the Greens as a whole. They often, and usually, contradict data and evidence, so I don’t trust them. But I do trust Senator Shoebridge.
Let’s go through a quick list of positives. What do we like? This bill, the Right to Protest Bill 2025, recognises the right to peaceful protest. We support that right wholeheartedly. This bill also recognises that the right to peaceful protest is subject to issues of national security—rightly so—and also subject to public safety, public order, the protection of public health, and, importantly, the protection of other people’s rights and freedoms. That’s very important. Sadly, this last protection, the protection of people’s rights and freedoms, is just a motherhood statement, and the body of the bill contains nothing specific about those protections.
What are we not comfortable with? The definition of ‘protest’ in section 5(b) includes the phrase ‘actions that are disruptive or seek to disrupt’. We do not support disruptive matters, disruptive events or protests, or those that seek to disrupt; we oppose that. The bill does not specifically consider conflicts with other people’s individual or group rights, including the right to free movement and travel. I have a list of freedoms I keep in mind: the freedom of life, the freedom of belief, the freedom of thought, the freedom of faith, the freedom of speech, the freedom of association, the freedom of exchange, the freedom of movement and travel, and the freedom to live life free from government interference. These are basic freedoms. One Nation supports these, but we do not see any consideration in this bill for the rights of others specifically, including the freedom of movement and travel.
Nor does the bill guide or address the resolution of conflicting needs when people in society have conflicting needs, when one group wants to protest and the other group sees an infringement of its rights. The bill does not consider offensive language or intimidation through noise or numbers of protesters. For One Nation, it is extremely important, as we have said in the past on similar bills, to have Australians feeling safe. Australians must feel safe. We cannot abide by any intimidation of Australians.
My next point is that the bill encroaches on areas that should remain under state law. One Nation is very strong and clear on states’ rights because we believe in competitive federalism—a fundamental tenet of accountability in this country. What we have seen is that the states have had their rights robbed, stolen by encroaching, greedy, all-powerful federal governments that seek to run the country with no accountability under both Labor and the Liberals. We don’t like the encroachment into other areas that should remain under state law. The bill tries to limit penalties for contraventions that may be considered to apply to necessary restrictions, without defining the word ‘excessive’. There’s no definition of the word ‘excessive’. Sadly the word ‘peaceful’ is not defined, and that’s extremely important.
Our conclusions are that we thank Senator Shoebridge for introducing this bill and debating the bill, but we are concerned about the vague wording. Is there poor drafting? Let’s give Senator Shoebridge the benefit of the doubt because, although the Greens can be disruptive when it suits them, Senator Shoebridge has not done anything malicious in my experience with him.
Senator Shoebridge: Not actually malicious!
The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Ciccone): Thank you, senators. Please direct your contributions through the chair.
I support the concept of peaceful protest. It’s very important to get that on the record. This bill, as it is, suffers from deficiencies that need to be addressed. Thank you.
2GB Radio Interview with Ben Fordham: Our flag is a symbol of national pride, unity, and identity. Burning it is not protest — it’s desecration. Like Trump, I believe there must be serious consequences.
Ben Fordham: The US president has just signed an executive order which makes it a criminal offence. Donald Trump has told reporters if you burn our flag, you get one year in gaol, no early exits, no nothing. And there’s a similar push happening here in Australia. Pauline Hanson wants to criminalise the burning of the flag. The One Nation leader has launched a petition calling for laws to be introduced to protect our national flag. Malcolm Roberts, the One Nation Senator from Queensland, is on the line right now. Malcolm, good morning to you.
Senator Roberts: Good morning, Ben. It’s nice to hear you being so cheery.
Ben Fordham: Yeah, well, there’s no other way to do it, mate, at this time of the morning. So let me kick off first of all, with Donald Trump. I think this will be a popular move. I mean, regardless of what you think of any politician, people are very protective when it comes to their country and their flag.
Senator Roberts: Well, it’s wonderful to see the protests coming on the weekend, you know, because people in Australia can feel or sense something slipping away, mate. There’s a national identity that’s deteriorating and that’s linked to personal ID – personal identity – and Australia has an identity crisis and similar in America, and the globalists have pushed this agenda that’s destroying national boundaries, national sense of pride and Pauline can see that and I can see that, and what we need to do is restore what it means to be Australian.
Ben Fordham: So what are you suggesting should happen to someone who desecrates the Australian flag?
Senator Roberts: Well, that’s a matter for the parliament. I haven’t done too much thinking of that. But there be serious punishment. It should be a breach of the law and punishable, you know, and Donald Trump’s gone for a year in gaol. Why can’t we do that?
Ben Fordham: 30,000 people have signed the petitions so far, and we’ve seen some of these incidents recently and in the past when you have a protest and then someone thinks – I know what I’ll do, I’ll pull out the Australian flag and then start lighting it on fire, and always Australians are very defensive when it comes to that, so that would outlaw such a practise.
Senator Roberts: Well, you know, I’m delighted to see Australians taking back our country. I understand and I can empathise very much with people’s frustration and annoyance and anger. The government surrenders. It won’t stand up for Australia, it won’t stand up for Australians, it won’t stand up for a flag. Australians witnessing every protest on Palestine and other protests, with hundreds of people carrying foreign flags and taking homes from us Aussies. They see the Hamas flag, which is banned – it’s a terrorist flag – they can see that being hauled along and nothing done. And yet people have frowned upon if they carry an Aussie flag.
It’s crazy. You know, a nation is not just a shoreline – we’re an island nation – but it’s not just the dirt that we’ve got here, it’s the sense of culture, national spirit – it’s the glue. You know, you can’t touch it, but you can feel it and you can’t see it, but you can feel it. It’s the glue that gives people cohesion and the culture is very, very important and people know that one of our – well it’s the most important thing in any organisation, whether it’s a football club, Ben, or sporting club or nation or a corporation or a business, the culture is what’s so important. It’s vital for productivity, security, on safety and people can sense it slipping away and the government’s a part of that – the cause of that. So people are standing up and they want action.
Ben Fordham: You mentioned the August 31 protests. They’ll be happening this Sunday and there’ll be lots of Aussie flags out for that. And very important Malcolm Roberts, that everyone keeps a cool head this weekend when they’re at those demonstrations.
Senator Roberts: Absolutely, Ben. And what happens at some of these protests in the major capital cities is that people come along – plants from the left wing – and they come along and pretend to be Nazis and stir things up and then the protesters are given the blame. It’s actually very, very important that people be cool, be calm and just step for Australia and our flag and our nation. That’s all we need to do and just behave peacefully.
Ben Fordham: We appreciate your time. Thanks for jumping on the line.
Senator Roberts: You’re welcome, Ben. Keep going.
Ben Fordham: Good on you. Malcolm Roberts, the Senator for Queensland with Pauline Hanson’s One Nation.
Thousands of proud Australians have now signed the petition to ban burning of our flag. Burning our flag isn’t free speech—it’s anti-Australian. Respect our flag. Respect our country.
Want to add your name? https://www.onenation.org.au/petition-senate
Desperation has taken over the Treasury.
Jim Chalmers is staring down a trillion-dollar black hole which is threatening to consume the bedrock of Labor’s leadership strategy – soft-core socialism.
Thanks to poor choices, reckless spending, self-indulgent policy, and attempts to buy voter loyalty with last-minute election promises – the wealth of Australia has been spent.
There’s nothing left.
It’s all gone.
Government addiction to public money has become a threat to the savings of sensible Australians who did everything right.
And that’s not all.
Barely three years into Albanese’s ‘era’ as Prime Minister, the government hasn’t only run out of other people’s money – it’s run out of other people’s homes.
With 1,544 migrants coming into the country every day, Australians are being squeezed out of the housing market by deliberate government policy designed to cook the Treasury books with migration numbers – fabricating economic growth to disguise a financial crisis.
Wrecking the housing market is cruel and it’s leading to equally cruel policy thought-bubbles designed to kick innocent, hard-working people out of their family homes to ‘make way’ for new arrivals.
Introducing … the ‘Bedroom Tax’.
Essentially, instead of being entitled to the property you worked hard to earn – the government thinks you’re entitled to the living space it deems appropriate for your family size. If you’re single – get into that shoebox! It’s one step from a coffin.
Without any attempt to disguise the motivation of this tax behind ‘productivity’ or ‘environmental concerns’, this particular potential tax is expressly designed to pressure people financially into abandoning their homes.
And this time, it’s not solely directed at conservative-leaning retirees ‘downsizing’. This tax comes after struggling young Aussies trying to start a family or work from home.
If you have what the government perceives as ‘extra’ bedrooms, those will be taxed.
The government knows this is a cost-of-living crisis and that any tax will tip a renter or owner over the edge. The point is to weaponise poverty against living space.
It doesn’t matter if that room is an office, a bedroom for relatives, or a room set aside for a future child. The government wants that space right now.
Let me preface this by saying that under NO CIRCUMSTANCES should Australians be forced to bargain for the rooms in their home. Private property is exactly that. Private. Australians are under no obligation to justify the space they have chosen to live in. It is not the Treasurer’s business how many rooms a person has or what those rooms contain.
If you find yourself negotiating over bedrooms – you have come to live under a communist dictatorship.
One Nation will never, ever, accept this sort of infringement into the living space of people who should be commended for doing everything possible to carve out a comfortable life for themselves and their families. This is the first-world, after all. Or it used to be.
Nor should anyone feel guilty for having room to breathe.
That is an aspiration.
It is an achievement.
Not a sin.
The Bedroom Tax is an outrageous and toxic proposition, which is why the Labor government have not floated it directly.
Using the cover of the ‘Productivity Roundtable’ (a tax-spawning Petri dish of ‘industry leaders’), various university academics and ‘economists’ have come out of the woodwork to publish their tax wish lists in the media.
It is common practice for a weak government to allow these entities in the press to do the bulk of the dirty work when it comes to introducing new taxes. They let the bad ideas float around and normalise until the outrage dies down into discussion. Which is where the danger starts. Discussion quickly becomes a negotiation and, if not stopped early, the government picks up these ideas – claims they have ‘community support’ – and then implements them without having to own-up to their creation.
That is not good enough.
Socialism by stealth is not a productive future for Australia.
Which is why I confronted the Senate this week seeking answers on the topic of the Bedroom Tax.
If, as some have claimed, this is ‘just a conspiracy theory’ – why did the Labor government refuse to rule out a Bedroom Tax?
Surely that would be straightforward…
It is not difficult to say the words, ‘We will not tax your spare bedrooms.’
Easy? No. What we saw in the Senate was a masterclass of avoidance where Senator Gallagher ‘uh’d’ and ‘um’d’ her way through replies that did everything except reject the tax.
I asked the Senator if the government would ‘force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty – a tax – if they don’t’ and added:
‘Why did the Roundtable even consider this monstrous idea and will the Labor Party rule it?’
Senator Gallagher replied:
‘Thank you – uh – President, I thank Senator Roberts – uh – for the question. Uh – there was a pretty wide discussion on – uh – tax in Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of those sessions – uh – and I was not at a session where that was raised – uh – Senator Roberts – uh – there was discussion around housing as you would expect and – um – you know, different views being put around the table – uh – I think that – the – what I – what I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was there was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient – uh – there were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation – um – and there were also discussions – uh – around intergenerational equity – about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised was not raised with me … it’s not something the government has worked on.’
No, perhaps not, but taxing bedrooms is something that was headlining the media discussion during the Roundtable with serious intent.
Too many times, ideas hatched by university economists mysteriously find their way into government policy – particularly when we have the Treasurer grasping at straws, brainstorming all manner of tax (including tax on imaginary profits).
Why won’t Labor rule the Bedroom Tax out?
Is it already scrawled in the margin notes of the Treasurer’s Budget?
Has it been discussed?
Would Labor consider it?
‘No plans’ does not mean ‘no’.
As we have learned from Albanese declaring ‘no change to super’ – ‘no plans’ means ‘probably’.
My question to the Senator has been viewed over 150,000 times and of the thousands of replies I have received, the overwhelming response to Ms Gallagher is, ‘She didn’t answer the question.’
Rarely have I seen a tax instill more fury in voters – particularly young voters.
Private property is the last outpost of sanity we have in a nation swiftly falling into the arms of socialism. Labor has created a high-taxing, over-spending, open-borders, anti-productivity, unfair and over-crowded reality that Australians barely recognise from the paradise of 30 years ago.
Our homes are the nests into which we raise the next generation. We should not live in fear that a spare corner could bankrupt the family.
Labor MUST go on the record ruling out the Bedroom Tax or we will be forced to conclude that Jim Chalmers is keeping it in reserve if he cannot squeeze enough out of people’s retirement funds.
Both the Liberal and Labor parties have left Australia unable to properly defend ourselves. As a result, we are entirely reliant on other countries to come to our aid.
One Nation believes we should have a Defence Force that is lethal, capable and well resourced to defend Australia and our approaches, not join forever wars in foreign countries.
In this speech, I share the story of RAAF pilot Daniel Dare, a man with an unblemished record, who has been forced into exile and will be arrested if he ever steps foot in Australia again.
Why? Because the Defence Department was just a few days late in approving his sick leave — and now they want to throw him into a maximum-security prison for not reporting to work while he was dealing with mental health issues caused by Defence.
This story is a clear example of out-of-touch generals and politicians destroying morale and the very people who sign up to put their lives on the line for this country.
No politician has the right to stand up on ANZAC Day and invoke the memory of our fallen if they aren’t willing to call out the gutless cowards in the upper brass who are destroying our Defence Force today.
The Defence Housing Australia Amendment Bill 2025 is an admission of failure on two fronts: the housing crisis and our ability to defend ourselves. Defence Housing Australia is the agency tasked with putting a roof over the heads of our Australian Defence Force personnel, the fine people who serve all Australians. This bill will extend that mission significantly to include housing foreign military personnel. This bill is a flow-on consequence of the housing crisis, a catastrophe.
It has been generated particularly out of concern for the situation in Perth. They, like all of our capital cities, are in an acute housing crisis, with a rental vacancy rate of 0.7 per cent, which is frankly shocking. Only Darwin and Hobart are slightly worse. Perth is lined up to cop the brunt of foreign personnel increases related to AUKUS under Submarine Rotational Force West, which is expected to accept thousands of foreign military personnel and contractors in relation to AUKUS preparations. This bill, though, isn’t just related to Perth. It extends the ability of Defence Housing Australia to house foreign personnel anywhere in the country.
Concerns have been raised about Defence Housing Australia’s ability to take care of our current soldiers. I want to now focus on Defence’s wilful, sustained, ongoing lack of care and accountability. 7 News Townsville reported on the story of Mitchell Connolly, a Townsville soldier who has been asking Defence Housing to fix black mould in his house that has been making his children and pregnant wife sick. After being ignored on all proper channels, he went to the media as a last resort and is now facing retribution for raising those complaints. That goes to the key problem with the Liberal and Labor approach to defence. Boats, submarines and fighter jets are all important, yet the people in our Defence Force are vital, and they are spat on by the upper brass.
To demonstrate this point, I want to read parts of a letter from a pilot who can’t return to this country because Defence will arrest him for being AWOL after they delayed approving his sick leave for a couple of days.
This is from his letter to me:
Dear Senator Roberts
My name is Daniel Dare and I served for more than eleven years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force.
I am writing to ask for your help and to place on the parliamentary record how senior Defence officials handled my case after a serious abuse of administrative power by my Commanding Officer (CO).
My immediate aim is a simple: To be able to return to Australia safely and be with my family and support network, so that I can recover, as I have not been able to return to Australia for over eighteen months.
I am not seeking to excuse my conduct.
I am asking Parliament to consider whether the response was appropriate, proportionate, consistent with what Defence leaders tell Australians about empathy, prevention and member wellbeing.
Like many other ADF members, I joined straight after school.
I deployed in flying and non-flying roles overseas and at home, including the Middle East and support after bushfires, floods and cyclones, and work during Operation Aged Care Assist.
I am grateful for those years and for my colleagues.
My concerns are not with them but with a leadership culture that, when confronted with an avoidable problem, chose escalation over resolution and appearances over duty of care.
In March 2023, after more than a decade of unblemished service, my CO accused me of expressing a negative view of the Squadron to another member.
The allegation was based on a text message I did not write, disseminate, or even know existed. An extremely flawed “fact find” was conducted, which did not include interviewing me.
On that basis the CO attempted to impose a twelve-month formal warning and cancel an already-approved flying instructor posting, despite lacking the authority to cancel the posting and despite the Air Force’s desperate need of flying instructors.
Through later freedom-of-information requests I learned that legal advice was sought by the CO only after the punitive action had begun. The effort was abandoned only when I retained a civilian solicitor: Cameron Niven, of Soldier’s Legal Counsel, who persuaded the CO’s direct superior to drop it due to the deficiencies.
But by then the damage was already done. The episode was plainly maladministration.
It shattered any trust I had left in the organisation, leaving me completely disillusioned and was the point at which my mental health began to deteriorate.
Rather than pursue a medical discharge, I first tried to leave in a way that protected the taxpayer and kept me available if needed.
I applied to transfer to the Air Force reserves from December, totalling twelve years of full-time service, and agreed in advance to repay any service debt.
My new chain of command supported the application.
A delegate in the Directorate of Personnel – Air Force, denied it without even bothering to ring me and initially refused to return the application with his written reasons, in an apparent attempt to prevent me from redressing the denial.
My lawyer Mr. Niven was once again required to intervene, simply to get a document that should have been provided in the first instance. That became the pattern: stonewalling, delay and an aversion to transparent decision-making.
By late 2023 I was on medical sick leave. The grievance and review processes dragged with little substantive progress. As 31 March 2024 approached, being the date for medical review, I requested an extension of sick leave and, as a contingency, applied for long service leave from 2 April.
The application for long service leave was refused, and I was directed to report for duty on 2 April despite documented medical concerns.
Returning under those circumstances would have breached basic work health and safety obligations.
In the absence of a timely decision on my sick-leave extension, I made the difficult decision not to present for duty on 2 April in order to protect my wellbeing.
The response was senseless.
Military and civilian police were sent to my home to arrest me and return me to base in handcuffs, but I was overseas by this point.
The next phase escalated further.
An international pursuit was coordinated, drawing on ADF, Australian Federal Police, DFAT and foreign law-enforcement resources, all at the taxpayers’ expense. Group Captain Maria Brick, then Director of the Strategic Incident Management – Air Force section, coordinated actions; a five-year arrest warrant was issued by Air Commodore Bradley Clarke, Commander Air Mobility Group,
I do not contest Defence’s power to enforce discipline.
I question the appropriateness and proportionality of deploying such resources against one unwell member whose recent maladministration, attempt to voluntarily discharge and medical circumstances were known to the chain of command.
One act in particular crossed a line.
Air Marshal Robert Chipman, then Chief of Air Force, now Vice Chief of the Defence Force, wrote to my private overseas employer in his official capacity disclosing personal information about me and notifying them that I was subject to an arrest warrant under military law.
That letter is now the subject of a complaint to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
It is difficult to reconcile such an approach with what Air Marshal Chipman told the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, only weeks earlier, on the 13th of March 2024 about harm prevention, member wellbeing and empathy in leadership.
Publicly, Air Marshal Chipman emphasised avoiding the conditions that lead to ill-health and named empathy as the most important attribute of command.
Privately, he chose the most harmful and destructive punitive options available.
A key fact also emerged through Freedom of information.
Although my sick-leave extension was undecided on 2 April 2024 when I did not present for work, Defence medical approved a further six weeks on 6 April. That determination was not disclosed to me—
Isn’t that deceit?
No effort was made to de-escalate or correct the record. Instead, the pursuit continued as if I had no medical status at all.
With salary withheld and my employment prospects damaged, I had little choice but to pursue medical separation.
That process itself became an unresolvable ordeal.
I was told I needed a Defence medical officer assessment to support approval of sick leave, which would resolve the absence, but I was denied telehealth access while overseas.
If I returned in person to obtain it, I would be arrested and incarcerated before I could be seen.
In April 2025 a medical delegate determined that I was unfit for further service and should be medically separated, with sick leave until separation.
Five days later a separate administrative process was initiated to involuntarily separate me, relying on the record of absence that had already been resolved by the medical decision and commencement of sick leave five days earlier.
Defence appeared to be weaponising the military justice system to maximise harm.
I continue to seek review of that administrative decision, at my own expense through the federal court.
This will unfortunately also cost the taxpayer as Defence will undoubtedly seek to fight it.
My matter was referred to the Director of Military Prosecutions, Air Commodore Ian Henderson, for trial before a Defence Force Magistrate towards the end of 2024, with the prospect of up to 12 months’ imprisonment.
The human cost has been real.
During this period my great-uncle, Leslie, became gravely ill in December 2024 and passed away a few months later.
I asked to return home safely to see him, as we were close and he was dear to me.
This request was denied.
Given the existence of warrants and the charges, it was clear that if I returned, I would be arrested on arrival and held to face a DFM proceeding, without ever seeing him.
I spent Christmas alone overseas and later grieved his death, again alone and far away from family and support.
I am not seeking pity.
I am asking Parliament to consider what this says about the system’s priorities when a member is plainly unwell and clearly trying to resolve matters lawfully.
I also want to be clear about responsibility.
Failing to present for duty on 2 April 2024 was my decision.
I am not seeking to excuse it.
I ask that it be seen in context: an earlier abuse of administrative power, an irrevocable breakdown of trust and disillusionment, deteriorating health, a documented medical basis for leave, and a year-long pattern of escalation rather than resolution.
A response that ignores medical evidence, amplifies risk, and privileges appearances over problem-solving is neither good administration nor good leadership.
I have also raised a concern, currently the subject of an FOI request, that the Air Force may have interfered, formally or informally, with civilian hiring of ADF pilots, namely at Qantas, to manage retention issues.
If true, this would mean that even those who have completed their obligations can face covert barriers to employment.
This matter deserves inquiry and formal answers.
Pilots who serve their country should not be disadvantaged by secret arrangements once their service is complete.
Across the period of my ordeal, I made extensive work health and safety reports about the impact of management actions on my wellbeing, no less than 27 individual reports.
Decisions consistently increased risk and pressure, and the cost was shifted to the member and, ultimately, to the taxpayer.
I am not exaggerating when I say that, due to how this situation was handled by Air Marshal Chipman and his subordinates, it cost the Australian tax payer millions.
On 13 August 2025 I was discharged. In the lead-up I asked for a short administrative extension so I would not be left without income while DVA and CSC claims were processed.
This request was refused. As I write, I am navigating those claims from overseas without income, after a year of withheld salary.
I wrote to both Matt Keogh and Richard Marles, on several occasions, seeking an intervention grounded in reasonableness.
They ignored it.
This is not only about one member.
It is about the credibility of Defence leadership before Parliament and the public.
The ADF cannot rely on deterrence theatre, secrecy and maximal punishment to solve cultural problems.
Strength in leadership is restraint, fairness and good judgement. When the system confuses severity for strength, it looks weak—
it is weak—
It wastes public money, undermines morale, and deters good people from serving.
It also undermines recruitment and retention by signalling that members who become unwell or seek a lawful exit will be treated as problems to be crushed, rather than people to be supported and transitioned safely.
ADF members deserve better processes than the ones I encountered. Taxpayers deserve better stewardship than funding unnecessary pursuits that serve the egos of senior officers, rather than Australia’s interest. The public deserves a Defence organisation whose leaders model the empathy and prevention they commend in public.
Yours sincerely,
Daniel Dare
This is what we have to fix if we ever want to have a hope of defending ourselves and housing our defence forces. We have to take care of the Australians who choose to put their life on the line and wear the flag on their shoulder. Thank you, Daniel, and thank you, every member and veteran of the Australian Defence Force. You all deserve far better.
One Nation will be supporting this bill because, without the help of allies, we are completely unable to defend our own country. That’s what’s happening in this country. We need a sovereign defence capability, and that starts with valuing our members—care, not systematic abuse; accountability, not bullying to cover up; and honouring Australian values, starting with mateship, a fair go and being fair dinkum. All we want is some fairness, integrity and truth.
I joined 2SM Radio to discuss a serious breach of Australia’s visa system – 23,000 international students have obtained fraudulent qualifications.
This widespread abuse undermines the integrity of our education sector, accelerates unsustainable immigration, and places additional strain on housing, wages, and public infrastructure.
The Albanese Government must take decisive action and should include deportations and full accountability from this government.
It was a pleasure to speak at an “Australians for Better Government” event on the Gold Coast, where we discussed Australia’s political future.
At the end, I got a warm standing ovation — clearly what I shared struck a chord with everyone there.
Note: This is a re-record of my original speech.
Love. Care. Reason. Traits unique to our human species. Everyone in this room is proof humans care. We survived years of infancy and childhood when completely dependent.
Thank you to Australians for Better Government, organisers, speakers, audience, viewers, my wife Christine and Pauline who is the only politician who didn’t run from my climate work and instead came to me.
I’m excited. This is about restoring human potential and progress.
I’m proud to be here because we all have pride in our country. WE ALL want OUR country to be much better.
I’ll clarify my speech’s goal for you. The one thing I want everyone to remember is: why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
This matters because it’s the key to restoring our country, lifestyle, standard of living.
The second thing I want everyone to remember is that we’re told the biggest purchase of our life is our house. That’s wrong – taxes, fees and levies make our biggest purchase government.
Are we getting value?
The direct cost of government is taxes. The direct cost of government waste is excessive taxes. The INDIRECT cost of government is failed or destructive policies choking productive capacity, driving waste, killing initiative.
120 years ago, our country had the world’s highest per capita income. What the hell happened?
I’ll share what I’ve done for 18 yrs on a key issue – climate fraud – in the senate and before the senate.
Starting in 2007, I worked voluntarily for nine years researching climate science – pursuing Empirical Data in Logical Points to understand Cause-And-Effect. Thank you, Christine. Then, I researched the corruption of climate science leading to the UN. And to drivers behind the UN’s climate politics – the World Bank, IMF, World Economic Forum, global banks, global wealth funds like BlackRock.
Then to motives. And to beneficiaries. Stealing money from Taxpayers.
I held people accountable – politicians, journalists, academics, agencies.
For another nine years from 2016, as a senator I held organisations and ministers accountable – climate and energy agencies, departments. Using my initiative and Question Time, Senate Estimates, speeches, letters.
(I’m feeling vulnerable, anxious. Right shoulder and hand tremor. Look beyond it and pay attention to my words).
I’ve written a speech because I’ll be covering a lot of ground and want to respect your time.
So, what’s the core climate claim? Climate alarmists claim carbon dioxide from human use of hydrocarbon fuels – coal, oil and natural gas – and from farming animals for food, is raising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – which they claim will raise temperature for catastrophic warming in some distant unspecified future.
That’s the basis for claimed solutions with devastating impacts on society:
All claimed to be based on science.
So, what’s science?
When done properly, science investigates and explains our physical world. Science is the systematic objective study of our physical world through observation, experimentation and testing of theories against the EMPIRICAL DATA. Hard data in LOGICAL POINTS proving CAUSE-AND-EFFECT. SCIENTIFIC PROOF needs Data in Logical Points proving Cause-And-Effect.
Graduate Engineers like I are trained in science because we apply science. We understand scientific proof because it prevents us killing people.
My science training includes geology and atmospheric gases – two of the most important topics of climate science.
To understand empirical data, we need to understand variation. There’s variation in everything. There are two broad types of variation:
Time frames are important. Daily variation in temperatures is huge. Seasonal variations can be large. Yet over a 30-year climate cycle temperature may be consistent.
So, let’s define the problem.
Every person, business, employer uses and relies on electricity, petrol, diesel – at home. And at work. Australia has gone from having the most affordable power to having one of the world’s highest power prices.
The key to global competitive advantage is having the lowest power price.
China uses our coal to generate electricity for 12 cents per Kilowatt Hour [8 c/KWh]. We pay 26 to 33 cents per Kilowatt Hour.
From 1996 to 2007, John Howard’s Liberal-National government committed to comply with the UN Kyoto Protocol introducing HIS solar and wind Renewable Energy Target, HIS National Electricity Market that’s really a National Bureaucratic Racket, stealing farmer’s property rights, and being the first major party to promise a Carbon Dioxide TAX policy.
All claimed to be based on “climate science”.
Yet 6 years later, in 2013, Howard admitted in distant London that “on climate he is agnostic”. HE DID NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE.
Since then, the LNP introduced every major climate and energy policy. Labor then accelerated each.
As a senator, I wrote letters to 10 Members of Parliament. All confirmed in writing they had NEVER been given scientific proof.
I wrote letters to another 19 senators who advocate cutting carbon dioxide from human activity. Four replied. NONE provided scientific proof.
The Greens and others refused to debate me – Larissa Waters in 2010, in 2016, and repeatedly from 2019.
Waters is a lawyer and makes many false and unsubstantiated claims, and misrepresents climate. She’s never provided scientific proof.
Members of Parliament like David Pocock show no understanding of science. His donors include Climate 200 with huge conflicts of interest.
They invoke so-called “experts” and other logical fallacies. They use emotion especially fear and catchy slogans. They have no scientific proof. Greens repeatedly lie, misrepresent, and sideline science with personal attacks.
From 2007 to 2016, I sent hundreds of Registered Post letters to Ministers and politicians. Most MP’s don’t know what’s science. Others lie. Others are cowed, gutless.
Why? Let’s see why they never present scientific proof.
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that no CSIRO Chief Executive had sent a climate report to any MPs, Ministers, parliament.
My 2013 Letter to the CSIRO Chief Executive and to the head of CSIRO’s climate team produced no scientific proof. And their replies were evasive.
In 2016 in the senate, my first action requested CSIRO’s Climate team to provide scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut.
At CSIRO’s first three-hour presentation to me, CSIRO’s climate chief stated – CSIRO has NEVER said that carbon dioxide from human activity is a danger.
He said, quote: “Determination of danger is a matter for public and politicians”. Yet politicians say it’s a danger. And say the CSIRO advised them.
CSIRO acknowledged to me the need for empirical data as scientific proof – yet failed to prove that human carbon dioxide causes climate change.
CSIRO admitted it lacks empirical data in logical scientific proof. Instead of physical data, CSIRO relied on unvalidated, erroneous computer models.
After 50 years of so-called research, CSIRO presented just ONE paper on temperature: Marcott, 2013. CSIRO used it to claim today’s temperatures are unprecedented. Yet Marcott himself had previously admitted his paper’s twentieth century temperatures are NOT robust and are NOT representative of global temperature.
CSIRO’s temperature graphs were all over the place. Some showed the 1998 El Nino peak which in other graphs disappeared.
On carbon dioxide, CSIRO presented just ONE paper: Harries, 2001. It did NOT support CSIRO’s claim of unprecedented levels of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. We made CSIRO aware of the paper’s flaws that made it unscientific and statistically invalid. CSIRO admitted NOT doing due diligence on reports. Nor on external data.
At CSIRO’s second three-hour presentation, CSIRO confirmed today’s temps are NOT unprecedented.
CSIRO presented Lecavalier’s 2017 paper on temperatures, which our team showed is hopelessly flawed. CSIRO acknowledged that, effectively withdrawing it. And the authors withheld data from our scrutiny.
CSIRO presented a second paper on Carbon Dioxide: Feldman, 2015. It refutes Harries’ paper that CSIRO presented earlier. We showed CSIRO that Feldman’s paper is flawed. CSIRO acknowledged, effectively withdrawing it.
At CSIRO’s third presentation, CSIRO claimed RATES of temperature increase are unprecedented. Yet NASA satellites reveal temperatures are essentially flat and have now been flat for 30 years.
CSIRO presented five new references on temperatures. Some contradicted others. All were nonspecific. Scientifically useless. CSIRO never specified the effect of human carbon dioxide on climate. Thus, there’s no basis for policy cutting carbon dioxide.
We devoted eight hours listening to, and cross-examining CSIRO across three presentations with no scientific proof.
Internationally, 18 eminent scientists and statisticians confirmed CSIRO’s material is NOT adequate for policy.
CLEARLY CSIRO had never presented a climate report or presentation containing scientific proof. CLEARLY no one had held CSIRO accountable on climate – ever. Yet CSIRO Chief Executive is paid more than a million dollars per year.
Former CSIRO Chief Executive Dr Megan Clark was on two banks’ Advisory Boards – Bank Of America Merrill Lynch and Rothschilds Australia, both seeking windfall profits from Carbon Dioxide Trading.
Conflicts of interest?
At Senate Estimates hearings, CSIRO has never presented scientific proof for Australia’s climate and energy policies. We need a real scientific debate that CSIRO and parliament avoided.
My 2013 Freedom Of Information request revealed that BOM sent 17 documents to MP’s and Ministers. Many were just one-page broad, general UN updates. None contained scientific proof.
My 2013 letters to BOM executives produced no scientific proof and whose replies instead unscientifically claimed a consensus.
BOM has been exposed for tampering with temperature data. Repeatedly. Example – temperatures at Rutherglen weather station in Victoria were changed from a long-term cooling trend to concocting a warming trend. And many other weather stations. Other temperature data adjustments have been made under the label “Homogenisation“. With no audit. Fabricating warming.
BOM displays omit the 1880’s/1890’s that were significantly warmer than today. Heatwaves back then were longer, hotter and more frequent. BOM’s not aware of many station Meta data errors.
In Senate Estimates hearings BOM has never presented scientific proof nor any scientific basis for climate policy.
In 2017, I organised a personal meeting with Chief Scientist Alan Finkel and Science Minister Arthur Sinodinos. After taking just a few questions Finkel admitted he does NOT understand climate science. Yet governments used him to publicly speak as if he’s a climate expert.
We then requested and he promised a four-hour presentation and discussion covering scientific proof and specific references. A date was agreed. Soon after he cancelled and failed to set a new date.
No Chief Scientist has provided scientific proof.
Both major parties, the Greens and Prime Ministers cite UN IPCC reports as the basis for climate policy. The UN has no scientific proof for its claims of warming and climate change. And no specific effect of cutting human carbon dioxide. Thus, the UN has no basis for climate and energy policies cutting human carbon dioxide.
The UN has no scientific basis for its temperature targets – initially fabricated at 2 degrees Celsius and later 1.5 degrees.
Both the UN IPCC Chair and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd claim 4,000 scientists said in the UN’s 2007 report that human carbon dioxide caused global warming. Yet the UN report’s own figures show only five UN reviewers endorsed the claim. And, there’s doubt they were scientists.
CSIRO is a major contributor to UN climate reports.
UN climate research excludes natural climate drivers. The UN defines “Climate Change” as studying only theories of man-made climate change. Ignoring and excluding natural drivers of climate.
The key graph driving the UN’s reports was the infamous “Hockey Stick” temperature graph scientifically proven to be fraudulent. Instead of scientific proof, UN reports rely on unvalidated, erroneous computer models. With outputs falsely labelled as “data”!
The UN told us that no UN report states carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. Because it’s not a pollutant, except in politicians’ speeches. UN Lead Authors rebelled against the UN’s corruption of climate science, yet the media did NOT report it. The UN, after initially hyping extreme weather to scare people globally, now projects no increase in so-called “Extreme weather” events.
The UN IPCC is a political entity pushing political goals.
The senior UN bureaucrat Maurice Strong fabricated both global warming, and later climate change. His stated life’s aims were to:
He said:
“humanity is the enemy.”
He was a co-founder and Director of the Chicago Climate Exchange seeking to make trillions of dollars from global trading of Carbon Dioxide Credits. American police sought Maurice Strong for crimes, and he went into self-exile in China, a major beneficiary of the west’s climate and energy policies.
UN senior climate bureaucrats like Figueres and Edenhofer admit the climate agenda is NOT about the environment. It’s about changing society and economics.
“a New World Economic Order”.
It’s all about control and wealth transfer from we the people to globalist corporations, investment funds, banks, aligned billionaires and the UN.
Head of NASA-GISS climate group, Gavin Schmidt, admitted to me in writing that what GISS had previously claimed as four nations’ independent temperature graphs are NOT independent. All four used the same base data and each then made separate ”ADJUSTMENTS”. When I pointed out his accidental admission he stopped corresponding.
I held him accountable for NASA-GISS fabricating Iceland temperature records. Indeed, NASA-GISS has created temperature data in places where it’s NOT measured.
NASA executives, scientists and astronauts wrote a scathing letter to NASA’s head pleading with him to stop GISS from corrupting climate science.
NASA-GISS has never presented scientific proof that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut. Other agencies prominent in claiming or inferring that human carbon dioxide needs to be cut have never provided scientific proof.
ALL depend on government funding.
Ross Garnaut’s 2008 Garnaut Review admits his influential report has no Scientific Proof. Despite his massive conflicts of interest, the Rudd government often used Garnaut’s review to justify climate & energy policies.
No university. No scientific society. No agency. No government. No journalist. No NGO – not Greenpeace, WWF, Climate 200. No celebrity. No company. No industry group. No politician anywhere has provided scientific proof.
Federal government energy agencies and departments currently crippling Australia’s energy grid have never provided scientific proof. Nor specific scientific basis for policy.
I conclude that some climate academics are really activists misrepresenting climate science while having substantial conflicts of interest, including being on government payrolls. In my view, these include Tim Flannery, Will Stefan, David Karoly, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Lesley Hughes, Kurt Lambeck, Matthew England, Andy Pitman and Stefan Lewandowsky.
Canadian Climatologist Professor Tim Ball, with 40 years holding alarmists accountable, said I’m the ONLY member of parliament or Congress anywhere in the world to hold a government climate agency, CSIRO accountable. Marc Morano confirmed. This is not said to brag. It shows that most western politicians and governments have gullibly swallowed or ignorantly supported climate fraud.
Across parliaments, politicians – like many people – bow to groupthink, party dictates and peer pressure to meet an ever-present need to belong.
Former senior American Senator James Inhofe was about to vote for a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Trading Scheme, as the basis for a global Carbon Dioxide Tax, when Morano showed him it’s part of UN Agenda 21 to lock up land across America. At the last minute, Inhofe stood up and rallied opposition. The American Senate rejected the scheme, and the world was spared the UN’s global Carbon Dioxide Tax.
All scary forecasts of climate catastrophes have failed. Polar ice caps, storms, Great Barrier Reef, polar bears. Yet here in Australia, the Greens, Labor, Liberals, Teals and Nationals say they rely on CSIRO, BOM, UN, NASA-GISS for climate and energy policies including the UN’s Paris Agreement and Net Zero.
Analysis of our 24,000 datasets worldwide show no process change in any climate factor. Just inherent natural variation. And, natural cycles.
The last 30 years of data from NASA satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures show no warming despite ever-increasing production of carbon dioxide from China, India, America, Russia, Europe, Brazil.
The longest temperature trend during industrialisation is 40 years of COOLING from the 1930’s through 1976.
Carbon dioxide is essential for all life on Earth and is classified as a trace gas because, at 0.04% of Earth’s atmosphere, there’s bugger all of it. Nature controls the carbon dioxide level, regardless of Humans, as major global recessions in 2009 and 2020 proved. And as shown in seasonal variation of atmospheric carbon dioxide levels.
Our atmosphere COOLS the land and ocean surfaces through conduction and convection, latent heat of evaporation and condensation and finally radiation. The atmosphere does NOT and CANNOT warm our Earth.
Natural drivers of climate variability include Galactic, Solar, Planetary, Earth’s surface topography, atmospheric, water vapour, oceanic, regional decadal cycles, biological, regional changes to vegetation, interactions.
Climate and energy scammers prey on people’s ignorance of variation to falsely portray natural variation as process CHANGE.
It’s NOT climate CHANGE. It’s natural climate VARIABILITY.
Alarmists are preying on people’s ignorance of Science.
In many people – especially politicians – Groupthink and peer pressure cripple reasoning. And override care.
There’s no need to worry about warmer climate. INSTEAD, worry about governance.
CSIRO’s fraudulent “GenCost” report grossly understates the cost of changing to Solar and Wind, the most expensive forms of energy generation.
CSIRO’s fraud is based on flawed assumptions about: sunk costs, interest/ discount rates, generator life expectancies, estimates of costs to build, unspecified firming costs, unknown pumped-hydro costs, …
The Liberal Labor Uniparty fail to closely scrutinise CSIRO’s GenCost report.
Solar and Wind consume enormous resources and energy during manufacture – making them expensive.
Eking energy from low-density sources makes them very expensive.
Plus, they return humanity to dependence on the vagaries of weather when promoters claim future increased weather variability.
They’re not suitable for an industrial economy such as Aluminium smelting.
Subsidies are essential and reduce national productivity and wealth creation making solar and wind parasitic.
Solar and Wind are reversing Human Progress.
There’s no scientific, economic, environmental, social, or moral case for Solar and Wind.
Who’s responsible?
Almost the whole parliament. And the federal bureaucracy.
They’re getting away with it because people are dumbed down on science. And have yet to feel the huge pain of higher electricity prices.
Members of Parliament avoid data and are not scientifically literate.
And on that is based the destruction of our economy, our country.
The same people driving the lie about Nature’s trace atmospheric gas essential to all life on Earth, are driving other governance failures:
The Covid response across western nations.
Money and banks.
The tax system.
The Anti-Human scam: which I may discuss in more detail later
Every major problem is created in Canberra. Or is worsened there.
The core problem is that most politicians simply do not care, and are ignorant, dishonest, fraudulent, stupid or gutless.
Shoddy governance avoids or contradicts data. Instead, the Lib-Lab Uniparty uses emotion, fear, headlines, paybacks for donors and vested interests.
They justify theft from the people and cede sovereignty.
History shows government is prone to being a vehicle for transferring wealth.
How? Our constitution is armed to prevent this.
Pamela Meyer in her book “How to Spot a Liar” said, quote: “Lying is a cooperative act … Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.”
The people have abdicated. We, the people unwittingly ceded our authority over parliament. THIS MATTERS BECAUSE IT’S THE KEY TO RESTORING OUR COUNTRY.
In Australian politics, love, care, reason and truth have been pushed aside for ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of data.
Reason has given way to subtle control, theft, aggression and suppression.
Western politicians are reversing 170 years of remarkable human progress.
Our society, our western civilisation is in decline.
Politicians across many western parliaments have betrayed our species.
Culture and leadership are the most powerful drivers of productivity, initiative, creativity, security.
Establish an Office of Scientific Integrity with public scrutiny of science on every policy claimed to be based on science.
We need to restore compliance with our constitution, reform our governance structure and systems and hold politicians accountable.
Australia needs real leadership. From leaders who CARE. And who want to do good, not just look good. Leaders with courage to make hard decisions and to communicate the benefits of those decisions in honest messaging that informs and excites people. Truthfully. Based on hard data.
It starts with we, the people. Since 2007 I’ve held MP’s, departments, agencies, academics, corporations and others accountable on climate. Because I detest politicians killing our country and stifling people.
We need to curtail politicians. And, we need to release the people. Freeing people to use our inherent personal enterprise.
We all want to restore our country.
I commend Australians for Better Government for your initiative.
The one thing I want everyone to remember is – why I detest most politicians, yet love and admire humans.
Instead of ego, betrayal and illogical contradiction of hard data, we need to change the governance and political SYSTEMS to restore Love, Care, Reason.
And truth.
To tap into human potential to restore human progress and abundance.
That’s OUR challenge. Restoring love, care and reason.
I dedicate this speech to Professor Tim Ball, Marc Morano, Tony Heller, my wife and family, all climate sceptics, all critical thinkers and to everyone here today.
Reference mat’l:
Factors driving climate—the dynamic sun radiating to a dynamic earth FACT There appear to be hundreds, perhaps many hundreds of factors affecting global climate. These operate across many scales including the following partial list (with those likely most significant in italics):
Last week at the Productivity Roundtable, a concerning proposal was floated—one that would force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters, under threat of a financial penalty (tax) if they refused. I asked the Minister why such a monstrous idea was even being entertained and pressed her on whether the government would rule it out to give our elderly peace of mind that they won’t be forced to share their family homes.
In response, Senator Gallagher claimed she wasn’t present at any session where that idea was raised and said it’s not something the government is working on. She acknowledged that tax reform and housing were discussed “broadly”, yet denied that specific proposals like this—or death tax or land tax on the family home—were part of any formal outcomes.
I asked whether these proposals were designed to push everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for large, co-located families among new arrivals—who, according to Labor-aligned researcher Kos Samaras, tend to vote Labor. Senator Gallagher refused to rule this out.
My question is to the Minister for Finance, Senator Gallagher, relating to taxation proposals debated at last week’s productivity roundtable. The proposal was to force homeowners with a spare bedroom to take in strangers as renters under threat of financial penalty—a tax—if they don’t. Why did the roundtable even consider this monstrous idea, and will you now rule the idea out so our elderly can have peace of mind they won’t have strangers forced into their family homes?
Senator GALLAGHER (Australian Capital Territory—Minister for Finance, Minister for the Public Service, Minister for Women, Minister for Government Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate): I thank Senator Roberts for the question. There was a pretty wide discussion on tax and Australia’s tax system. I did not attend all of the sessions and I was not at a session where that was raised. There was discussion around housing, as you would expect, and different views were being put around the table.
What I picked up from the two sessions that I attended late on the third day was a view about ensuring that the tax system is efficient. There were certainly views about it being simplified. There were different views around business taxation, and there were discussions around intergenerational equity—about how the tax system is working for different generations. But the specifics of what you’ve raised were not raised with me by any roundtable participant, and I was not at a session where they were raised as something that people were seeking. It’s not something the government has worked on.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?
Additionally, the roundtable debated a death tax on the family home and a land tax on the value of the property. Are these mutually exclusive taxes, or will this government be introducing all three?
Senator GALLAGHER: Again, in the sessions that I was a participant at, that was not raised. I think the Treasurer and the Prime Minister were clear in the lead-up to the roundtable that there are no plans to change the taxation of owner occupied homes, and I have not been part of any discussions around that. Part of the discussion that was had was much more high level around how the tax system is working, how complicated it can be and whether or not the system is fair and working in the interest of every generation in this country. There were mixed views about that. But there were certainly no outcomes that went anywhere near what you have been asking about today. The tax reforms we will be doing are the ones we took to the election around standard deductions and income tax.
The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary?
All three of these new proposals will force everyday Australians out of their homes to make way for the large families and family co-location evident amongst new arrivals. Labor Party aligned researcher Kos Samaras has shown that these new arrivals vote heavily for Labor. Minister, why are you forcing Australians out of their homes to make way for Labor-voting new arrivals, and where are Australians supposed to go?
Senator GALLAGHER: There was a lot in that. I hope that I have answered your concerns around some of the ideas you say. They were not outcomes. In fact, in the sessions I was at, they were not raised. I don’t know anything about that. In relation to housing more generally, we are trying to build more housing. That is part of what we’ve been doing in this place and will continue to do, and, indeed, the announcement by the Prime Minister and the housing minister today was about how we ensure that owning your own home isn’t out of reach for generations of Australians and how we build more supply. In that respect, I hope that answers the second part. In terms of migration numbers, they’re outlined in the budget papers.
Casual Coal Wage TheftFebruary 21, 2024 - 2:09 pmOver $30,000 a year being stolen, and it’s been signed off by the union and the government. Find out about the largest wage theft from casuals in Australia.
My Other IssuesFebruary 16, 2021 - 12:08 pm
Murray Darling BasinMarch 23, 2020 - 3:05 am
Foreign OwnershipOctober 16, 2019 - 4:58 am
Property rightsOctober 16, 2019 - 4:39 am
United Nations #AUSEXITOctober 16, 2019 - 2:31 am