Fuelling the Future

,

One Nation supports the bill to extend the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility (NAIF) decision-making window to June 2036, putting it on a stronger operational footing to help cut through bureaucratic red tape.

While we support northern development, we strongly oppose the inclusion of net-zero transition goals and special-treatment identity politics in the NAIF investment mandate.

One Nation advocates for equal rights for all Australians without special racial categories, proposing direct grants to local and Indigenous councils backed by proper Australian National Audit Office (ANAO) accountability.

We believe taxpayer funds should not back net-zero measures; projects like wind, solar, or batteries must stand on their own financial merits without government subsidies.

We champion critical infrastructure to unlock real wealth, including the Great Australian Infrastructure Network (GAIN) transcontinental railway, major water and dam projects and regional transport links.

I moved an amendment to ensure NAIF prioritises productive economic growth, directly finances extraction of coal and natural gas and explicitly blocks funding for net-zero measures, which was defeated by Labor, Greens and Teals.

We need to rebuild our country, cut out the bureaucratic and ideological interference, and leave a legacy of wealth, abundance, and opportunity for all Australians.

Transcript

The north of Australia is Australia’s future. One Nation supports the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Amendment Bill 2026. The Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility, commonly known as NAIF, was established as a Commonwealth corporate entity in 2016 with bipartisan support. It was tasked with a $5 billion financing mandate to drive a 10-year mission to provide economic and social growth across northern Australia through the provision of concessional loans and financial support to private and public infrastructure projects. The NAIF has been upgraded, amended and fiddled with in 2018, 2021 and now 2026. Hopefully this bill is third time lucky. 

Since 2016, NAIF has handed out over $3 billion of the original $5 billion, with a total of $4.5 billion committed. The government has extended the pool to $7 billion. This bill extends the investment decision-making ability for the NAIF from June 2026 to June 2036. It adds additional requirements for the NAIF to report to the minister if there’s any deviation in compliance with their investment mandate. It implements the joint ministerial oversight model, which will see increased joint responsibilities for NAIF board appointments between the Minister for Northern Australia and the Minister for Finance. It establishes statutory reviews every five years. It requires NAIF to align with existing provisions in the legislation of other Commonwealth investment vehicles. In short, this bill puts NAIF on a stronger footing to carry out their mandate. 

It is, though, the mandate that One Nation objects to. The Albanese government changed the mandate in 2026 to include economic development in the north—that’s fair enough—and alleviating social or economic disadvantage in northern communities—fair enough. However, the mandate also included improving First Nations outcomes and achieving Australia’s net zero transition goals. 

One Nation’s policy is to improve outcomes for Aboriginal communities through improving all communities right across the Top End. To One Nation, it doesn’t matter if a community is Aboriginal or white or any colour in between. We care about Australians equally. We will advance policy based on equal rights for all—special rights for none. Our policy is to provide grants directly to local government, including Aboriginal councils across northern Australia, so that ANAO, the Australian National Audit Office, can audit where the money goes and what benefit the community derive from that money. Accountability in the Aboriginal industry—now there’s a concept. 

As for making NAIF about net zero, that’s not happening under a One Nation government. We will require NAIF to support any project which represents value for money for the taxpayers while meeting a real need. If that’s wind or solar or a big battery then so be it, but the numbers must add up without taxpayer money. We don’t propose to change the investment mandate other than to take the woke back out. 

Let me give you some examples of how Australia will restore wealth, prosperity and opportunity for all who are here. These are not One Nation projects. There’s no taking credit here. It’s about building the nation from the Albanese government, state governments and private industry for the good of our whole nation. Funding for these projects is provided through private financiers, with the possibility of a public-private partnership to ensure Australia’s interests are looked after. NAIF is required in the early stage to show the government is serious about investment. 

For too long, major projects have been held up through bureaucratic and political indecision, sometimes caused by environmental laws, but mostly just incompetence. This has led to trust issues between investors and the government. This is not a reflection on the Albanese government per se; this problem has been going on under successive Liberal, National and Labor governments for 20 years, which is why the NAIF is essential to providing early-stage funding and guiding these projects through the bureaucratic jungle expeditiously. After all, if the Albanese government is going to flood Australia with new arrivals as it is, we must generate new wealth to share with them, or else everyone goes backwards, which is what is happening right now. 

Projects One Nation will be strongly supporting include the great Australian infrastructure network, GAIN, which involves a railroad crossing across northern Australia, linking iron ore projects in Western Australia with Queensland metalliferous coal in the Bowen Basin. Steel mills will be located at each end to provide sovereign capacity in steel and steel by-products, including cement, fertiliser and ammonia, which is the material from which pharmaceuticals are made. This development will use water from Lake Argyle in Western Australia and from a new weir where the Urannah dam was to be located. 

The railway will include a multifunction corridor bringing town water, electricity and an internet backbone connection. The internet connection is of utmost importance for national security. While the old offshore copper connection between Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth has been upgraded, it’s not capable of carrying Australia’s internet traffic. I’ll just say that. It’s not capable, as it is, of carrying Australia’s international traffic. It needs duplication. For a signal to get from Brisbane to Perth, it must travel via a jump-off point in Brisbane up to Asia, often as far as China, then back down again to Perth. What could possibly go wrong with that? This proposal has had a long history going back more than 100 years. The current proponents have assembled an impressive team, capitalised their project sponsor vehicle and have already exceeded any development conducted in the past through previous sponsors using all new and unencumbered intellectual property—all new on a proven concept. 

Project sponsors have advanced proposals to complete Inland Rail from Parkes in New South Wales to the Port of Gladstone, using what’s been called the forestry route. A second proponent is advocating a route due north from Goondiwindi via Moonie to Dalby and on to the Port of Gladstone, where a major container handling facility is currently out to tender. I look forward to the Crisafulli government fast-tracking this amazing proposal to take Australia’s container handling into the 21st century. 

One Nation will also build the Big Rocks Weir, Emu Swamp Dam and the Hughenden irrigation project, and complete the reconstruction of Paradise Dam. There are other projects under development. Once again, these are not One Nation projects. We are promoting them and would be happy to promote any other project that will restore wealth and abundance for all. The NAIF has an important role to play in that process. We need to rebuild our country and leave a legacy for our children and for the descendants of all in Australia right now. We need to restore Australia and make it magnificent again. I move: 

At the end of the motion, add “, but the Senate is of the opinion that: 

(a) the Investment Mandate for the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility must prioritise productive infrastructure which will grow the Australian economy and provide breadwinner jobs for everyday Australians; 

(b) financial assistance should be encouraged under the Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility Act 2016 for measures which: 

(i) directly finance the extraction of coal or natural gas, 

(ii) directly finance the construction of pipeline infrastructure, including for the extraction of natural gas, and 

(iii) directly finance the mining of natural resources, including coal; and 

(c) financial assistance must not be provided for net zero measures”. 

/0 Comments/by

Spousal Super Transfers: A Win for Families

,

When I first saw the title of the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I assumed it was just more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals and was ready to throw it in the bin. It turns out the title is misleading. The bill itself isn’t woke at all; it’s a sensible measure that allows spouses to transfer superannuation to even out their accounts, helping smaller balances grow faster. It works both ways, which makes good financial sense, especially as women are now earning more university degrees than men and female earnings are bound to outstrip male earnings in some households.

Supporting families is a key plank of One Nation policy and one of the essential building blocks for human progress, alongside freedom, the rule of law, secure property rights, fair taxation, cheap energy, and honest money.

While Labor opposes this bill because they only want to tax, tax, tax and waste money while crushing the middle class, One Nation is proud to support it because it helps families.

Transcript

We support this concept in One Nation because One Nation supports families, but I’ll get on to that more in a little while. When I saw the title of this bill, the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Tackling the Gender Super Gap) Bill 2025, I thought: ‘This one is going in the bin. It’s more woke rubbish from the Liberals and Nationals.’ But the bill title is false; it’s misleading. Why? Is it because the Liberal Party needs to appease the Liberal moderates? Is it to attract the Greens vote? Is it because the Liberal-Nationals have become woke, continue to be woke? Oh, by the way, Liberal and Labor are exchanging barbs about females and looking after females. There’s only one party with a female leader, and that’s One Nation. 

Senator McKim interjecting— 

Senator ROBERTS: Oh, that’s right; you’re correct—the Greens. 

Senator O’Neill: What about Senator Wong? Women are invisible to you. 

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator O’Neill, you should not be interjecting—on your feet particularly. 

Senator ROBERTS: I’m not sure why the Liberals would feel the need to give this bill a woke name when the contents of the bill are nothing of the sort. This bill allows a spouse to transfer some of their super to their spouse’s superannuation account, to even them out. That makes sense. Small super accounts grow more slowly than larger accounts, so lifting up your partner’s account is a sensible exercise in financial management. The bill is well worded. The calculation on how much of a person’s balance can be transferred is clearly expressed and fair. 

In an era where women are earning more university degrees than men, 58 per cent to 42 per cent female to male, it’s inevitable that female earnings will outstrip male earnings in some households. This bill works both ways. It builds on our superannuation income-splitting policy of lowering the tax rates for a family with at least one dependent child and one partner not working so he or she can look after the child, splitting the income and reducing the tax to give more after-tax income, to encourage families. We introduced that concept. We also introduced tax bracket indexation to get rid of the stealth tax on income tax. 

Families need support. That’s a key plank to One Nation policy. There are eight keys to human progress. They include: (1) freedom, which is being destroyed in this country under the uni party; (2) rule of law, which is being destroyed by making feelings part of law and ignoring the truth and contradicting the truth; (3) constitutional continuation for the stability of governance; (4) secure property rights; (5) strong families—strong families are essential for human progress. Families are one of the building blocks, one of the two key structures. The other is the nation state rather than a globalist approach. No. 6 is fair, efficient taxation to pay for government but to minimise that taxation, to minimise the size of government; (7) is to have cheap, affordable energy; and (8) is to have honest money. All of these things are being destroyed by the Labor and Liberal uni party. 

One Nation supports families. We want to apply this to super, and this bill we support. Labor opposes it because Labor loves to gouge tax from taxpayers. Labor wants to maximise tax—tax, tax, tax. How about we shrink government to fit the Constitution to restore human dignity, to restore human progress? And where does Labor’s tax tax, tax money go? It goes to waste, waste, waste and is destroyed while increasing inflation, increasing the cost to families, reducing after-tax disposable income, crippling people, increasing the lower working class at the expense of the middle class, destroying the middle class. And we have teachers, nurses, police who are suffering from an erosion of their income. This is a fair bill. One Nation will support this bill. 

/0 Comments/by

The Price Tag on Environmental Zeal

,

While I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson’s passion and past efforts against environmental waste, and while I agree that we need to control excessive packaging, this bill is simply not the answer.

This Bill will force Australia’s National Packaging Targets to be compulsory, replacing state rules with a heavy, uniform Commonwealth-led framework.

It introduces producer-funded fees and financial penalties based on packaging weight and materials. Ultimately, everything coming in a package will go up in price, driving more inflation and reducing wealth for everyday Australians.

The bill also contains an extremely complicated formula for calculating the level of recycling which will quite simply drive small and medium business crazy, requiring the additional expense of a dedicated consultant.

The revenue funds a circular economy, which is code for everyday Australians never owning anything new while the wealthy simply pay the penalty.

One Nation opposes this bill – which will impose a very high cost on business and consumers for a very small and unproven reward. It’s another prime example of the excessive green tape that strangles our society.

Transcript

I thank Senator Whish-Wilson for his bill, the Extended Producer Responsibility Scheme for Packaging (No Time to Waste) Bill 2026. I acknowledge Senator Whish-Wilson’s passion for reducing environmental waste and his efforts, which resulted in a ban on Australia exporting recycling waste to Third World countries where it was picked over and then in some cases dumped into rivers which took the rubbish out to sea. Australian waste was partially responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. 

I do agree there’s a need to control waste from excessive packaging. This bill, though, is not the answer. The purpose of this bill is to provide for the government of the Commonwealth to establish a uniform national Extended Producer Responsibility, an EPR, a scheme for packaging through a legislative instrument. The Extended Producer Responsibility scheme would place a direct and legally binding obligation on producers, importers or distributors of packaging for the end-of-life management of the packaging they place onto the Australian market. This bill would see Australia’s National Packaging Targets made mandatory and legally binding. The bill would cumulatively serve to meet the intent of reducing demand for virgin plastic, preventing plastic waste, supporting the economy, increasing recycling and resource recovery rates, as well as reducing emissions and better protecting the Australian environment. These are represented in the National Packaging Targets, which in this context are as follows. The scheme enforces benchmarks for 100 per cent reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging alongside a 70 per cent plastic recycling rate and 50 per cent recycled content. Currently, this is voluntary. This bill would make it mandatory—compulsory. The law applies a strict nationwide mandate to anyone defined as a ‘responsible person’, which covers commercial manufacturers, importers and distributors of packaging. Businesses can no longer opt out or ignore recycling targets. It replaces fragmented state rules with a single, uniform, Commonwealth-led framework. The core economic driver of the scheme is a producer funded fee structure. Companies pay levies based on the type and total weight of the packaging they introduce into the Australian market. Hard-to-recycle materials, composite plastics and virgin plastics face heavy financial penalties. Levies are heavily discounted—that’s ‘eco-modulated’, to use their term—for businesses using highly recyclable materials or high percentages of local recycled content. Modulated! 

Now the part which is typical of the Greens, sadly, taking the kernel of a good idea and taking it so far it becomes intolerable. I’m talking about their bill’s lifecycle data tracking. The scheme requires transparent continuous data reporting into an independent national tracking system. Companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. I’ll say that again: companies must log exact material weights, chemical composition and supply volumes. This data is used to calculate their exact financial obligations and verify whether they’re meeting the mandatory 2030 recycling targets. The revenue collected from producer levies forms a dedicated stable funding stream explicitly earmarked to build up Australia’s circular economy. Now, the phrase ‘circular economy’ is code for everyday Australians never owning anything new. The wealthy will be able to pay the price penalty for new products; everyday Australians will not. 

The elitism of the concept of circular economy sits poorly with One Nation’s approach of advancing the lives of everyday Australians. It does seem typical, sadly, of the inner-city Greens, though, marketing themselves as the party of the disenfranchised while bills like this will serve to weigh down the economy, reduce productivity and reduce opportunity for the very people the Greens pretend to represent. This bill will impose a very high cost on business and consumers for a very small and unproven reward for the environment. Everything that comes in a package will go up in price. More inflation, higher prices, less wealth for everyone. This bill, especially its compulsory nature, onerous reporting conditions and cost, is what One Nation means when we talk about excessive green tape. One Nation opposes green tape strangling our society. One Nation opposes this bill. 

/0 Comments/by

The Illusion of a Pay Rise

,

In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut is simply compensating for government-driven inflation rather than getting people ahead. Worse, these increases push taxpayers into higher tax brackets, leaving many workers worse off with very little of their pay rise left to keep.

To fix this, One Nation has a clear policy: we will index tax brackets to inflation. This ensures that getting a wage rise to fight inflation won’t push you into a higher tax bracket, offsetting the previous year’s inflation.

While Liberals joined Labor to defeat our amendment in 2025, pressure from One Nation has since brought the Liberals around, though Labor still refuses — showing they certainly don’t represent workers anymore.

Labor claims this will cost over $30 billion a year. Reality is that the cost depends entirely on inflation. No inflation means no cost at all. Their high estimates simply prove they expect inflation to remain out of control under their watch.

One Nation also propose allowing income splitting for families with a dependent, putting $9,000 a year back into the pockets of single-income families who choose it.

One Nation proudly stands up for Australian families and workers with common-sense tax reform.

Transcript

In this time of high inflation, every wage rise or tax cut, rather than getting people ahead, just compensates for government driving inflation. Worse, these increases move many taxpayers into higher tax brackets, increasing their tax rate and leaving many workers worse off, as many are finding when they see how little of this week’s pay rise they actually get to keep. 

One Nation policy will solve this. We’ll index tax brackets to inflation so that getting a wage rise to compensate for inflation does not put you into a higher tax bracket; inflation one year will be offset by tax brackets being lifted the next year. In 2025, the Labor government joined with the Liberals to oppose and defeat our amendment to index tax brackets. Because of the heat One Nation applied to the Liberals, the Liberals now agree with One Nation. Labor still does not, which is telling about who they represent these days—certainly not workers. This move will cost around $22 billion over the forward estimates and may come in at a much higher rate over time. Labor will engage in a scare campaign, of course, over this cost. The reality is that the costing depends on inflation; no inflation means no cost at all. Labor advances a cost above $30 billion a year. This means Labor is really saying they expect inflation under their government to remain out of control. Tax cuts take the pressure off businesses to give larger wage rises, countering the wage-price spiral that harms business, workers and every Australian. 

Another major element of our income tax policy is to allow income splitting between families with a dependent, if that suits them. Families with two wage earners will probably keep their existing arrangements. Families with one income who split will have $9,000 a year back in their pocket. The PBO has put the cost to budget revenue at $7 billion a year, depending upon uptake. Money well spent helping families. One Nation represents families and workers. These are just two of many, many tax reform policies we took to— (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

The Taxpayer-Funded Job Illusion

,

Treasurer Jim Chalmers claims that six out of seven new jobs are in the private sector, yet private sector job share has fallen from 85.2% to 84%, with most growth occurring in taxpayer-funded non-market sectors (health, NDIS, aged care).

Minister Gallagher defended care economy jobs, criticising One Nation for previously labelling these jobs a “Ponzi scheme.” She maintains that the government supports job growth across all sectors.

Labour market productivity has fallen 5% overall under this Labor government – the Reserve Bank linking this to rising inflation. When questioned over this figure, Minister Gallagher responded by pointing to the government’s 15-point productivity package outlined in the budget, covering investment, innovation, red tape reduction, trade, housing, and technology — while criticising the previous coalition government’s productivity record.

In my final question, I pointed out the government’s poor economic performance, citing increased underutilisation, falling real wages and lower productivity – which Minister Gallagher rejected, highlighting positive metrics including higher employment, increased participation rates, a shrinking gender pay gap, falling headline inflation, and annual real wage growth.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher. Yesterday I asked a series of questions on the labour market using ABS data, including this question: 

Treasurer Chalmers stated last week six out of seven jobs created since 2022 were in the private sector. 

Yet over 70 per cent of the jobs created are in the taxpayer funded economy, not the private sector—health, NDIS, aged care and education. Your answer went to the worthiness of those jobs, which One Nation does not dispute. Your answer did not deal with the Treasurer’s misrepresentation. The Treasurer is wrong and misleading. How can six out of seven jobs that your government has created be in the private sector if the share of jobs in the private sector has fallen from 85.2 per cent of the labour market when you came to power down to 84 per cent today, indicating the reverse is true? 

Senator GALLAGHER (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. My answer to your question yesterday was in response to you calling non-market jobs a Ponzi scheme. That’s how you referred to those jobs. You said aged care, disability care and health workers are effectively masquerading as a Ponzi scheme. That was in your question, so that’s why I responded the way I did. 

Since we came to government, the number of jobs has increased by about 1.3 million jobs to the economy since May 2022. I support completely the Treasurer’s comments around the jobs that are being created in the private sector, and we have seen jobs in the public sector and in the non-market sector as well because there is enormous growth in the care economy, as there should be—people who are working hard to support people’s ageing parents, our youngest citizens people who are sick and unwell. That is going to be a growing part of our economy as well. The point I was trying to make yesterday is: don’t punch down on those workers. Don’t demean those workers by saying they are essentially operating in a Ponzi scheme. 

Senator Hanson interjecting— 

Senator GALLAGHER: Well, Senator Hanson, they weren’t my words; they were your party’s words. The point we were making is that this party will always create jobs. We will always ensure that those jobs are well paid and that those jobs are secure whether they’re in the private sector, the public sector, the market sector or the non-market sector because at the end of the day a job allows you to live a dignified life. That’s what people on this side of the chamber care about. (Time expired) 

Senator ROBERTS: Labour market productivity fell 0.2 per cent in the June quarter, taking the total fall under your government to five per cent. It’s supposed to go up, not down. The Reserve Bank has flagged this problem as likely to cause an increase in inflation. Productivity does not mean working harder. It means working smarter, more efficiently and more easily. Minister, what specifically is your government doing to reverse the fall in labour market productivity? 

Senator GALLAGHER: In the budget—and we discussed this at estimates, I think, in the committee that you attended, Senator Roberts—there is a very extensive productivity package, whether it be in investment, innovation, removing red tape, some of the work that Senator Farrell’s doing in trade, building a single national market, making it easy to engage with government, accelerating approvals, simplifying building regulations, building more homes, modernising energy markets— 

Senator Bragg: You couldn’t make it up! 

Senator GALLAGHER: better recognising skills, unlocking the data and AI opportunity, investing in science and innovation, strengthening the superannuation system, better coordinating government investment and driving ongoing regulatory reform. They are the 15 areas that were contained in the budget around improving productivity. 

Senator Bragg laughs, but, of course, he won’t be on the record saying that the decade of the worst productivity in this country was actually the decade that you were in government, because you didn’t care and you didn’t do anything, including in housing, including in super and including in those other areas I’ve outlined. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: Your economic report card is full of red ink: underutilised workers increasing to 1.68 million, real wages falling 1.5 per cent and labour market productivity falling five per cent, due in part to your obsession with net zero and wokeism nobbling the economy, reducing productivity, increasing inflation, running up debt and making working lives harder. Minister, where is your plan to turn this around to keep a roof over workers’ heads and food on their family table? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Employment is up—this is from when we came to government—the participation rate’s up, gender pay gaps are down, the number of women employed full-time is up, industrial disputes are down, headline inflation is down and annual real wage growth is up. If you look at any of those measures, they don’t align with what One Nation seek to portray about our economy. 

And I would note that those opposite, the conservative side of politics that sit over there, absolutely love to talk our economy down, when the data acknowledging that people are doing it tough in an inflationary environment tells a different story. There are more people working now than ever before, and we will continue to invest in those jobs and support those workers with secure jobs into the future. 

/0 Comments/by

The Hidden COVID Reality

, ,

Newly declassified US evidence and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s released records show COVID-19 was a man-made, lab-engineered virus from Wuhan. Alternative treatments (like Ivermectin) were suppressed to force uptake of rushed mRNA vaccines, which financially benefited NIAID through patent royalties.

Citing data from the McCullough Foundation and epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher, mRNA injections cause “turbo-cancer” (aggressive cancer), which did not exist before COVID. 35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. These key mechanisms include DNA repair impairment, chronic inflammation from lipid nanoparticles and immune suppression.

Published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbo-cancer cases across 27 countries, involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. 86% of these cases occurred following vaccination, while 14% were following SARS CoV-2 infection. Preventions appear worse than the disease!

On population evidence, USA cancer deaths since the injections in 2021 is between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4% in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5%. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4%, small intestine cancer is up 15.5%, ovarian cancer is up 12.8%, stomach cancer is up 7.3%, and female breast cancer is up 3.6%. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23% higher risk of cancer hospitalisation.

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia – however there is none. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis. After four years, why is that simple data not available? Perhaps because they don’t want you to know!

Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing — substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did.

COVID-19 vaccines received expedited testing compared to standard multi-year clinical trials – while the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) “allegedly” persecuted truth-telling doctors and medical professionals.

One Nation again calls for a comprehensive royal commission to investigate COVID-19 origins, mandates, vaccine safety and regulatory actions.

Transcript

Last Senate session, I presented the Senate with the latest evidence from the United States on the COVID scandal—the crimes and homicides and, in particular, the role of the former director of America’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID, Dr Anthony Fauci. This was evidence declassified through the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Murphy, who at the time was the inspector general of the US Department of Defense. This information was corroborated using Fauci’s own diaries and phone released under freedom of information just a few weeks ago. The unavoidable conclusion is that the world was brought to its knees using a man-made engineered virus developed through gain-of-function research to create a weaponised virus candidate which then escaped from a research lab in Wuhan, China, and infected the world. 

What followed was a cover-up on the origin and suppression of effective early interventions to make the impact worse. Why? To sell vaccines—injections—that were rushed through and are now killing and maiming people. Who benefits from that? Well, Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, NIAID. NIAID under Fauci had a direct, well-documented institutional role in vaccine research, patenting of key technologies, licensing to companies and receiving of royalties. NIAID conducted the foundational work in the development of the mRNA platform and held patents on stabilised prefusion spike proteins—yes, those spike proteins. This means that the organisation that owned the patent related to spike proteins acted to ban alternative therapies such as Ivermectin, which was proven, and Fenbendazole, which is proven, so the world had no choice and was forced to use the COVID shots, which contain spike proteins, which then earned NIAID half a billion Australian dollars in royalties. All this was at the same time—as records show—that they knew the injections caused myocarditis and were next to useless. This is in their own words in their own diary, text messages and emails. All of this is public record, even if you have not heard about it. My other speeches on this subject are available on my website. 

Tonight, I’ll expand on my comments that the injections are now killing and maiming people. As always, I use peer reviewed science, facts and data. I thank epidemiologist Nicolas Hulscher and the McCullough Foundation for the work I’m referencing tonight. The link between mRNA vaccines, injections and cancer is mechanistic, clinical and evident in population studies—scientific studies. 

To the mechanistic evidence—35 distinct cancer-promoting mechanisms have been identified in peer reviewed papers. I will post a link to the literature review on my website. Key mechanisms include impaired DNA repair allowing damaged cells to become cancerous; presence of SV40 cell division enhancer that enhances cancer growth—that one was criminal; LINE-1 reverse transcription, DNA segments left over from the growing medium incorporating into a person’s DNA; frameshifting leading to cell damage and random mutations; chronic inflammation due to the lipid nanoparticles holding the messenger RNA strands; immune suppression through the ACE2 receptor, amongst others; and cancer stem cell expansion. The McCullough Foundation proposes a concurrent hit model. These processes do not necessarily operate independently or sequentially. Multiple cancer-promoting hits overlap in the same susceptible host person, compressing the time required for dormant, indolent or microscopic disease to become clinically aggressive. This is commonly referred to as ‘turbocancer’, which is just a layman’s term for an aggressive cancer, which did exist before COVID. 

On clinical evidence, the published clinical literature includes 333 documented turbocancer cases across 27 countries involving lymphomas, leukaemia, melanoma, breast cancer, lung cancer, glioblastoma, sarcomas and pancreatic cancers. Eighty-six per cent of these cases occurred following COVID-19 injections, and just 14 per cent were following SARS CoV-2 infection. This is because 14 per cent of cases are from COVID; the rest are from the COVID injections. Was the prevention worse than the disease? That’s a matter for a royal commission. Most likely the answer is yes. 

Across these cases, recurring patterns include rapid cancer progression, short latency recurrence, reactivation of previously controlled disease and tumours involving the injection site or nearby lymph nodes. The platform can distribute systemically, forcing vulnerable tissues, including the heart and brain, to express mutated tumour proteins. This raises the risk of off-target immune attack, cardiac injury and neurological damage. As I pointed out previously, health authorities in the USA knew the risk of myocarditis as early as March 2021 and covered it up. The information in this study puts the science behind the clinical observations of increased myocarditis, pericarditis and Alzheimer’s adjacent diseases. 

Even more concerning, the liquid lipid nanoparticle delivery vehicle itself promoted metastatic growth in mice even without mRNA cargo. This suggests that some oncologic liabilities reside in the platform itself not only the encoded antigen. This confirms emerging research showing that the more COVID boosters, the more lipid nanoparticle and the more spike protein, the greater your risk. 

On population evidence, there have been excess USA cancer deaths since 2021 injections of between 153,000 and 197,000 people. Early onset cancer incidence surged 6.4 per cent in just two years, from 2021 to 2023, alongside sharp increases in brain and nervous system tumours, which are up 19.5 per cent. Colorectal cancer is up 19.4 per cent. Small intestine cancer is up 15.5 per cent. Ovarian cancer is up 12.8 per cent. Stomach cancer is up 7.3 per cent, and female breast cancer is up 3.6 per cent. In South Korea, a nationwide cohort of 8.4 million people found vaccinated individuals had an increased one-year cancer risk across six cancer types: thyroid, gastric, colorectal, lung, breast and prostate cancer. In Italy, vaccinated residents had a 23 per cent higher risk of cancer hospitalisation. We have the mechanism, we have the science, and we have the data.  

I would love to provide the latest data on cancer rates in Australia. There is none. Data showing cancer rates moderating through 2023-25 are actually projections—not real data—made in 2022. Some graphs show the dotted lines to indicate projection; others don’t. They don’t even bother. The official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare stops at 2022. This is not acceptable. We don’t need to know the outcome of the disease or hospitalisation rates. We only need to know diagnosis, and that can be marked provisional until normal processes are followed through. After four years, why is that simple data not available? It’s because they don’t want you to know. 

This is not a history lesson. The first randomised test of mRNA as monotherapy in residual cancer commenced in 2021 and is still underway, with the result expected in 2030. While Moderna advise wonderful outcomes, their data has not been made public nor shared with researchers, so I guess we’ll have to wait until 2030 to find out the truth. The point here is simple: this is a properly conducted mRNA trial, and it’s taking nine years. Our health authorities accepted data from Pfizer and Moderna on their COVID products after only a few months of so-called testing—substandard testing. They promised to provide the data after they finished the trial, yet they never did. The question for a royal commission is this: why was next to no safety testing—two months instead of nine years—accepted for a substance which was then injected into hundreds of millions or even billions of people? Surely the larger the cohort, the more care that was needed, not the reverse. As I showed last sitting, the American CDC, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, knew almost straightaway the injection was only slightly more effective than natural immunity, so urgency was not the reason. 

Those following this scandal will find much of tonight’s information is familiar. Papers have been available for years on some of these pathways. I referenced some as far back as in 2022. It turns out those qualified epidemiologists and public health luminaries who opposed the official story were right. Many have paid dearly for their principled stand. Some doctors here in Australia are still debarred as a result of showing character when so many displayed cowardice and silence. The pharmaphiles at AHPRA still insist on persecuting the truth-tellers, the doctors of courage and principle, to send a message to the industry that truth will not be tolerated and that acting in the best interests of the patient will not be tolerated. 

Because we did not intervene as strongly as needed back then, AHPRA are doing it again—this time with transgenderism and doctors opposing medicalisation of a psychological condition, a mental health condition. According to AHPRA, the job of a doctor is to keep the pharmaceuticals flowing. If this sounds extreme, you haven’t read the amount I have read on our COVID scandal and you haven’t spoken with the famous medical names from around the world who have given me advice from mid-2020 which has turned out to be accurate. To ensure this never happens again, tonight I repeat One Nation’s call for a royal commission into the COVID scandal, the COVID crimes and the COVID injection homicides. (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

The Population Ponzi

,

The reality is simple: Australians are going backwards under the Albanese government.

Official data reveals growth this decade is the worst in 100 years, yet Labor is pushing ahead with bringing in millions of new arrivals.

Economic growth is negative per person. The economy isn’t growing on its own, so immigration is being used as a Ponzi scheme to artificially inflate the numbers.

Labour productivity is down, fuelled in part by massive public service job growth that drives up inflation for everyone.

While female participation rates are up, male participation rates are down. Growth should be for everyone.

Transcript

The reality is that people are going backwards under the Albanese government. Official data shows growth this decade is the worst in 100 years, and this is when Labor decides to dump a million new arrivals with a million more to come. The minister’s list of economic achievements rely on immigration to stay positive. Economic growth, for instance, is negative per person. Each person’s economic pie is shrinking, not growing. Immigration is the Ponzi scheme that I’m referring to and talking about here. Bringing in new people to artificially inflate the economy, which is now incapable of growing on its own. 

Labour productivity is down in part because of the growth in employment in the Public Service, whose lower productivity contributes to inflation for everyone. Another of Senator Gallagher’s achievements was female participation rates are up—true—and male participation rates are down. You’re supposed to grow the economy for everyone, not pick sides. People are noticing— (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Guarding Australia’s Sporting Investments

,

The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026 replaces the costly, time-consuming parliamentary bill requirement for designating protected major sporting events with a simpler legislative instrument (regulation) issued by the minister. It simply reduces red tape and cost.

The instrument remains disallowable, meaning the Senate can still debate and vote it down if necessary.

The act protects the massive financial investments of major events like the Olympics, Commonwealth Games and FIFA World Cups by preventing unauthorised commercial association or false sponsorship claims, while still allowing businesses to broadcast events legally.

One Nation supports the bill to reduce red tape, protect event investments and secure infrastructure and tourism benefits for Australia.

Taxpayer funding for these events delivers a strong return on investment through increased tourism, tax revenue and future sports infrastructure. Because One Nation strongly supports youth sports, we recognise that venues must be built and major events will provide the financial means to make that happen.

One Nation will also protect girls and women, who are being told to play against biological males pretending to be women —fake women. Let’s be clear: a One Nation sports minister would refuse to grant event protection under this act to any major sporting event that permits biological males to compete in female sports categories. Mixed-competition sports are acceptable, but inclusion of transgender women in female divisions is unfair, unsafe, and harmful to women’s rights and opportunities.

Transcript

The Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Act 2014 prevents the unauthorised commercial use, often called ‘ambush marketing’, of protected major sporting events and images associated with those events. Previously, designating an event required a bill, which cost taxpayers’ money to draft and process through the parliament. Under this bill before the Senate today, the Major Sporting Events (Indicia and Images) Protection Amendment Bill 2026, this is being changed to a simpler system. The minister will issue a legislative instrument, a regulation. That’s it; that’s all the bill does—it reduces red tape and cost. The instrument will still be disallowable. In the unlikely event that there’s controversy around designating an event, the Senate can still debate the instrument and, if necessary, vote it down, as we would with a bill. 

The act serves to protect the financial interests of events which cost millions to stage, without impacting the rights of Australians. To answer a constituent’s question that came through my electorate office, a hotel can advertise ‘watch the Olympics on our big screen’, provided it’s sourcing the feed from a broadcaster who’s paid the rights. You can’t claim to be a sponsor or make a video, printed media or signage which a reasonable person would assume meant you had paid to be a sponsor. That’s fair enough. 

One Nation supports this measure. If someone wants to risk hundreds of millions of dollars to stage a sporting event, some level of protection is necessary—or nobody will do it. These are major events: the FIFA football world cup co-hosted by Australia and New Zealand in 2023, the International Cricket Council’s T20 men’s world cup in 2022 and, of course, the Commonwealth and Olympic games. Sensible taxpayer funding for these events can be justified on the basis of the taxation return from those attending and the increased tourism revenue for years afterwards, and for the facilities built for the future. One Nation strongly supports children playing sport, and that means someone has to build the venues. It’s these major events which do that, and this is why they need protection. 

I’ll discuss who else needs protection: girls and women, who are being told to play against biological males pretending to be women—fake women. I’ve chosen my words carefully. Some sports—mixed doubles in the tennis, for instance—allow men and women to compete against each other. That’s not what I’m talking about. My concern goes to men pretending to be women and playing against women and girls. Whether the sport is a contact sport or a test of skill, such as weightlifting, makes no difference. It is wrong. It is totally wrong. It’s dangerous. Girls and women are being harmed. They’re losing their opportunity to win fair and square and losing to men who are not being fair. It’s an attack on women’s rights, and I personally do not understand the mental gymnastics needed for a feminist to support men beating—and I do mean beating—women or anyone else, for that matter, in a sporting contest. This tarnishes the event and future events and guts female competitors and possible future female competitors. 

Let me make One Nation’s policy very clear. If your major sporting event involved even one sport which allowed biological males to compete as fake females in our country, a One Nation minister for sport would not issue your event with protection under this act. To organisers who do not protect women and girls playing a sport: we will not protect you. 

/0 Comments/by

The Cost of Record Arrivals

,

The Labor government has failed everyday Australians through its handling of labour market economics and reckless immigration policies.

At the start of the Albanese government in 2022, according to the ABS, there were 1.35 million underutilised Australians in the workforce and by July 2026, that number surged to 1.68 million. Aside from the COVID period, underutilisation had been consistently falling since 2014, until Labor took over. With 1.68 million Australians unable to find enough hours or work, I asked Minister Gallagher why Australians can’t find enough adequate employment.

In response, Minister Gallagher dodged the core issue by rattling off broad statistics while ignoring the growing number of underemployed Australians.

According to ABS data, workforce participation has barely budged, with unemployment jumping from 3.4% to 4.5%. Treasurer Jim Chalmers’ promise of “a paid job for everyone who wants one” has fallen flat. I wanted to know whether the government has failed miserably and has broken yet another promise, or whether they have simply changed their position. Once again, the Minister avoided accountability.

In my final question, I brought up the elephant in the room: mass immigration. ABS border movement data shows that in 2025–26, Australia recorded a record 476,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals.

I asked the Minister how on earth the government can justify maintaining such high levels of mass immigration when hardworking Australians are struggling to find enough work. Predictably, the Minister again dodged the question, leaning on their “standard” talking points about visa arrangements, completely ignoring the damage their migration policies are doing to workers.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: My question is, once again, to the Minister representing the Treasurer, Senator Gallagher, on the subject of labour market economics. In June 2022, at the start of the Albanese government, there were 1.35 million Australians underutilised in the workforce according to the ABS. In July 2026, this had increased to 1.68 million. Taking out the COVID period, underutilisation has been falling since the measure began in 2014, until Labor took over. Now, it’s going up. The only interpretation of this data is that there are not enough hours and not enough work to go around. As a result, 1.68 million Australians are working less than they want and need to. Why can’t people find enough work under this Labor government? 

Senator GALLAGHER (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. I think that’s the second week in a row you’ve had Senator Babet’s question. I wonder where—you lucky guy! I wonder where the ghost of the Senate is. We never see him anymore, do we? I noticed he did launch a clothing range a few days ago though, so he had time to do that. 

Senator Roberts interjecting— 

The PRESIDENT: I will draw the minister to your question, Senator Roberts. 

Senator GALLAGHER: As Senator Roberts will know, unemployment is at historically at low levels, sitting at 4½ per cent. In recent times, over the data sets, participation rates have been historically high, including for women. We’ve got the gender pay gap at record lows. We’ve got employment at 14.8 million, so we’ve created 1.3 million jobs since coming to government. Women are employed full time at much higher rates—4.1 million. We’ve got industrial disputes down. We’ve got annual wage growth over three per cent. So I think, on any measure, when you look at how the labour market is performing, Senator Roberts, it is being pretty resilient against the backdrop of global uncertainty and all of the risks that come with that. The Australian economy has actually fared very well in terms of job numbers, in terms of the participation rate, in terms of wages and in terms of the number of jobs that have been created under this government. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, first supplementary?

Senator ROBERTS: Workforce participation under your government only increased 0.1 per cent—a rounding error—and male participation has fallen. Unemployment is up from 3.4 per cent to 4.5 per cent. In August 2023, Treasury Chalmers promised ‘a paid job for everyone who wants one’. Minister, has your government failed miserably to keep that promise, or have you ‘changed your position’ on creating jobs for all who are here? 

Senator GALLAGHER: Over 1.3 million jobs have been created, Senator Roberts—three out of five are full time and five out of six are in the private sector. We’ve got the lowest average unemployment rate of any government in the last 50 years, a record number of Australians in full-time jobs and a participation rate at near-record highs. The advice I have is that the participation rate has gone from 66.3 per cent in May 2022 to 66.9 per cent, which is near a record high. As a Labor government, we will always do more to make sure that people have all of the opportunities they can from the dignity that work provides and—not only that—good, secure jobs that pay well. That is what Labor governments are all about, and that is what we will continue to deliver. 

The PRESIDENT: Senator Roberts, second supplementary? 

Senator ROBERTS: ABS border movement data reveals that, in 2025-26, Australia recorded 476,000 permanent and long-term overseas arrivals, the highest on record. Australian workers can’t find enough work, yet this Labor government continues to bring in record numbers of arrivals. Minister, why would you keep mass immigration at such high levels when it’s taking work off Australians? 

Senator GALLAGHER: As I said in answer to your colleague’s question, Australia has always relied on being able to supplement our own Australian workers with workers who migrate here under different visas and under various arrangements with those visas. I would say, Senator Roberts—I don’t know whether Mr Farley from the other place has commented on your migration policy today. But we know from everyone who’s had a look at what you’ve announced today, whether it be those key stakeholder groups like the Farmers’ Federation, all of those regional employers or all of the people who rely on workers who come to Australia to work and take up those opportunities alongside Australian workers and the jobs that we’ve created here—the good, secure jobs that deliver the dignity of work to those families. But we know from all of the feedback that we’re seeing about your policy that it’s not going to work and it would damage— (Time expired) 

/0 Comments/by

Misinformed or Playing Politics?

,

Critics like Senator Hume and Minister Watt are either misinformed or playing politics with One Nation’s seven-page immigration policy. To be clear: our policy keeps intake numbers completely unchanged for backpackers, PALM workers and the tourism sector.

Citing from the Treasury’s FIONA model, young, working-age migrants aged 25–35 contribute positively to the economy while older migrants, family reunion programs and non-working arrivals create a net financial cost.

Our policy aims to prioritise productive workers while screening out non-producers.

Canada is proof that immigration cuts ease rental pressures and benefits local workers. We will still permits genuinely skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing, aged care and rural industries.

Businesses should stop relying on imported labour rather than training the 690,000 unemployed and 1.65 million underemployed Australians. Our policy will end the “cheap-labour gravy train” and boost domestic living standards.

Transcript

Senator Roberts: Liberal Senator Hume described One Nation’s immigration policy as ‘a headline number and a few slogans’. I have the policy here. It’s seven pages of details and facts. It took months of research to source the numbers and formulate the measures, which are comprehensive, detailed, consistent and will fix so many of the problems Australia is facing in housing, household wealth, service delivery, social cohesion and the current per capita recession in which Australians are suffering. It’s clear that people criticising the policy have never read it or are lying out of political self-interest. For clarity, there’s no change in backpackers, no change in PALM workers, no change in tourism numbers. All three can increase if the market can sustain more. Labor Minister Watt made this criticism: ‘One Nation policy will destroy the economy and drive the economy into recession.’ The minister is not alone in this deceit. Some Liberal-aligned business leaders and Labor-aligned media have repeated this unfounded fabrication, contrary to the facts.  

The Treasury’s Fiscal Impact of New Australians model, FIONA, looks at the lifetime contribution of a new immigrant—the cost and the benefit. A young migrant in the sweet spot of 25 to 35 years of age—someone who assimilates, works his or her whole life and stays out of trouble—will add $198,000 to the economy in their lifetime, increasing GDP and wealth for all, which is why we are not reducing that cohort; we are increasing it. This is our immigration target demographic.  

FIONA shows each person arriving under the family program, though, costs the Australian economy $126,000 across their lifetime. FIONA shows a migrant arriving after the age of 50 will never pay back the taxpayers either. In addition, their lifetime value is negative. The current mix of this government’s new arrivals is heavily weighted towards older migrants, family reunions and nonworkers, and there are hundreds of thousands of fake students working in the gig economy, cheating on their tax and sending home as much money as possible. Children of new arrivals or family reunions have a huge lifetime economic cost. The younger the child, the more likely it is that they will have a negative lifetime economic impact. This is why FIONA only puts the average lifetime contribution of all migrants that this government is letting in at $41,000. The more committed, young, educated or skilled workers we let in, the more nonproducers we can screen out. It only takes 20 per cent of all arrivals to be our target young demographic for the total value of arrivals to hit the $41,000 figure. So what do other arrivals contribute? They don’t. They add costs to Australians. Do the maths.  

Prime Minister Carney grew Canada’s economy with the same approach One Nation is proposing. He grew it. Canada’s largest banks report that Canadian immigration cuts were easing rental pressures and supporting employment. In Canadian provinces where the immigration cuts were most significant, rents are falling fastest. The banks concluded the immigration slowdown has been great news for Canada’s battlers.  

Speaking last night on—of course—the ABC, George Megalogenis said our cut would cause the worst depression since the 1890s. Talk about seeing what you want to see! What utter nonsense—a lie. The data I have just presented shows the reverse will be true. Canada proved the reverse will be true.  

As for a supposed labour shortage, One Nation is not changing backpacker numbers. We’re offering skilled visas to genuinely skilled workers in areas we need them, including construction; the care economy, such as nursing and aged care; and rural industry. Let’s be clear; only one per cent of skilled arrivals last year under this government were construction workers, half a per cent were aged-care workers and one per cent were nurses. Our numbers leave plenty of room for more skilled and educated workers where we need them.  

Our policy looks after those who are already here. Right now, there are 690,000 Australians out of work—690,000. There are another 1.65 million Australians looking for extra work. Business lobbies should start there—with Australians who want a job. It’s industry’s fault that workforce planning was sacrificed on the altar of high profits and lazy management. The workers are here in Australia. It’s time for industry to get back in the business of training the new generation of apprentices and staff, instead of lazily importing them. 

Under One Nation, the cheap-labour gravy train will be over, and Australians can begin to restore Australian productivity and living standards. Together we Australians can restore Australia.  

/1 Comment/by