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.
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)
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.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/UHP5wN925nE/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-10-08 18:05:442026-10-08 18:05:52Misinformed or Playing Politics?
One Nation fully supports the bill introduced by Senators Babet and Antic – A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025 – which seeks to restore the conscientious-objection clause to federal family assistance laws.
This bill enables parents with unvaccinated children to access the childcare subsidy and Family Tax Benefit Part A without facing financial penalties, applicable up to age seven after which the child is deemed to meet the schedule irrespective of vaccination status. Under this amendment, parents would be able to file a written declaration of conscientious objection, alongside a consultation with an immunisation provider regarding risks and benefits, to legally satisfy childhood immunisation requirements.
Australian childhood vaccination rates are at a 12-year low, dropping below the federal government’s 95% target. This drop in vaccination rates is no coincidence and can be attributed to public distrust following government actions and mandates during COVID-19.
Medical coercion violates patient autonomy and the ethical guidelines of the Australian Immunisation Handbook, which mandates voluntary informed consent.
There are disparities in state-level “no jab, no play” childcare bans so vaccination status should have no bearing on child care, relevant subsidies and the ability to claim Family Tax Benefit A. Besides, we let in millions of people into Australia without knowing their vaccination status. India and China have vaccination rates higher that we do, however Pakistan is down to 80% and Yemen is at 50%.
Further, safety testing of childhood vaccines against inert placebos have NEVER been tested, a requirement of the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6, which the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) ratified. High levels of adverse events such as autism that parents associate with the vaccines, are brushed off by the authorities, with no examination, and no interest in exploring truth. A One Nation government believe this is a matter in the public interest and will require this safety testing to be funded given the significance of the exercise.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: Thank you to Senators Babet and Antic for this bill, A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Amendment (No Jab No Pay Repeal) Bill 2025, which One Nation wholeheartedly supports. The bill simply provides for the conscientious-objection clause to be restored to the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, which will allow children who are not fully immunised to access social security.
Specifically, this will allow families whose children may not be vaccinated to access the childcare subsidy and the family tax benefit part A supplement without facing financial penalties. Under this amendment, if a parent files a written declaration of a conscientious objection and an immunisation provider certifies they have discussed the risks and benefits, the child is legally deemed to have met the immunisation requirements. This provision only applies to age seven, after which the child is deemed to meet the schedule irrespective of vaccination status.
This bill is sensible. It’s fair. It restores the fundamental principle that parents make decisions for their children—not governments. Childhood vaccination rates in Australia are currently at a 12-year low, dropping below the federal government’s target of 95 per cent. Vaccination rates at 12 months are 90.5 per cent, down 4.3 per cent over the last five years. At 24 months, the rate is 88.4 per cent, and, at 60 months, the rate is 92.5 per cent. According to the latest data from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance, approximately 80,000 children under the age of five are not fully up to date with their standard childhood immunisations.
The timing of this fall is no coincidence. Immunisation was a major casualty of Australia’s criminal response to the COVID scandal. It turns out that, when you force vaccination on people and destroy the careers, businesses and, in some cases, marriages of those who refuse, many people do not react with acquiescence. They react with understandable suspicion, distrust, resentment and anger. They saw the harm people were experiencing from the COVID injections, they look at the harm some childhood vaccines are causing, and they ask, ‘What else have our authorities lied to us about?’
The reduction in support for vaccination takes two forms. Firstly, parents are increasingly choosing not to give some or all of the schedule to their child. Secondly, parents are delaying the shots until their baby is older. For instance, in 2025, two in five children received their first measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, dose later than recommended. That’s 40 per cent.
When looking at vaccination rates across Australia, national averages can be highly misleading. The national average sits at around 91 per cent, although this does not mean every area is vaccinated to that level. There are growing regional differences. The drop in vaccination rates is not happening evenly across the country.
The National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance map data from the Australian Immunisation Register onto a standard unit called an SA3, statistical area level 3. This is important when comparing vaccination rates in one area against those in another. Five years ago, more than half of all SA3, statistical area level 3, areas had reached or exceeded the 95 per cent target. Today, the number of SA3 areas meeting that target has plummeted to just 18 per cent—less than one in five. This shows that the fall in confidence in vaccination is happening right across the country.
It can be argued that these SA3 areas with vaccination rates below 95 per cent no longer have herd immunity. Herd immunity has come under scrutiny following the failure of the COVID vaccines, the COVID injections, the COVID gene therapy treatments, to effect herd immunity, despite the level of coercion which went into achieving very high vaccination rates So far, this healthy scientific re-examination has shown measles, mumps, polio and rubella vaccines can achieve herd immunity because their outer shell is stable over time.
Many countries, including the United States, have found the level of preservatives in the MMR vaccine is too high for safety and require those shots to be given separately and spaced out. One Nation supports that position. Viruses like COVID and influenza mutate rapidly and, as society proved with COVID, do not allow for herd immunity. This was conventional science before our COVID response tore up the rule book and threw out the science. Surprisingly, the areas of lowest vaccination are not in rural and regional areas. They are in growth corridors and inner-city areas. That’s interesting. Conservatives are frequently blamed for lower vaccination rates, yet where are the lowest rates? They’re in inner city left-leaning electorates. Vaccination rates in the bush, though, can be delayed, owing to distance and scheduling.
Growth corridors are showing lower vaccination rates, and this is where the babies are and where mothers live with concern about government agencies’ actions dishonestly compromising their precious babies’ health. The bill does not address the issue of unvaccinated children attending child care. State governments control that policy. New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia all have laws preventing unvaccinated children attending child care. Queensland allows the centre to make the decision. The ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory have no regulations similar to no-jab no-play. Vaccination status is not relevant to child care. Canberra always makes rules for others that it does not impose on itself. Recall Commonwealth agencies inhuman, antihuman, immoral, dishonest COVID restrictions and lies contrary to the science. This is interesting. If vaccination status is critical to keeping children safe, we would see New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia having lower disease rates than the ACT, Northern Territory and Tasmania, who allow vaccinated and unvaccinated children to mix. Not surprisingly—to me anyway—there is no difference in disease rates between the states on average over time. Don’t you just love competitive federalism? I sure do!
If you look at the raw infection numbers that the Australian Centre for Disease Control, the CDC, publishes, New South Wales regularly records the highest numbers of whooping cough and measles cases in the country. This may be because Australia does not screen new arrivals for vaccination status. For clarity, new arrivals are those visa types which are counted towards net overseas migration. Although the same no-jab no-play rule covers children of the net overseas migration and Australian children, when new arrivals apply for permanent visas, they come under the migration medical examination, which does check their vaccination status and requires makeups where required.
What’s the take-home here? We go to all this trouble to achieve childhood vaccination, then we let in millions of new arrivals and don’t even ask their vaccination status. For the record, India and China have vaccination rates higher than ours. Pakistan is down at 80 per cent, and Somalia and Yemen are at 50 per cent. I’ve asked about this in Senate estimates hearings and always get nothing answers—crap—and that’s the problem. Unless we can talk honestly about these issues, confidence in health authorities will continue to plummet. Their hubris will be fatal to public health. We also know is that we have a 35-year high in whooping cough, pertussis, notifications and public measles alerts. Something is going wrong, and we have every right to ask about it.
One Nation has concerns around no-jab no-play laws. In medical ethics the relationship between coercion and vaccination is a complex topic, with two competing ethical duties—respect for individual autonomy and the duty to protect public health. In Australian clinical practice, coercion is against ethical guidelines. Under the Australian Immunisation Handbook for a patient to give legally valid medical consent that consent quote ‘must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation’. A doctor cannot ethically use physical force, direct threats or deception to compel a patient to take a vaccine. Doing so violates the foundational bioethical principle of autonomy, and that’s the right of an individual to make decisions about their own body. It is this autonomy Senator Antic’s bill seeks to strengthen, with the re-inclusion of a conscientious objection. As such, the bill fits perfectly within the existing legal and ethical vaccination framework. Here I must make the point that during COVID this fundamental protection against coercion was torn up and ripped to shreds with apparent glee from our health authorities, who revelled in operating in an environment without ethics. The very people who should have displayed ethics instead chose hysteria with an added layer of financial gain. The fundamental rule here is that, if you ignore the rule on informed consent, the risk—in this case, COVID—has to be proportionate to the measures taken. The vaccine has to be proven safe and effective. The measures taken must be the least necessary to be the least infringement on the code, and, finally, the measures have to be necessary. The COVID immunisation agenda met none of these four tests—not one. The COVID shots were not tested. The skimpy so-called testing was done on a different version of the vaccine to the one actually sold in Australia. The term ‘safe and effective’ was two lies. They were not safe; they were not effective. And we know the health agencies and departments knew that at the time. I’ll say it again: we know the health agencies and departments knew at the time that they were not safe and effective. They were not necessary. Vaccinating for influenza has never worked and did not work in the case of COVID, and, lastly, they were not the least infringement on the code. Ivermectin and similar accessible, affordable, safe drugs were proven safe and effective yet were banned by our health authorities.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, Ahpra, should have acted to defend the rights of patients and stood in defence of informed consent, which is supposedly an Ahpra objective. Instead, they chose to police medical practitioners to ensure none dared to follow the Australian Immunisation Handbook guidelines. Ahpra tried heavily and determinedly to ensure health practitioners did not comply with the Hippocratic oath. These dishonest travesties Ahpra continue today.
Secondly, childhood vaccines have never been tested for safety against an inert placebo—never—which is what is required by the ICH Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6, which Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, has ratified. Australian vaccines have not been tested against this standard. Instead, the TGA, in Senate estimates hearings, relies on the lack of reported serious adverse events to assume vaccines are safe. Despite there being high levels of adverse events such as autism that parents associate with the vaccines, the authorities, with no examination, brush off that the cause is vaccines. It’s this, more than anything else, that’s causing a loss of confidence in vaccination. A One Nation government will require this safety testing to be done and, given the significance of the exercise, fund the trials, in the public interest.
Finally, under America’s health and human services secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the CDC in America, announced an unprecedented revision of the routine childhood immunisation guidelines, shrinking approved vaccines from 17 to 11. Australia has 14. This move is currently blocked in American courts after the pharmaceutical industry fought back. I hope the measure is approved, as it will provide a very immediate answer to the question of a potential link between childhood vaccines and adverse events that agencies with connections to big pharma currently and blindly do not accept as being vaccine related.
Greg Beattie’s excellent book, Fooling Ourselves, provides a proper statistical evaluation showing that the incidence of childhood diseases and their effects plummeted before the vaccines were released. That means that vaccines were not the cause of the near eradication of the diseases. Rather, it seems that improved hygiene, improved sanitation and improved nutrition were the causes of falling disease incidence. It means that there will be no harm in not forcing childhood vaccines—no harm.
In summary, parents have every right to be wary of the harm these products may be doing to their children. They have every right to exercise their religious or conscientious objections to forced vaccination. They should not be treated differently for not having vaccinated their children in whole or in part. And childcare centres should be free to make the decision to accept or not accept vaccinated or unvaccinated children. One Nation will proudly support this bill
https://img.youtube.com/vi/9X3We0aqX-4/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-30 16:48:022026-09-30 16:48:06Bringing Choice Back to Family Assistance
Infrastructure of national significance such as power transmission lines, substations and water systems should remain in the hands of the government, on behalf of the people, which will prevent corporate monopolies and price gouging. While power generation can be privately owned, it needs long-term supply price controls.
Privatisation of water in South Australia in 1996 failed and was brought back under government control in 2012. Not only was it poorly maintained, water went from being amongst the cheapest to the dearest. Similarly, Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and likewise, was brought back under government control in 2019. The Western Australian government discovered that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. This saved taxpayers $5 million a year.
Rather than learning from the costly mistakes of other states, Victoria is pushing ahead with plans to lease VicWater assets to the highest bidder. The result? Victorians will face higher water bills only to inherit degraded infrastructure when its handed back.
Privatisation leads to monopolies, profit maximisation and price gouging. By contrast, I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, driving accountability, efficiency, and productivity.
Given Australia’s small population and vast size, duplicate critical infrastructure cannot exist, meaning private ownership inherently creates unregulated monopolies that maximise profit through gouging.
The Solution? Competitive Federalism. State-owned critical infrastructure avoids private monopolies because it operates within a system of “competitive federalism.” Citizens have freedom of movement between states, creating a “marketplace in governance” where states must remain accountable, efficient, and responsive to citizens, driving positive policy reforms across the country.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I thank Senator McKim for moving this motion, which One Nation supports. It’s One Nation policy that infrastructure of national significance should remain in the hands of the government on behalf of the people—not under government control but on behalf of the people. This includes power transmission lines and substations. Power stations can be privately owned and operated under a long-term supply price, which prevents price gouging in times of power scarcity, which happens all the time with weather-dependent solar and wind power. It’s a travesty that the business model for Snowy 2.0 hydro seeks to justify the $42 billion price tag using a projection for power prices which suggests they too expect a profit from price gouging. AEMO, the Australian Energy Market Operator, is frequently forced to intervene in the market at $600 per megawatt hour, which is a staggeringly high price, because new gas-firming plants are not being required to accept a feed-in tariff. If it existed, it would be $60 to $80 per megawatt hour. Consumers are paying peak pricing which is 10 times the price they would pay if we built our baseload power stations with sensible supply contracts—fact.
Privatising infrastructure of national significance has failed. South Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2012. This was after the operator failed to maintain a sewage treatment works and Adelaide endured months of what was called the ‘big pong’. Adelaide water went from being amongst our country’s cheapest to our country’s dearest. Western Australia privatised water in 1996 and brought it back under government control in 2019. The outcome in Western Australia was interesting. Perhaps Premier Carroll could pay attention there. During 25 years, the Western Australian government realised that managing complex private contracts was actually costing more than doing the work themselves. Moving Western Australian water back to government ownership saved taxpayers $5 million a year. Now Victoria is the latest bankrupt state selling off the silverware—VicWater. The plan is called Project Nerva and circumvents the Victorian constitution through leasing the $18 billion in assets of VicWater to the highest bidder. Victorians will pay more for their water and receive back an asset in a worse state than when it was leased. Such is privatisation. It leads to a monopoly, which leads to profit maximisation, which leads to gouging. I generally support the free market because it gives consumers choice, and choice leads to accountability, and choice leads to efficiency and productivity. Given Australia’s small population, though, and huge area, we cannot support two sets of critical infrastructure for roads, water and electricity. We cannot place monopoly power in corporate hands, where profit maximisation is the goal and leads to gouging.
What of government monopolies? Our forefathers, the founding fathers of our Constitution, thought of that and came up with a solution—actually, they borrowed it from the American constitution. The solution is embedded in our Constitution. States provide infrastructure and critical services. That comes under competitive federalism. One state competes with another state. That’s a marketplace in governance. There is choice. If South Australia is stuffing things up, South Australians can move to New South Wales or Queensland. It doesn’t matter what it is. Whether it’s education, infrastructure, water, electricity, roads—whatever it is, there is no monopoly, because the states have competition under competitive federalism. That provides a marketplace in governance, which leads to choice. If you don’t like the state you’re in, you can move to another state. Freedom of movement leads to accountability. So state ownership of critical infrastructure is part of a marketplace solution.
There’s not enough time to tell you about Sir Joh, but Sir Joh abolished death duties in Queensland, and people moved to Queensland so that they could leave their children more money. That led to other states doing the same. Warren Buffett, the most successful investor ever, said his ideal investment is the sole drawbridge on a wide river. When you put it in private hands, infrastructure becomes a mechanism for gouging. We must protect national infrastructure and national services like water. They’re key resources.
Reflecting on a decade in the Senate, it’s clear that every major issue facing Australia — from energy and water to economic decline — stems from the “uniparty” status quo.
We’ve fallen from the #1 highest per capita income a century ago to now hurtling toward 20th. Despite having the world’s richest natural resources per capita, poor policy choices have left us dependent on foreign powers for manufacturing, energy and fertiliser.
We need to restore Australia’s independence.
We need to drill and refine at home, keeping our oil, gas and manufacturing within our borders from start to finish.
We need to secure domestic supply by rebuilding local production for essentials like fertiliser.
I support Senator Bell’s inquiry to get the real data on how this happened and how we fix it.
Australia deserves better than managed decline.
Transcript
Senator Roberts: I was elected in 2016 in May-July. I started in July. I’ve had more than 10 years since I first joined the Senate. I’ve been elected once and re-elected twice. In that 10 years, I’ve learnt that every major problem in this country is due to the uniparty. Your policies on energy, your policies on climate fraud, your policies on water—disgraceful. You’ve done everything you can to hammer workers into subservience. You’re both guilty of mass immigration.
Australia has fallen from having the No. 1 highest per capita income in the world a hundred or so years ago to now being headed out the back door. We’re heading for 20th thanks to you lot. We are still the richest nation in the world for resources per capita, yet now we’re dependent on communist dictatorships and the unstable government for much of what we need in this country. Our manufacturing has been shot, thanks to you lot, so we’re now dependent. We must have new capability restored within our borders—we drill for oil or gas within our borders, process it, refine it, transport it, and put it in bowsers, then into cars, trucks and tractors, with the whole process in our country. What’s the matter? You have abandoned that. You’ve both caused it.
We need the same for fertiliser. We need to restore Australia. We have the world’s highest per capita resources, yet we’re heading down the road to poverty, thanks to you lot. We need to get the data on why this has happened. We need to get the data on what we need. We need to get the facts. That’s why I support this inquiry that Senator Bell has had the courage to put forward.
Recent scientific papers, including one by Dr. Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge and another by Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney, reveal high rates of severe adverse events such as myocarditis, pericarditis, and cancer links following COVID-19 vaccination, which were censored or downplayed by authorities.
Australian health authorities ignored these risks.
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) silenced dissenting doctors, forcing practitioners to violate the Hippocratic oath. According to AHPRA’s own data, 16 doctors under AHPRA scrutiny have died by suicide.
Doctors’ registration fees have skyrocketed fivefold — not to keep standards high, but to fund Ahpra’s mounting mission creep.
With a growing appetite for complaints and power, AHPRA lack the ability to manage processes fairly or swiftly. When a regulator’s actions lead to serious distress and suicide risks, it’s no wonder they had to convene an “incidents of distress” review.
This isn’t regulation anymore; it’s harming our medical community.
A One Nation government is committed to calling for a royal commission into the COVID-19 medical response and convening a conference of state health ministers to review and reform AHPRA’s regulatory model.
Australians deserve to know who knew what and when regarding the COVID-19 medical response.
https://youtu.be/-HmexHho1zk
Transcript
Senator Roberts: In the week since I spoke about the huge volume of scientific papers on the COVID scandal, more new papers have been published. After years of censorship, Dr Yaakov Ophir from the University of Cambridge published an excellent paper in the EXCLI Journal titled ‘Real-time pharmacovigilance and cardiac risk communication during the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Israel’. The paper included the Israeli Ministry of Health’s actual internal pharmacovigilance dataset, showing that, far from being rare and mild, adverse events from the COVID jab are dangerously high. From March to May 2021, immediately after injection started among males under 20, 85 per cent of the hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Among females under 20, 68 per cent of hospitalisations involved myocarditis or pericarditis. Two thirds of these patients had no medical history of heart disease, and 46 of these young people died.
These are hospitalisations and deaths amongst healthy young people for whom COVID would not have been serious and certainly not fatal. This paper shows Israeli health authorities warned US and European authorities, ‘We are seeing a large number of myocarditis and pericarditis cases in young individuals soon after Pfizer COVID-19 vaccination.’ Yet the data behind that large number never reached the public. Instead, the warning was framed as ‘rare, mild and transient’—a lie—and the injection regimen was extended to even younger people. Australia did the same. Did we get the data Israel shared? Was our pharmacovigilance compromised? Only a royal commission can get to the bottom of who knew what and when. Only a royal commission can unpack decisions made and recommend changes for those who ignored the adverse events and acted contrary to the best interests of the public.
Australian researcher Dr Raphael Lataster from the University of Sydney has published in the peer reviewed dedicated cancer journal Oncotarget. His paper shows a mechanistic link, which means the process that links, in this case, COVID injections with an outcome—in this case, cancer. I spoke last week of a paper from the McCulloch Foundation, which established a similar mechanistic link. The work in this area is now impossible to ignore.
Why is this not big news? We have cause and effect, absolute proof of actual cases and hundreds of autopsies of people who should still be alive, and nobody in authority cares. Only One Nation will call a royal commission into a medical response that killed thousands—tens of thousands—of Australians due to adverse events, suicides, incorrect protocols or delays in medical treatment. That is criminal.
What’s also criminal is the performance of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, which is tasked with maintaining Australian medical standards. In Senate estimates hearings I’ve questioned Ahpra on many occasions. I’ve mentioned their jihad against any doctor who refuses to follow their self-determined medical truths and I’ve spoken about capable, sound doctors who are deregistered for the crime of providing their patients with the best possible medical care. Their actions during COVID and since show that Ahpra is dedicated to protecting orthodoxy, maximising pharmaceutical use and causing doctors to break the Hippocratic oath.
I read an article in the Australian newspaper last weekend from obstetrician Dr Michael Gannon, former head of the Australian Medical Association. The headline correctly summarises the situation in which Ahpra has put us: ‘System to catch bad doctors is causing harm to the good ones.’ It’s killing good ones, and the regulator meant to protect patients has no filter on accepting complaints. Ahpra’s own data shows 16 doctors took their lives while under its scrutiny.
Doctors’ registration fees have risen fivefold to pay for Ahpra’s mission creep, which is more reminiscent of a ministry of truth than a studious group of medical professionals ensuring their colleagues’ skill levels meet practising standards. In April this year, Ahpra convened the ‘organisational review group—incidents of distress’ to consider serious incidents relating to the suicide of people involved in their regulatory processes, and it’s no bloody wonder. This regulator has an appetite for more and more complaints, growing its budget and power. It’s lacking the ability to manage complaints in a morally fair and expeditious manner and it’s harming our society.
A One Nation government will convene a conference of state health ministers to review the performance of Ahpra and explore alternative models of regulation based on correcting the balance between the practitioner’s standards and rights and the patient’s best interests. In doing so, One Nation will listen to doctors, nurses and health practitioners.
One Nation strongly oppose the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025 in its current form. This is nothing but a government power grab disguised as national security rather than a genuine measure to protect Australians.
The bill fails to name or address radical Islamic ideology, which is the primary driver of global terrorism and an existential threat incompatible with Western values. Instead of ignoring this ideology, we must call it out honestly and halt Islamic mass immigration.
The interim report from the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion cites that existing legal frameworks were entirely adequate and that agencies faced no legislative barriers leading up to the Bondi attack. Therefore, this bill cannot honestly be tied to that tragedy.
This legislation makes extraordinary ASIO powers permanent by removing sunset clauses, stripping away civil liberties, and expanding vague criteria like “communal violence” that could be weaponised against political dissent.
Both Liberal and Labor governments have historically eroded freedoms through digital IDs, censorship laws and pandemic-era restrictions. I pointed out Anthony Albanese’s own 2003 warnings against similar ASIO overreach, quoting warnings about how leaders use fear of attack to control the population only for him to pursue expansionary powers as Prime Minister today.
One Nation’s amendment to this Bill (which was defeated) was to explicitly name and include radical Islam as a target and to remove vague definitions surrounding “communal violence.”
Furthermore, rather than burdening law-abiding citizens, the government should simply deport the 230 known terrorists currently in Australia.
Transcript
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus—all are victims of radical Islamic ideology and Islamic terrorism. More Muslims die at the hands of Islamic extremists than at the hands of any other ideology. Australia, Britain, America, Africa, Asia, India, Europe and other continents and countries are targets and victims of radical Islamic ideology. Iran sees tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of radical Islamic ideology, killing the Islamic caliphate’s own citizens, yet this bill fails to mention Islam anywhere—and this bill is supposedly about terrorism and security.
The Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion, set up after the Bondi terrorist attack, recently delivered its interim report, saying on page 8 that there is no time urgency for any reforms in relation to the Bondi massacre:
No material or advice from any agency identified any gap in the existing legal and regulatory frameworks that impeded the ability for law enforcement, border control, immigration and security agencies to prevent, or respond to, an attack of the kind that occurred at Bondi on 14 December 2025. No Commonwealth or state intelligence or law enforcement agency has suggested that it was prevented from taking prohibitive actions before or on 14 December 2025 by the then current legislative and authorising framework. In these respects, no issue requiring urgent or immediate action has been identified.
Any attempts to tie this ASIO bill to the two Islamic extremists who perpetrated the Bondi terrorist attack should be dismissed with extreme prejudice.
The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2025—this bill—originally sought to make extraordinary powers permanent, removing the sunset clause, thereby weakening important safeguards designed to protect civil liberties, accountability and parliamentary oversight. We acknowledge that Labor has agreed to restore the sunset provision as one step to making it less odious. That’s a welcome first step from Labor. We acknowledge many, many constituents across our country—thank you to them—who’ve pleaded with us to oppose this bill, including its many powers. We hear you loud and clear. Government has three core roles: protect life, protect property and protect freedom. Everyone agrees on the importance of keeping Australians safe, and our intelligence agencies play a critical role in that. Omitting and ignoring extremist Islamic ideology, though, means the Albanese Labor government is ignoring all three core roles—especially protecting life.
Islam is an ideology, a way of structuring society—just like communism, socialism and Nazism. It’s often used to control through being extremely punitive. It uses control of thought, belief and action using fear, violence or threats. Examples of punishment include the suppression and killing of women, killing non-believers, killing homosexuals, beheading, caning, female genital mutilation and stoning. Radical Islamic ideology goes against Australian values and Western civilisation. It is not compatible with civilised Western society.
Right now, in 2026, Iranians want civilisation. They want progress. They want an end to the Islamic caliphate and its Islamic ideology. Britain, France and many other countries are experiencing high crime rates, lawlessness, mass rapes, brutality and declining living standards due to Islamic enclaves that do not assimilate and that instead seem determined to change their new country into a British caliphate. Stop calling Islam what it is not. It is not a religion of peace. In fact, Islam is an ideology of punitive control rooted in fear. Tell the truth. Stop pandering to political correctness. Call it for what it is and restrict immigration. Protect Australian values, culture, laws and lives. Parts of Britain, France and Europe are now lawless.
We need to be proactive and stop Islamic mass immigration into Australia, and we need to specifically name radical Islam in this bill as a real and existential threat to the security of Australians. I’m reminded of Richard Dawkins’s words:
Something you can convert to is not a race. A statement of simple fact is not bigotry.
Kicking out the 230 terrorists who are currently in Australia would be better than supporting legislation that impinges on law-abiding Australians’ freedoms. Deport those 230. Send them home now. This is about protecting life, property and freedom, which are all vital for Australians’ safety and for human progress. Yet many of this government’s members of parliament, including its most senior ministers, actively encourage inhuman, anti-Australian radical Islamic ideology. This shows, clearly, that this bill is not about protecting Australians against the No. 1 terrorism threat to Australia, Australians and the world. It reveals, clearly, that this bill is about giving government agencies added control over Australians.
Ironically, since the introduction of the original legislation in 2003, 23 years ago, only 20 questioning warrants have been issued. We know that ASIO did not use its full powers leading up to Bondi. We know that Liberal and Labor uniparty prime ministers Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese together removed and stole basic human rights and freedoms during COVID and in loosely worded censorship bills as recently as last year. The suite of control bills and policies in which both have had a hand include the Identity Verification Services Bill 2023; the Digital ID Act 2024 for government digital ID; the Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2024, the censorship bill; internet controls for under-16s; and the massive curtailing of cash. Did I mention the Reserve Bank’s work on developing digital currency linked to a global digital currency? It was in answer to my questions at Senate estimates. Combined, these six initiatives and bills enable a social credit system to control Australians.
To return to this latest bill, which reeks of control, if the Senate agrees to pass our One Nation amendment to specifically include and name radical Islam in the bill’s provisions, we could reconsider our current position to oppose this legislation. Including radical Islam will show that Labor is fair dinkum about security. If not, Labor is not serious about security. Labor’s real agenda is control of law-abiding Australians. We have concerns about many of the bill’s provisions. Let me name some: forced questioning without criminal charge; no independent judicial approval process; expanded questioning powers beyond the original terrorism focused rationale, broadening the circumstances in which these powers may be used to matters involving sabotage, promotion of the broadly defined ‘communal violence’, defence system attacks and territory security threats; and reduced transparency and limited public accountability. The inclusion of ‘communal violence’, to use your term, is especially concerning because the government’s definition expands this beyond violence to say:
promotion of communal violence means activities that are directed to promoting violence between different groups of persons in the Australian community so as to endanger the peace, order or good government of the Commonwealth.
That definition is so vague and so open ended. Some commentators have said that One Nation’s stance on immigration, being to the benefit of Australia, leads to fear and violence in the community—that we couldn’t protect Australians. One Nation’s amendment will remove this vague definition from the matters towards which these powers can be used.
There’s another issue. Some aspects of compulsory questioning powers with minors as young as 14 have some merit, but I’ll leave the last word to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese who, in his second reading speech on the original ASIO bill in the House of Representatives on 27 May 2003, quoted Hermann Goering, Hitler’s Reich Marshal, at the Nuremberg trials:
Naturally, the common people don’t want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
Anthony Albanese continued his speech with these words:
This legislation—
referring to the original ASIO bill—
is without precedent in Australia’s post Second World War legal history. Its provisions potentially allow for the mistreatment of ethnic minorities, the suppression of dissent and the detaining and investigation of wholly innocent Australians …
This was Anthony Albanese talking about the basis of today’s bill. He went on:
In fact what this legislation represents, indeed, is a threat from the inside. It represents a threat to the very democratic values which we say, quite rightly, distinguishes us from authoritarian, undemocratic regimes.
Yet now, as prime minister, he wants to add harsher powers to control law-abiding Australians—to control!
This bill erodes the rights of all Australians regardless of whether individuals have a desire to commit an act of terrorism. One Nation wants to protect all Australians. That requires specifically identifying and including radical Islamic ideology that drives Islamic terrorism. Once powers like those in this bill are introduced and made permanent, they’re almost never wound back; they’re here to stay. That’s why we oppose it. What’s the point of security with no personal freedom?
Labor is so desperate to fund its spending addiction it’s selling off Defence assets instead of living within its means.
Australia’s debt has passed $1 trillion, yet Treasurer Chalmers wants to flog off 67 defence sites, including strategic assets like Victoria Barracks.
One Nation would cut waste, balance the budget, strengthen our defence capability and keep these sites working for Australians, not put them on the auction block.
One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple.
Don’t sell these sites. Use them.
Transcript
I thank Senator Lambie for this motion, which One Nation supports wholeheartedly. British prime minister Thatcher made the famous comment that socialists always run out of other people’s money. Australia’s federal debt under Labor has now passed $1 trillion, yet this government continues to run deficits to fund their big spending agenda. Australia will shortly be unable to keep borrowing at affordable interest rates. We recently just barely avoided a downgrade to our credit rating, yet rates are rising anyway. Ten-year government bonds have gone from 4.85 per cent in the budget to 5.22 per cent—the highest level in 15 years. This means our borrowing will cost more, the deficit will get worse and we will have to borrow even more to pay for it.
Printing money is not an option. During COVID, the Liberal government printed so much money and ever since we’ve been living with the inflation this caused. More printing will cause more inflation. This means Treasurer Chalmers had two choices: reduce spending and live within our means or sell off the silverware. He chose selling off the silverware. One Nation would have chosen living within our means. One Nation’s alternative budget listed savings of $90 billion, costed, turning a deficit into a surplus. We would then put $40 billion back into people’s pockets through tax and duty cuts and still balance the budget. One Nation does not need to sell off public assets, and we will not. Treasurer Chalmers is flogging off 67 Defence sites, worth $3.5 billion, including sites that are in use or would be in use under a One Nation government because he needs the money. Selling off Victoria Barracks is insane. They defend our capital cities and should have an integral part of defence training and support. Selling any site weakens our defence capability and reflects this government’s pathetic attitude to defence and to veterans. One Nation’s advice to the Treasurer is simple: don’t sell these sites; use them.
Veterans are winning because they’re refusing to stay silent.
Two years after the Royal Commission, too many veterans are still being failed by bureaucracy, delays and broken promises.
I’ve seen firsthand the incredible work being done by veteran-led organisations across Australia. They are saving lives, restoring hope and delivering results while governments drag their feet.
There is no doubt that this progress has come because, after fighting for our country, veterans kept fighting for each other.
One Nation was proud to stand united with Senator Lambie and colleagues across the chamber to put veterans and their needs ahead of politics by voting down the $5,000 cap.
Transcript
We’re winning. On this issue, we are winning, thanks to the veterans who are standing up. Thank you so much. You are winning. I’m honoured to support you. I’m honoured to sign this motion from Senator Lambie.
Minister, you opened the door, and I thank you for that. But at the moment they’re only words, and words mean nothing. It’s the intent. You can talk about spending billions of dollars, but it’s the intent and the efficiency with which it’s spent. The backlog of claims under your government has increased. Veteran suicides remain so high that government action cannot wait another day. We need to see concrete details. How many vets need to die? I’m feeling a mixture of feelings at the moment, which I’ll get onto in a minute. But let me just read into the Hansard clause (a) of Senator Lambie’s motion that I co-signed:
notes that today marks two years since the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide handed down its Final Report, yet many veterans and their families continue to face barriers to accessing timely care and support
That’s one reason I signed this.
And I have a mixture of feelings. I’m feeling afraid for the vets who are hanging by a thread. I’m feeling downright angry at the same time. I’m feeling sad, I’m feeling grief and I’m feeling shame—shame that we’re part of a parliament that has a history of ignoring veterans. I have all those feelings. But I can’t help the depth of the feelings in veterans at the moment. What do they need? What do we need? We need justice. We’re not getting it. We need fairness. We need truth and honesty—not getting it. And veterans need to be heard. The fact that you’ve accepted this motion and allowed it by leave means we’re winning and we are getting to the point where you are acknowledging indirectly that you’re listening or that you’ve heard.
This Labor government, like the coalition before it, has taken the position of treating veterans with disrespect and abuse and has failed to provide them with the support they deserve. Why? Because your government is under pressure—self-inflicted pressure: your waste, hypocrisy, deceit. Everyone in Australia can feel the pressure—through inflation, through skimping of services—but we don’t need to include the veterans in that, and that’s what we’re doing. Your self-inflicted waste of taxpayer funds leaves you with the shortage. Now you’re penny pinching—the cap comes in, the spending on DVA decreases this year and then increases in the future—because you’ve got budget pressures that are self-inflicted. Why should the vets pay for that? Why?
Placing a cap on allied health care will reduce the vital care that many veterans need and deserve. Why should travel be part of the cap? We’ve got Mr Farley in the lower house, representing Farrer, saying that a big portion of the cap is chewed up in his electorate by travel. Why should travel be included? But there are so many other things that I’ll talk about in a minute.
Veterans have served their country at massive personal risk and massive personal cost. Yet, upon their return or discharge from service, they’ve been ignored and hurt by this Labor government’s penny pinching in the knowledge that their actions abandon their vets. You know this is going on—or maybe you don’t, because listening is not one of your strengths. Is it deliberate? Is it incompetence? Is it dishonesty? Is it fear—running away from issues? The three keys that mark this Albanese Labor government, in my opinion, are dishonesty—we were able to use the word ‘lies’, but we’re not allowed to now—waste and hypocrisy.
Last week, I had the pleasure and the honour of joining Wounded Heroes in Townsville—a support group that’s received no Commonwealth funding despite the valuable support they’ve provided and continue to provide for our vets. They’re a crisis intervention centre. A veteran calls and says he or she hasn’t got a home. They need medical treatment, they’re about to commit suicide or they talk about one of their mates. Wounded Heroes springs into action. They receive no government funding. They raise money through their own business and through donations. I must give them a plug for the marvellous work they do and point out that they’ve got a fundraising event at Castle Hill in Townsville on the 20th of this month. Government, you’re wasting billions, and you’re not concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw—Martin turned away from a career as a merchant banker in which he could have made millions, because he was so concerned about veterans. Martin and Kim Shaw; Dave, their manager; the volunteers in their businesses; the volunteers in their op shops—what an amazing group of people. That’s what I call commitment and service.
It was so refreshing to meet retired Lieutenant General Greg Bilton. He’s retired, and he’s volunteering as the chairman of Wounded Heroes. His eyes were alight as he discussed his love for the military, his love for veterans and the fact that he’s got something really important to do in his life. But the government doesn’t help Wounded Heroes. It does not help Wounded Heroes at all. It’s so refreshing to hear Greg Bilton talking about the inadequacies of the DVA and the inadequacies of the top brass of our military. And there’s some sadness, but he’s alive because he knows he’s contributing. Associated services like Veterans First Consulting—and Kevin Chapman, who I met—are such wonderful people. They’re data driven.
Speaking of being data driven, I’ve just come from Senator Whitten’s office, where we’ve got two representatives from Trojan’s Trek, Dan and Tim. They’re pushing an evidence based approach to caring for veterans and providing them with the necessary mental and physical health support. Evidence based! That’s something I’ve noticed so much with veterans. As I’ve said before in the Senate, the best conversations I’ve had since being a senator have been with veterans. They’re disciplined and self-disciplined, they can use data, they can speak profoundly well and they’re just basically marvellous people. Trojan’s Trek showed me graphs with data backing them that shows they are indeed taking an evidence based approach. Dan, as he’s talking to me about his own condition, tells me he was told he’d never walk again, but watching a young lady in the gym pounding through weights inspired him, and he’s now living a normal life, but he’s got the evidence. Trojan’s Trek is having success but no funding. So many veterans organisations are having success with no funding.
Ongoing veteran care is disgracefully underresourced. It’s a blight on the Labor-Liberal coalition uniparty. When they’re in opposition, they promise all the support for veterans. ‘It’s a really shameful approach to the veterans,’ they say the government is taking. But then when they get into government they don’t do anything, correct? They hide, and they forced veterans to jump through hoops to access care for service related injuries and conditions. That’s cruel and heartless. We can have veterans coming up against their allied healthcare cap in a matter of five months into the new financial year, and then they stop. This is what they’re afraid of. They stop, and that interrupts their healing, especially if it’s a mental health treatment, and they fall backwards. This Labor government’s approach and the coalition’s approach before it are a contributing factor to serious mental health issues for many of our returned servicemen and servicewomen. They deserve far better.
Action needs to be taken now. Stop the delays. Cut the red tape. Cut the crap, and support these vets now by adopting the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. This is not only affecting the vets who have returned from service or been discharged from service. This is affecting the future service of the Defence Force in this country. It’s dramatically affecting retention and recruitment, because it’s eroding the concept of mateship, which is the strategically most important concept in the Australian Defence Force.
It’s not just the future of the ADF that’s at stake here. It’s the security of 28 million Australians who rely on the ADF for their security. Right now, the Chinese Communist Party would be watching. They can see what I can see. They can see what Senator Lambie can see. They can see what so many veterans can see—the deterioration of our armed forces under the current top brass. They’re spending money for DEI initiatives, money for woke policies, money for transgender. You can’t change gender, but here we are. We’re getting people are getting paid to change gender or claim they’re changing gender and paying for dresses for them. These are warriors. They cannot change their sex. No-one can change their sex. This is happening for two reasons. The senior brass has been politicised, and the senior brass—the defence department, the politicians in Labor and Liberal who’ve been defence ministers and the senior brass-is weak, not providing the right leadership.
Right now on the other side of the Pacific in the United States, we’ve got an administration that’s calling its soldiers warriors. It’s going well for the members of the military. I’m going to read clause B, the second clause of Senator Lambie’s motion, ‘calls on the Albanese government to urgently implement evidence-based’—your veterans are doing it—’policies and action the accepted recommendations from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, recognising that further delay is placing veterans’ lives and wellbeing at risk’. This is not too much to ask. This is basic respect for veterans who have treated our country with respect.
In concluding, I take it that, because you’ve accepted this motion, you can see the vets have really put on a very, very strong case in the last few months, and we’re proud to support them. It’s the least we can do. Veterans, you’re winning because these people are allowing us to speak.
