Battery Storage Projects Face Delays and Cost Increases

Wind and solar don’t work at night or when the wind isn’t blowing. Australia is told the solution is batteries! Real world experience shows that batteries are too expensive, too slow to build and don’t last long enough to support a grid.

During this session with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA), I revisited the status of the eight large-scale battery storage projects funded in 2022, noting that $176 million had been allocated but none had completed construction by February. I was told that while all projects are progressing, some face challenges like grid connection issues. I highlighted the significant cost increase from $2.7 billion to $3.1 billion and questioned the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of these batteries compared to coal-fired power stations.

I also raised concerns about the stability and reliability of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, and the additional costs associated with making them grid-compatible. Additionally, I asked ARENA about their responsibilities and the financial transparency of their operations. I emphasised the high cost of electricity in Australia compared to countries like China and criticised the impact of net-zero policies on manufacturing.

We need to ditch net-zero. Use the cheap resources we have in Australia’s ground for Australians first!

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: I return to the eight batteries in the large-scale battery storage funding round from 2022. In February you told me that you had put $176 million into it. None had completed construction as at that time and only two of the eight were under construction. Have any completed construction? What is the status of the others in the round of eight?

Mr Miller: They have progressed. I don’t have the precise figures to hand—unless my colleague finds a brief on that in the notes—in which case I can provide that information on notice. But they’re all progressing. Some have challenges around grid connection and various studies that have to be completed. They’re not all there yet, but I think the vast majority have reached their targets for the ARENA funding and would be either close to construction or close to financial decision.

Senator ROBERTS: I would have thought with the Australian Renewable Energy Agency this would have been one of the biggest projects and most important aspects of what you do; is that correct?

Mr Miller: It’s important and is amongst many other important things that we work on.

Senator ROBERTS: In December 2022, the portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. That increased to $3.1 billion, which is roughly a 16 per cent increase. What is the latest cost of the portfolio? What is the updated figure?

Mr Miller: What are you talking about?

Senator ROBERTS: The portfolio cost of the eight batteries was $2.7 billion. What’s the latest cost?

Mr Miller: That information that you had that was publicised would be the most up-to-date information that we have.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that the $3.1 billion?

Mr Miller: Some of the batteries increased in capacity. Since we announced the program, the proponents who were developing those batteries actually increased the size of the batteries, given that the economics were improving and that they could get the job done and actually build more. That capital cost increase would be in relation to an increase in the capacity of the batteries that are being developed.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ve gone above two gigawatts and 4.4 gigawatt hours?

Mr Miller: As I said, if you want precise information I will get you that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That would be good. That seems like a hell of a lot of money for a bunch of batteries that only last two hours and lose 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the power to charge them?

Mr Miller: That’s not accurate.

Senator ROBERTS: Could you tell me the accurate figures?

Mr Miller: The minimum size in that portfolio is a two-hour battery. Some of them are three and I think one of them has gone to four hours. Again, I’ll check that just to make sure. The batteries are playing a very important role. The project as described by ARENA and the innovation that’s in this portfolio is around what’s called grid-forming capabilities. It’s the ability for these batteries to essentially replace the very important system services that coal- and gas-fired power stations provide.

Senator ROBERTS: Stability of the grid?

Mr Miller: Stability of the grid, voltage frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: What we call ‘firming’?

Mr Miller: I think firming would traditionally be thought of as providing the energy that’s required to fill gaps. These batteries are providing power quality services. Firming would be about the quantum of energy and power services, or these system security services, are about performing the very important electronic functions that the grid needs to remain stable and at the right frequency.

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that solar and wind are asynchronous, inherently unstable and therefore you need to provide an additional service so that the grid maintains stability?

Mr Miller: Again, that’s not also strictly true. There is technology around solar and wind, inverters, that converts the DC electricity into AC and that can provide grid-forming capabilities as well. The latest wind turbines coming out of Goldwind, for example, in China have system security services built into those inverter technologies. It’s not only the batteries that are advancing; it’s actually the solar inverters and the wind technology inverters as well that’s advancing to provide the services.

Senator ROBERTS: Is that at an additional cost?

Mr Miller: It may or may not be. It may be integrated into the technology that’s put forward.

Senator ROBERTS: Let’s move on to the next one. On a very conservative cost of $4.5 million per megawatt installed and a capacity factor of 90 per cent, a $3.1 billion coal-fired power station would produce 15 gigawatt hours of data capacity versus just 4.4 gigawatt hours for the batteries. Unlike the batteries, the coal station actually generates power. It doesn’t lose power on charging. Doesn’t that seem like a much cheaper investment for Australians, just coal-fired power stations?

Mr Miller: You’re fundamentally misunderstanding the different role of those coal-fired power stations that you mentioned in the old world and the role of these kinds of batteries in supplementing wind-solar transmission system demand flexibility. The new world we are well underway, progressing into and entering requires a variety of technology. These batteries provide a very specific set of technologies and services that in combination with wind, solar, transmission and all the other things I mentioned, provides you with a system that is stable and can do the job.

Senator ROBERTS: At inherently higher component costs. There’s a lot of confusion amongst constituents and amongst MPs and senators. Among the various agencies charged with some responsibility or accountability over energy transition, could you as simply and as specifically as possible tell us what ARENA does? What are your basic accountabilities and, specifically, what is the uniqueness of that? There’s accountability that no other agency has.

Mr Miller: That’s a good question. We are an agency that is specifically around to improve the competitiveness of renewable energy technologies, to increase the supply of renewable energy in Australia and to facilitate the achievement of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. Our functions include the provision of financial support in the form of grant support and the sharing of knowledge, which is very important to ensure the money we spent is leveraged and available to more than just the proponent we fund so that Australia’s energy transition can happen in an accelerated and stable fashion.

Senator ROBERTS: Specifically with regard to the people at the table, apart from Senator Ayres—and he’d be happy that I’m leaving him out—what is the total salary package of each of the people at the desk here? I’ll exempt anyone who’s not at Senior Executive Service level, but if you are at executive level I’ll ask for the band you’re in and the total remuneration package, including on-costs?

Mr Faris: I’m a band 1 officer, seconded across from the department. I think I’m at band 1.6. I don’t have my salary figures off the top of my head, but they’re actually in our annual report. I’m listed as one of the key management personnel in our annual report, which was tabled last week. You can find that information specifically.

Senator ROBERTS: Could we have them on notice, please?

Senator Ayres: I think what the officer has said to you is that they’re in the annual report. If there’s anything in addition to the annual report, we are happy to provide that on notice.

Senator ROBERTS: What is the total wage bill for all employees, including casuals and contractors, at ARENA? Could you give me a breakdown of the numbers, please?

Mr Miller: Again, I might follow Senator Ayres’s lead and refer you to the annual report, which has this information for the last financial year.

Senator ROBERTS: Numbers, breakdown into permanent employees, casual employees, contractors?

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, maybe I could help you out. If you were to grab a copy of that and have a look through, you could potentially put any further questions on notice. There is a breakdown in their annual report.

Senator ROBERTS: We’ll do that. Future Made in Australia—Senator Ayres raised that. The No. 1 cost category in manufacturing today around the world is no longer labour, it’s electricity—with very few exceptions. China uses coal-fired power, sometimes including alcohol, but produces almost 10 times in terms of alcohol production. They have a production rate of $4.5 billion, heading for $5 billion, a year. They produce electricity and sell it, I am told, for 8c a kilowatt hour. Australia is at 25c a kilowatt hour, thanks largely to the transitioned components. Why is Labor so hostile towards manufacturing? Clearly, net zero destroys manufacturing. You also said that there’s no risk. That’s just a slogan. There’s huge risk when you’ve gone from being the cheapest electricity provider in the world to amongst the most expensive. I don’t know why you keep letting down Australian workers.

Senator Ayres: There’s a series of propositions in that we could—

Senator ROBERTS: They’re facts.

Senator Ayres: You assert that they’re facts.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour versus 25c a kilowatt hour.

Senator Ayres: As I said, you assert that they are facts. It may come as news to you, but the economy in the People’s Republic of China is structured a little bit differently to the Australian economy.

Senator ROBERTS: Eight cents a kilowatt hour—

Senator Ayres: There are some differences between our political and economic systems and the way that the government interacts with the electricity generation system and indeed the way the industry works is different. Our job here in Australia, if we’re acting in the national interest, is to secure Australia’s position. It is very clear that we have a series of forces acting upon our electricity system and our energy system more broadly. Firstly, most of our ageing coal-fired generators announced their closure under the previous government. There are many of them.

Senator ROBERTS: It’s cheaper to replace them new coal-fired power stations.

Senator Ayres: Many of them are coming to the end of their operational life. Some of them have been extended by state governments. The cheapest form of future energy for Australia is renewables and storage.

Senator ROBERTS: Only if you omit coal, hydrogen—

Senator Ayres: I did not interrupt you. I interrupted Senator Cadell earlier when he was being obnoxious, but I didn’t interrupt you.

Senator ROBERTS: Does that mean you want me to get obnoxious?

Senator Ayres: I don’t want to interrupt you. I don’t like interrupting people.

CHAIR: I’m going to interrupt you both and say that we are coming very close to the lunchbreak. I’ll ask you to wrap up. To be clear, Senator Roberts, you’ve had 11.5 minutes.

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. That was my last question.

CHAIR: Do you feel like you’ve had a sufficient answer?

Senator ROBERTS: Very.

CHAIR: Excellent. I’m glad to hear it.

/by

eSafety Commissioner’s Actions Questioned

,

The Office of the eSafety Commissioner does commendable work in protecting children and adults from bullying and, most importantly, removing child abuse material. I praised the Office for this work.

However, in my opinion, the eSafety Commissioner has brought the office into disrepute with her personal vendetta against Twitter/X and her attempt to become the world internet police.

Last year, the Commissioner finalised investigations into 9,500 pieces of violent and extremist content. I asked what these were. The answer provided was that the Commissioner was taking down material from anywhere in the world, detecting it in part because they actively searched for it, even without a complaint.

Given that the Commissioner is positioning herself as the world internet police at our expense, I asked what benefit removing the 9,500 pieces of material had for Australians.

The answer relied on one incident, and there was no proof it actually caused a terrorist incident. I asked why there was no explanation of what the other material was, such as a transparency register so we can see what material they are requiring to be taken down to check for political bias. The question was ignored.

I also asked what direct benefit her actions had in addressing terrorism and violent material. The Commissioner answered regarding child material, which I had already praised.

The Commissioner is avoiding scrutiny of her takedown notices for violent and extremist material, and I believe it is because they follow a political bias.

One Nation calls for the eSafety Commissioner to stand down.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Can I, first of all, pay a compliment and I’ll read out some statistics. From the ACMA annual report 2023-24, the office of the eSafety Commissioner has received 13,824 complaints regarding web URLs, with 82 per cent relating to reports about child sexual abuse, child abuse or paedophile activity. This is a 19 per cent increase from the previous year. Your office sent 9,190 notifications related to child sexual abuse material to the INHOPE network—which I understand are the good guys, the right people to work with—and referred 130 investigations to the Australian Federal Police. On cyber abuse, you received 2,695 complaints to the Cyberbullying Scheme for Australian children and 3,113 complaints to the Adult Cyber Abuse Scheme with a removal rate of 88 per cent where removal was required. My opening comment is simple: well done; thank you very much. This is important work. 

My first question is that you finalised 9,461 critical investigations into terrorist and violent extremist content, representing a 229 per cent increase—that’s amazing—in these types of complaints from the previous year. I’d like to ask about that. How do you define terrorist and violent extremist content? 

Ms Inman Grant : I will turn over to Ms Snell to talk about that. That is part of our illegal and restricted content team under the Online Content Scheme. 

Ms Snell : I’m actually going to invite Mr Downie, who is the executive manager for our Investigations Branch, who oversees this work, to talk specifically to this. 

Mr Downie : When we’re dealing with terrorism and violent extremist content under the Online Safety Act, we deal with terrorism as defined under the Criminal Code to the pure definition of what a terrorist act is. However, when we’re applying the Online Safety Act, we apply the content according to the classification scheme, and we’ll classify that material as ‘refuse classification’, which then falls into class 1 and class 2 definitions. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is this content relating to Australian content or international content? 

Mr Downie : With the complaints that we receive, we receive content that can be generated or hosted anywhere in the world, but the key is that it’s accessible by the people within the Australian community. 

Senator ROBERTS: Do you seek this content out yourself, or do you rely on a complaint before acting? 

Mr Downie : Generally, we rely on a complaint before acting; however, we do have own-motion investigation provisions where we are then able to further conduct investigations to locate material that may be in furtherance of that complaint. 

Senator ROBERTS: Of those 9,461 completed investigations, what was the outcome, please? 

Mr Downie: I’d have to take that on notice for the specific details of those investigations, but in the majority of cases that content is removed. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is there any demonstrable benefit from you taking this material down? What is the benefit to the taxpayer of this aspect of your office? 

Mr Downie : Having access to that type of content, whether it be globally or not, is very harmful to members of the community. That material can be used to incite violence. It can be used to radicalise vulnerable people or youth, which, as we’ve seen in the media, can be then used to incite further violence within the community. So less access to that type of content can only be beneficial for the Australian community. 

Ms Inman Grant : And I’d note that ASIO Director-General Burgess has said that the vast majority of terrorism investigations conducted right now are of young people between the ages of 14 and 21 and in every single case they have been radicalised somehow on the internet. You would probably also be aware of, heartbreakingly, the stabbing video of bishop Mar Mari Emmanuel, which was geo-blocked here by X but was available in the rest of the world. In the sentencing of the 17-year-old Southport killer, Axel Rudakubana, who went and stabbed three little girls to death while they were making bracelets at a Taylor Swift themed dance party, that very video, that very Wakeley stabbing video, he accessed on X 25 minutes before he stabbed those little girls and claimed that that was his inspiration. So you can imagine that this is something that the UK government has wanted to talk to us about. We have a partnership with Ofcom. We of course have different powers, but I think it’s just a very powerful reminder that this kind of content is accessed by young people. It can normalise, desensitise and, in the worst cases, radicalise. 

Senator ROBERTS: On page 206 of the ACMA report, there’s a graph which shows X is the source of five per cent of your cyberabuse claims and Google four per cent, compared to Facebook at 25 per cent. Page 216 of your report lists major noncompliance actions. X has four and Google one. Why does X occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant : In terms of adult cyberabuse? 

Senator ROBERTS: In terms of terrorism complaints and cyberabuse. 

Ms Inman Grant : If you recall back to 16 April, around the Wakeley stabbing, we worked with all platforms. With the exception of Meta and X Corp., they all did a good job in trying to identify, detect and remove the Wakeley terrorism video. We weren’t satisfied that either Meta or X did, but, once we issued formal removal notices, Meta responded and complied within the hour, and, of course—you know the story—X said, ‘We’ll see you in court.’ That’s what has taken our time. 

Senator ROBERTS: What about the others? That would apply to one of your complaints against them. What about the others? Why the other three? 

Ms Inman Grant : It depends on the type of harm. For instance, when we’re talking about youth based cyberbullying, most of the cyberbullying happens on the top four platforms where children spend their time, on YouTube, TikTok, Snap and Instagram. When it comes to image based abuse, there’s a much higher proportion now of sexual extortion targeting young men between the ages of 18 and 24. They tend to meet on Instagram, sometimes on Snap, and then they’re moved off platform. So it depends on the form of abuse. It also depends on the complaints we get. But, when it comes to the terrorist and child sexual abuse material, we go to where the content is hosted and shared. 

Senator ROBERTS: That still doesn’t answer the question. You’ve got four major noncompliance actions against X and only one against Google, yet you’ve mentioned several platforms. Why does X have to occupy so much of your time? 

Ms Inman Grant: Because they did not comply with our notices. Google came close to not complying, so we gave them a formal warning. 

Mr Fleming : Those tribunal and court cases are often initiated by X, so we’re responding to the claims that they make challenging our powers. That’s why they feature the most. 

Senator ROBERTS: The report goes on to list how many notices are issued under each part of the act yet does not provide a detailed list. This is fine for child and adult abuse material, of course. We’re happy with that. For class 1 extremist and violent material, why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and the reasons why? There’s a widespread belief in the public that you’re overstepping on your choice of material to take down. 

Ms Inman Grant: Respectfully, I’d like to read from some weighted and validated surveys of the Australian public. In November 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 87 per cent of those surveyed supported the introduction of stronger penalties for social media companies that do not comply with Australian laws, 77 per cent supported the proposed ban on social media for children and 75 per cent supported the Australian government’s plan to introduce a digital duty of care. In August 2024, a weighted survey of Australians found that 79 per cent said that social media platforms should operate with a regulator with the power to order content removal. That seems like a pretty overwhelming amount of support from the public. 

Senator ROBERTS: That wasn’t my question. My question was: why are we not provided a list of what the commissioner considers worthy of a takedown notice and a breakdown of the reasons why? 

Ms Inman Grant : We provide as much transparency as we can. You would understand that confidentiality is incredibly important. We can’t describe these in great detail. We can’t name names. What kind of information do you think would be helpful to your understanding? That’s something that we can certainly look at in the interests of transparency. 

Senator ROBERTS: The specific behaviours, without breaching confidentiality, would be helpful. We wouldn’t expect you to breach confidentiality or name names—certainly not—but we would like the types of actions that the commissioner thinks worthy of a takedown notice, as I said, and the reasons why. 

Senator McAllister: The commissioner and I are trying to understand, with a little more precision, what sort of information. You’re simply saying a generalised list of examples that are deidentified— 

Ms Inman Grant : Of 40,000 complaints we receive annually. 

Senator ROBERTS: You’re dealing with them, so presumably you know what they are. I’d like to see some sort of classification so that people could understand the proportions, because at the moment I don’t think you’re accountable for that. 

Ms Inman Grant : We can take that on notice. We would have to look at privacy and confidentiality. We would also have to look at resource implications and how that might serve the public interest, but we’re happy to take a look at that. 

Senator ROBERTS: I think the people have a right to know. Referencing unofficial takedown notices, which I note are issued under section 183(2)(zk), these go to the question of your secrecy. If these are dangerous enough to require a takedown, then they should be dangerous enough for you to list out by making the register of takedown notices public knowledge—that’s what I was getting at. Otherwise, you’re simply exercising power without any accountability, power that can be abused. How would we know? Can you, Commissioner, point to one terrorist act you’ve prevented, one person you’ve deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? 

Ms Inman Grant : I go back to what D-G Burgess often says, ‘You’re never congratulated when you stop something from happening.’ Again, do we have to have more heartbreaking examples of, like I just explained to you, what happened with those three little girls murdered in Southport, UK? We’ll never know. What I do know is I have parents coming up to me and saying: ‘You’ve saved my son’s life. He was sexually extorted. He had just turned 18. He went to the police; no-one would help him. I wasn’t going to let it go. I found your website. Your investigators supported him, got the content down, gave him advice and sent him on to mental health support services.’ So I do know that we’re saving lives every day. 

How many cases of 12- and 13-year-old girls being cyberbullied and bullied do you need to prove that this is a veritable epidemic and that young people are losing their lives? We’re here to help them and to prevent that from happening. My biggest regret, if there is one, is that more people don’t know about us. Only about 40 per cent of the Australian population knows about us, but we do everything we can to help people. When we stop helping people and making the online world a safer and better place, then, yes, it’s time to hang up our hats, but we’re just getting started. 

Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, Ms Inman Grant, you didn’t answer my question— 

CHAIR: Senator Roberts, we have to rotate the call. There are a lot of senators who wish to ask questions. 

Senator ROBERTS: I just want to clarify that one. 

CHAIR: I can come back to you, if you wish. 

Senator ROBERTS: It’ll only take a second to do this. 

CHAIR: Go on then. 

Senator ROBERTS: I asked, ‘Can you point to one terrorist act?’ I accept you’re doing a good job. You’re preventing child abuse, no doubt about that. We’ve discussed that in the past. Can you point to one terrorist act you prevented, one person deradicalised or one benefit to Australian society from the money you have spent on your campaign against extremist material? That’s what I want to know. 

Ms Inman Grant : We’re not going out into the public asking young people if they saw a particular video that radicalised them or not. We do know when people have been radicalised by content that has been online. Some of the gore content that we’ve taken down includes the manifestos, the horrific imagery of people at Christchurch huddling in the corner while being shot. Anything that’s dehumanising that we are able to get down to not cause further pain to victims and their families and have not incite others into taking the same action, I think, is worth doing. I don’t need proof that I prevented this, that or the other from happening. We’re trying to make the internet a safer, more positive place with less violent extremist material, and that’s why we take these issues so seriously. 

Senator ROBERTS: My concern is with— 

CHAIR: We’ll go to Senator Darmanin— 

Senator ROBERTS: I’ll put one more question on notice. 

/by

Podcast: Become Your Own Super Hero

,

I had the pleasure of joining Laban Ditchburn on the Be Your Own Super Hero podcast! We delved into my current world perspective, offering straightforward explanations of both current and past Australian politics. Plus, I shared my tips on staying sane in a world that often feels completely at odds with common sense.

/by

Mutual Recognition of Degrees: Opportunity or Risk for Australia’s Skilled Migration?

,

I asked about the mechanism for the Mutual Recognition of Qualifications between Australia and India, which recognises that an Australian degree awarded here is equivalent to an Indian degree awarded in India. It also allows Indian colleges, including private ones, to offer degrees to anyone globally, which can then be used to improve their chances of getting into Australia as skilled migrants.

However, there are concerns about the integrity of this system, given that India is notorious for exam cheating. This raises the risk of admitting individuals who may not possess the skills their degrees suggest.

Transcript

The mechanism for the mutual recognition of qualifications between Australia and India recognises an Australian degree awarded to an Australian as being equal to an Indian degree awarded to an Indian, including online study. It’s not only degrees. It’s everything from school certificates to doctorates, although some further work may be required for occupations having professional associations, like medicine, although there is no requirement to do so. This is despite the level of cheating and selling qualifications that goes on in India. I await the legal challenges to being refused a job based on a degree the employer knows is rubbish but which the government has decreed is equal to an Australian degree. 

The agreement allows an Indian visa-holder to apply for any job in Australia for which having a degree makes their chances of success higher. That’s almost anything. In other words, the vast majority of these new migrants will not work in their area of qualification, which might be a good thing. One Nation opposes this agreement. Twenty per cent of HECS debts in Australia are for amounts over $40,000. Our children listen to their parents, the media and politicians. They study hard, go to university, get saddled with a near insurmountable HECS debt, and then they head out into the workforce to pay it off only to discover they’re competing with an Indian degree of questionable origin that cost a fraction of their own. Of course, Indian graduates can work cheaper than our graduates can afford to. 

One Nation will tear up this agreement. We’ll offer mortgages through a people’s bank to young Australians that include the option of rolling their HECS debt into their mortgage with just a five per cent deposit at five per cent fixed interest over 25 years with the homebuyers own super account allowed to provide the deposit and share in the capital appreciation. While Labor is selling out young Australians, One Nation offers real solutions to young Australians. I note in the seconds I have left that every year $11.1 billion was sent home by foreign students, with Indians being the second largest on the list. 

Question agreed to. 

/6 Comments/by

Federal Police Drop Vaccine Mandate

,

The Federal Police have finally dropped their vaccine mandate for workers, yet won’t apologise to the people who have been persecuted and lost wages for years.

It’s been known from the very start it didn’t stop workers getting COVID, and it didn’t stop transmission of COVID to others. That hasn’t changed, so why this change four years later?

It’s not good enough! One Nation calls for an apology, backpay, compensation and immediate rehiring of anyone who lost a job because of a vaccine mandate.

Transcript

CHAIR: I also note the time. Can we give Senator Roberts the call for a moment? Senator Roberts, do you have questions for the AFP? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, I do. Thank you, Chair, and thank you all for appearing tonight. Just before the last break, Commissioner, did you say you revoked the COVID vaccine mandates on your police yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I can answer that. Thank you for the question. You might recall last time we appeared at this committee back in November, we did disclose that we had undertaken a review of the COVID Commissioner’s Order 10 policy, which related to COVID vaccines. That review, as of November, had been completed and supported by our enterprise operations board. I mentioned at our last hearing in November that the next phase for us to do, as per the legislation, as per the Work Health Safety Act, was to undertake genuine workforce consultation. So throughout December and January we have undertaken that genuine consultation with the workforce, which included comments back that were supportive and not supportive. In consideration of that consultation, the commissioner, yes, he has determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 is to be revoked, and that was announced to the workforce. Our internal website has a range of frequently asked questions and information for staff to address the issues that were raised across that consultation process. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Am I accurate in saying they were revoked yesterday? 

Ms Van Gurp :  No. The Commissioner’s Order 10 was signed off as revoked by the commissioner on 13 February. It was announced to the workforce this week. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Why did you revoke the vaccine mandates? I know you have been through a process—I don’t need to hear about that again, with respect—but what was the reason they were revoked? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Throughout the process since the Commissioner’s Order was put in place, we did undertake regular reviews looking at that policy. As we talked about before in this forum, it was an important policy for us at a time to protect both our workforce and the community, particularly the vulnerable communities that we are working with across the Pacific and other areas of the globe. But the most recent review in relation to reflecting on the health advice from our Chief Medical Officer as well as ATAGI and others, we determined that that risk posed didn’t necessitate a specific Commissioner’s Order anymore because, rather than it being a global pandemic, the status of COVID had been downgraded, so we made that determination through that internal review and through doing an updated risk assessment treatment plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given that nothing has changed arguably in recent years—certainly in many, many, many, month many, months—why did it take long to revoke the vaccine mandates? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As we have talked about here previously, while for some other agencies the advice had changed around the risks of the community, we were conscious that we have a workforce that we need to be able to readily deploy at any time and we are deploying to vulnerable communities, so our assessment was not just to follow the general community advice; it was to undertake our own internal assessment, so we held that policy in place for a longer period of time to protect both our workforce and the community, but we have determined now is the time to revoke that policy. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Given the injections did not stop people getting COVID and did not stop people transmitting COVID, why were the mandates implemented? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Based on the health advice both from government and our Chief Medical Officer, it was to minimise the risk to both our members and to the vulnerable communities, so acknowledging, yes, of course, Senator, you are correct—the COVID vaccine didn’t prevent people getting it or prevent people transmitting it but it did mitigate that risk. 

Senator ROBERTS:  So was that on the evidence of the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI health agencies? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Did they provide you with the evidence? I am asking: on what evidence? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will have to take that on notice, but essentially we considered the advice coming from ATAGI and others externally. We considered the risk to our people by undertaking our own risk assessment treatment plan internally and that was in consideration of the way in which we deploy staff, where we are deploying to, the nature of our operations et cetera. So, for some time, our internal position was that we needed to maintain that vaccination requirement that the safety of our members and for the safety of the communities were dealing with. But as I said, we have revised that risk assessment treatment plan now and have determined that Commissioner’s Order 10 can be revoked. 

Senator ROBERTS:  On notice, could I have a copy of the advice from the Chief Medical Officer and ATAGI, please? 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that question on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Also in your own deliberations within the AFP, I would like to know what drove the conclusion, particularly your risk assessment. I would like to see the risk assessment. 

Ms Van Gurp :  I will take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS: The inefficacy of the COVID injections in stopping transmission was known well before yesterday. Why did it take so long to revoke? 

Ms Van Gurp :  As I mentioned, our decision to have that Commissioner’s Order in place was not just based on ATAGI and other advice; it was our internal position as well in consideration of our own risk assessment treatment plans. We went through a thorough process to make sure that, before we revoked it ,we were being thorough in our assessments. As I previously talked about, we did an internal review that Deputy Commissioner Gale’s team led. That review came to our internal enterprise operations board for consideration. We supported the position of the review and then, as per the WHS Act, we undertook workplace consultation prior to making a decision, and that is a requirement under legislation. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Could I, on notice again, have any evidence that you considered within the AFP in making the decision and on why it took so long? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Yes, Commissioner. I’m happy to take on notice to provide that plan. 

Senator ROBERTS:  I haven’t been promoted yet! 

Ms Van Gurp :  Senator, sorry! 

Senator SCARR:  It’s coming now—just hold off! 

Ms Van Gurp :  It’s past my bedtime! 

Senator ROBERTS:  It’s past my bedtime too. I have two more questions, very briefly. Did you mandate the AstraZeneca shots that were later withdrawn? 

Ms Van Gurp :  Our Commissioner’s Order 10 required that staff had to have two vaccinations. We didn’t mandate which vaccination that needed to be. But I’m happy to take it on notice if you need more clarity around that. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Thank you. Commissioner, will you apologise to police who were basically forced to take the AstraZeneca shot? 

Mr Kershaw :  I don’t know what evidence you have there, Senator. I’ll have to take that on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  They were withdrawn from use in the UK and other countries, I believe, on the basis of a court case in Britain. They were also withdrawn in this country, although I understand the federal health department did not withdraw them until quite some time later. I’d like to know why they were mandated. 

CHAIR: Do you mean that type of vaccination, Senator Roberts? 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, the AstraZeneca brand. 

CHAIR: I’m not going to answer for the commissioner, but I think he has taken it on notice. 

Senator ROBERTS:  Yes, he has. Thank you all for appearing. 

CHAIR: I hope you’re enjoying whatever regional town in Queensland you seem to be joining from. I’m sure it’s a fabulous place.  

/4 Comments/by

Medicare and Bulk-Billing: One Nation’s Practical Solutions

,

Listening to everyday Australians across Queensland, I’ve heard your concerns about the rising cost of health care. When Labor first took over, they increased the Medicare rebate, boosting bulk-billing rates. But by 2025, that effect has faded. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80% of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. The percentage of bulk-billing GPs in Queensland has halved since Labor came to power, and out-of-pocket costs have risen by 9%.

Medicare is crucial for timely medical treatment, helping people get back to work faster. In the US, unpaid medical bills cause 40% of bankruptcies. One Nation won’t let that happen here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing, funded by cracking down on Medicare and PBS fraud, which costs $3 billion a year. We’ll also delay social security, including Medicare, for new arrivals.

One Nation is committed to practical solutions for the cost-of-living crisis. We’ll reduce overseas student numbers to create more university places for Australians, especially in health disciplines, and expand bursaries for students from rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation offers real solutions.

Transcript

In listening to everyday Australians across my home state of Queensland, one of our highest concerns is the cost of health care. This Labor government increased the Medicare rebate when they first took over. It was a long overdue move which increased the rate of Medicare bulk-billing. In 2025 the effect of that increase has worn off, much like the lustre on this government. According to Cleanbill’s 2025 report, nearly 80 per cent of GP clinics no longer bulk-bill adult patients. When Labor came to power, 26 per cent of GPs in Queensland bulk-billed. In 2025 the figure is projected to be 14 per cent—halved. As a result, the out-of-pocket cost of visiting a doctor has risen by nine per cent. 

Any economist can easily make the case for Medicare. As a national insurance policy, it matches medical treatment to the time the person needs it rather than to the time they can afford to pay for it. This optimises health care and gets the person back to the productive economy faster. 

In the United States, unpaid medical bills cause 40 per cent of all bankruptcies. One Nation will not accept that happening here. One Nation will increase the Medicare subsidy to encourage bulk-billing. This subsidy will be paid for through cracking down on Medicare fraud, estimated to cost $3 billion a year. This figure doesn’t include fraudulent loaning out of Medicare cards. Some areas in Sydney have more adults using Medicare cards than they have eligible adults. One Nation will delay the granting of social security, including Medicare, to new arrivals. That announcement will be made separately. One Nation have already announced a policy to reduce overseas student numbers and create more places for Australian children to go to university in areas where Australia needs graduates, which includes health disciplines. One Nation will expand bursaries for students to attend from the bush or to practise in regional and rural areas. While Labor offers bandaids, One Nation are offering practical solutions to the cost-of-living crisis. 

/3 Comments/by

Investigation into Wage Theft for Coal Miners in the Hunter

,

The Fair Work Ombudsman (FWO) has received a Ministerial directive to investigate wage theft allegations affecting coal miners in the Hunter region. Upon inquiring about the investigation’s status, Mr Steve Ronson, the Executive Director of the FWO shared that there are currently 18 cases under investigation, involving 25 workers and 17 employers, with 2 self-reports also being considered. All complaints are being thoroughly investigated, and the process includes holding meetings with various stakeholders.

A dedicated email address has been established for individuals to contact the FWO regarding these issues. So far, meetings have been held with Coal LSL, the Mining Energy Union, and the Independent Workers Union of Australia. Mr Ronson mentioned that the amounts to be calculated have not yet been assessed, with some claims dating back around 10 years. It’s been estimated that the total claim could potentially reach up to $1.3 billion. He also expressed his willingness to accept a submission from One Nation, which has been advocating for this investigation since 2019, marking it as the largest wage theft claim in Australia.

Interestingly, there has been no liaison with the Fair Work Commission, although other entities are welcome to submit material. Early findings from the investigation may emerge by mid this year, but the final report is expected by mid-2026. Status reports might be discussed through the estimates process. Mr Ronson clarified that while underpayments can be investigated beyond the 6-year period under the Statute of Limitations, enforcement is limited to this timeframe. He committed to securing any identified underpayments through the investigation.

Stay tuned for more updates as this significant investigation progresses.

Transcript

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for attending, everyone. First of all, I understand the Fair Work Ombudsman has received a ministerial directive to investigate underpayments of casual black coal miners working under enterprise agreements; is that correct? 

Ms Booth: We have been asked to conduct that investigation. On the last occasion, you’ll recall, Mr Ronson gave you a thorough rundown. Since that time our enforcement board has approved an investigation plan. I will turn to Mr Campbell to give you any further updates. 

Senator ROBERTS: Before he does so, would it be possible to get a copy of the ministerial directive, please? 

Ms Booth: I’m not sure I would describe it as a ministerial directive, although others might be more aware of the protocol in these matters. I believe it was a letter. 

Senator ROBERTS: Can I have a copy? 

Ms Booth: I see no reason why you shouldn’t. I’ll hand over to Mr Campbell and Mr Ronson to give you more details. 

Mr Campbell: Is there a particular aspect of our inquiries that you’re interested in, or are you looking for a general update? 

Senator ROBERTS: I’d specifically like, please, an overview of the status of the Fair Work Ombudsman’s activities, and could you in particular describe the process the Fair Work Ombudsman is using to conduct its investigations. 

Mr Campbell: I’ll ask Mr Ronson to assist. 

Mr Ronson: I can give you an update on the status of the investigation. The Fair Work Ombudsman is currently investigating 18 black coal mining industry matters that involve 25 workers and 17 different employing entities. We’ve also received two self-reports from the sector. All the requests for assistance that we’ve received are being investigated, and as part of our project plan we’re meeting with a whole range of stakeholders. We’ve begun meeting with them to talk about the investigation, to enhance and increase awareness and to encourage those in the sector to come forward. We have a dedicated email address to receive any allegations or information from any member of the sector or the community. So far, we’ve had some very constructive and positive meetings. We’ve had two meetings with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, we’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union, we’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia, and we’ve got a whole range of other stakeholder meetings lined up in the next couple of weeks. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I assume that there’s a dedicated process that casual coalminers can now use to lodge complaints about underpayment with the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson:  That’s correct. There’s a dedicated email address we’ve set up for the whole project so that anyone in the sector or anyone with information relating to the sector can feel confident that they can go straight through to contacting us through that email, or they can give us a call—whichever way they want to make contact with us. Of course, there’s still the anonymous report function as well, which is available to all members of the community. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned the Independent Workers Union of Australia. I take it that some of the submissions, or complaints, have been lodged through that and some of the others have been individually lodged, for individual work. 

Mr Ronson: That’s right. Probably two-thirds have come through the agency of the Independent Workers Union of Australia and the other third are just individual workers in the sector who have requests for assistance that we’re looking at. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. I must say that I appreciate your succinct and direct answers. Can the Fair Work Ombudsman provide the range of possible underpayment amounts currently being looked at by the Fair Work Ombudsman? 

Mr Ronson: It’s hard to assess at the moment what potential underpayments, if any, exist. Some of the allegations date back at least 10 or 11 years. There are some individuals who’ve worked in the sector for many years. If the allegations are upheld and if the evidence is obtained, there could be significant underpayments owing to certain workers. But at this stage it’s too early. We’ve requested a series of documents, a lot of information from various companies, that will assist us to begin, if you like, the assessment of these particular claims. 

Senator ROBERTS: How many employers—not only mine owners but the labour hire firms—are subject to investigation so far? How many? 

Mr Ronson: All up, it’s 17. 

Senator ROBERTS: You mentioned that—okay. Will the Fair Work Ombudsman advertise to coalminers in the black coal mining sector, encouraging them to lodge and apply to the Fair Work Ombudsman in relation to underpayments they believe they may have been subject to? 

Mr Ronson: By ‘advertise’, do you mean increasing awareness, as in media statements? 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes: letting them know you’re open for business and you’re aware that this is an issue. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, that’s definitely an option available and one we’re considering. There are some other ideas that we have as well about enhancing awareness. For example, there’s nothing to prevent us writing to all labour hire providers and employing entities in the sector. This is one of the suggestions that has been put to us and one we’re currently considering. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would that be a wise move in terms of trying to get to the miners? Some of these labour hire firms—some—have been deliberately suppressing this? 

Mr Ronson: That’s right—good point. In terms of former workers, that’s a different sort of ‘audience’, if you like. That’s one we’re turning our minds to in thinking about how we ensure people who either are in the industry now or were formerly in the industry are aware of this investigation. The second point I was making, yes, was in relation to employers. That’s something we’ve done in the past. We’ve written, for example, to the ASX Top 100 companies and encouraged them to review their status, and if they self-identify they can self-report any potential noncompliance. 

Senator ROBERTS: My understanding is that some of the miners are not aware of it, but it’s a major issue, because we estimate that about 5,000 miners at least have been the subject of Australia’s largest wage theft case, and it’ll cost, ultimately, around $1.3 billion—they’re rough estimates. So I think these people need to be told that there’s an option for them to seek justice and repayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As I say, it’s something we’re definitely turning our minds to, and we’re considering what’s the best way to get the word out, if you like. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. Let’s hope you can get that out fairly soon. The Fair Work Ombudsman would be aware that One Nation has pushed for investigation into this issue and that One Nation released a detailed report in February 2024. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman taking submissions on how the alleged underpayments have occurred, and would the Fair Work Ombudsman accept One Nation’s report as a submission? We can provide data, companies involved, amounts, enterprise agreements and underpayment. 

Mr Ronson: Yes, sure. We welcome all and any information and any submissions. 

Senator ROBERTS: So we would make submissions in the same way anyone else would? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Would One Nation be involved in any follow-up discussions on the nature of the issue and its resolution? 

Mr Ronson: Yes, if there is information that’s material and actionable, by all means, we’ll be in contact. 

Senator ROBERTS: As I understand it, the Mining and Energy Union, which is what’s left in the coalmining sector after the CFMEU and the Mining and Energy Union split, are not seeking back pay. They seem to be hiding it because they were involved in agreeing to the enterprise agreements and signing off on enterprise agreements that were paying much less than the award. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman inviting submissions from other organisations and individuals? If so, who specifically has been approached? 

Mr Ronson: To date, as I said before, we’ve met with the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation, and we’re asking that agency to provide us with any relevant information. We’ve met with the Mining and Energy Union; we’ve extended the same invitation. We’ve met with the Independent Workers Union of Australia. As you know, they’re actively involved, and they’re assisting our investigation. We also intend to meet with the Queensland Labour Hire Licensing Compliance Unit; RCSA, the Recruitment, Consulting and Staffing Association, which is responsible for labour hire; the Minerals Council of Australia, with which we have meetings lined up; and safe work bodies in New South Wales and Queensland. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will you be covering more than the wage theft case and the specific amounts of the wage theft? In other words, will you be covering loss of other entitlements, protections and safeguards? 

Mr Ronson: Our jurisdiction only extends to entitlements or conditions that are actionable or have been created under the Fair Work Act and the regulations, so it’s only what is within our remit. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Is the Fair Work Ombudsman consulting with the Fair Work Commission on the issue? 

Mr Ronson: Not to date. There’s been no need at this stage. I’m confident that we said at our last hearing that we don’t have the power or the capability to question any approvals of any agreements that have been made in the past. Others can take that issue up. 

Senator ROBERTS: Who are the others who can do that? 

Mr Ronson: Parties to an agreement. 

Senator ROBERTS: Okay. So only the Mining and Energy Union; its predecessor, the CFMEU; and employers, such as mining companies? 

Mr Ronson: I’ll defer to the chief counsel as to who in particular can question agreements. 

Ms Volzke: I think Mr Ronson has given a reasonable list. I would just say more broadly that one of the issues that I raised at the last estimates is just to remember that we still have that statutory timeframe of six years that applies under the Fair Work Act as well. Obviously, that won’t preclude us from investigating, but it’s important that the miners that we’re looking at also bear that in mind. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes, I’m pleased to say that it wouldn’t preclude you investigating. It may, at the moment, preclude addressing the issues that are raised in the investigation, but it would not preclude the investigation. The premise for my next question is as follows: the black coal award does not allow for casuals. Enterprise agreements were made, and some are still current, but the agreement’s pay rates are demonstrably less than what should be paid under the award if the award allowed for casuals. To an ordinary person, paying casuals less than the award casualised rate—that’s a full-time rate plus 25 per cent—is plainly wrong. That’s the pub test, as people say. And yet the Fair Work Commission endorsed the enterprise agreements. I assume the Fair Work Ombudsman must somehow determine which instrument prevails, being either enterprise agreements that pay less than the casualised award rate or an award rate that incorporates a casualised 25 per cent add-on to a full-time rate. Does the Fair Work Ombudsman have an idea as to how this may be resolved? 

Mr Ronson: That’s the $64 question, if I can confirm it. I think, as with previous evidence we’ve provided, there remains uncertainty regarding the legal consequences of the Black Coal Mining Award’s lack of provision for employees in these roles as it hasn’t been authoritatively determined by a court. So it remains an open question. 

Senator ROBERTS: Will the Fair Work Ombudsman be issuing a report or reports on its findings of the investigation? If so, what would be the anticipated timeline for such reports? I think the minister made some comment as to [inaudible]. 

Mr Ronson: At this stage we’re more than happy to provide status updates in this forum as we go along, but we’re hoping that we’d have early preliminary findings towards the middle of this year or just after the middle of this year. I think I said last time, and I think it’s still the case, it could be at least until mid-2026 before we’re in a position to provide a final report. But we will keep this committee posted. 

Senator ROBERTS: Would you be in a position to provide interim reports as the investigation progresses? 

Mr Ronson: It’s probably easier if we provide status reports, like I have today. The thing about how long an investigation takes is it all depends— 

Senator ROBERTS: It depends on the [inaudible] and what you find. I get it. Would any reports you provide be public and unredacted, except of course for retaining confidentiality of workers allegedly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: I see no reason why it wouldn’t be. A report that we provide would be as fulsome and comprehensive as we could publish. 

Senator ROBERTS: We’re not expecting names of individuals to be disclosed. 

Mr Ronson: No. 

Senator ROBERTS: We would expect them to be redacted. Would the reports indicate the employers involved, the organisations involved, the employers and organisations under investigation and any findings that the Fair Work Ombudsman has in relation to the specific employers? 

CHAIR: Just before you answer that question, Senator Roberts we’re running an hour and a bit late. I don’t want to cut off your questions, but if there are some that can be on notice that would be helpful. Otherwise, I will come back to you. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. The way Mr Ronson is answering the questions directly, it won’t be long at all. I’ve only got a few more to go. And I have to move on too. 

CHAIR: No worries. 

Senator ROBERTS: Mr Ronson? 

Mr Ronson: The best way of answering your question is: it’s the long held practice of the Fair Work Ombudsman to provide reports of all its major investigations. We’ve published all of them and they’re available on our website. It is our practice and it would be our expectation to do so again. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If the Fair Work Ombudsman were to conclude that underpayments had occurred, and based on the Fair Work Ombudsman’s past experiences, does the Fair Work Ombudsman have ideas of scenarios for compensation for any worker underpayments? 

Mr Ronson: Well, we have ideas. As to whether they’re actionable or realisable, that will be determined in due course. 

Senator ROBERTS: Yes. This is something Ms Volzke raised. What is the effect of the statute of limitations and how would that apply to someone lodging a complaint today? Can they still lodge it? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. As the chief counsel answered, it doesn’t preclude our investigations. The provision in the act only relates to enforceability in the event of proceedings, but there’s no reason why we can’t go back historically and look at historic underpayments and, if the allegations are upheld and there is an entitlement owing, to seek to secure that underpayment. 

Senator ROBERTS: Is the Fair Work Ombudsman investigating beyond the statute of limitations to ascertain full amounts possibly underpaid? 

Mr Ronson: Yes. 

Senator ROBERTS: Thank you very much. Chair, I want to express my appreciation for Mr Ronson being direct. It enabled me to get through my questions. I also want to communicate to the secretariat that I’ll be on the road, so I won’t be able to ask the Fair Work Commission questions in the hearings, but I will put them on notice. And it’s the same with the coal long service leave. 

CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts.

/1 Comment/by

Immigration Appeals: The New Administrative Review Tribunal

,

We had hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) would be a significant improvement over the old Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which was overwhelmed with thousands of immigration appeals, often being assessed by Members who were friends of the Labor government. 

The new ART was supposed to be made up of Members based on merit, which would be a significant improvement—provided the new appointments are not again filled with Labor mates.

I proposed the creation of a new Refugee and Immigration Review Tribunal to handle only Migration disputes. This would alleviate the heavy caseload that is delaying decisions in the new ART and help expedite the overall review process.

Transcript

Thank you, Deputy President. We hoped that the new Administrative Review Tribunal would be a significant improvement over its predecessor, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The old Administrative Appeals Tribunal was a failure. It was top-heavy with Labor lawyers, making it a Labor lawyer fest with appointments made based on a reward system for leftist-aligned lawyers, and there are plenty of them—lawyers doing the bidding of their Labor masters, pushing poor Labor policies, and enshrining woke and harmful leftist ideals. 

The Liberals and Nationals stacked appointments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, favouring lawyers sympathetic to the LNP. So much for justice under the uniparty! This stacking was a recipe for disaster and a significant reason why Labor’s jumbled and catastrophic immigration policy continues to fail Australians and continues to hurt Australians catastrophically. Look at the number of people who are homeless and who are sleeping under bridges, in caravans, in their cars and in tents. If a noncitizen’s visa has expired or has been breached, to slow down the deportation process, the decision to deport could be delayed through an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That is a fact, and it was done many times, ensuring that there was a high chance that bleeding-heart Lefties would delay or overturn the decision. Few Australians know that there are currently more than 75,000 illegals in Australia right now. More than 75,000 foreigners are living here in Australia on cancelled or expired visas, taking up homes that could be used by those people who are currently homeless. The whereabouts of these illegals is unknown, and the government doesn’t care, with limited resources to locate these illegals for deportation. 

It’s welcome that the current membership of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will be declared vacant and that vacancies will be filled on a merit based system. My concerns are that the Administrative Review Tribunal membership will still be loaded with Labor government favourites and that the workload will still create long waiting periods before appropriate reconsideration of major decisions. It would be better to remove the review process for immigration decisions from the Administrative Review Tribunal and consider the reintroduction of a refugee or immigration review tribunal, to ensure that the Administrative Review Tribunal does not become bogged down with migration appeals, as it is currently. Instead of a delay mechanism for illegals to exploit, abuse and avoid at Australians’ expense, we need to deport illegals. We need to deport more than 75,000 lawbreakers and free up housing for Australians—working families who are currently sleeping in their cars, in tents or under bridges. Australian families deserve roofs over their heads and beds for their children.

/1 Comment/by

One Nation Plan: Two-Year Grace Period for Non-Citizen Property Owners

,

Under the One Nation plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident, will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market.

Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound.

Transcript

Australians are rightly stunned and confused. Why are foreigners, people from other countries, allowed to buy real estate while Australians are made homeless and sleep on the street? China dominates foreign purchases of Australian real estate, snapping up the most of any country in the world. China snaps up houses and farmland across our country, yet Australians are banned from buying a house in China. Add to that Hong Kong, Taiwan, Vietnam, India, the United States and the United Kingdom. The list of countries that grab Australian real estate goes on and on. 

Australians are suffering through a housing crisis, a catastrophe. The average mortgage size has never been higher, with expensive repayments crushing household budgets. A house in Brisbane used to cost three times the average income. Now it’s 10 times. This combination of high house prices and high interest rates means the average Australian is paying more of their wage on mortgage repayments than a homeowner would in 1990, when the Reserve Bank of Australia’s cash rate was at 17 per cent. I’ll say that again. As a proportion of income, mortgages are more expensive today than when the RBA had rates at 17 per cent. 

The rental market in Australia is broken. Vacancy rates, a good measure of whether it’s even possible for people to find a rental, have been at crisis levels for years. The average rent for a house in Brisbane has gone from $467 a week in 2020 to $740. For a unit in Brisbane, rent has gone up from $381 to $587 in the same period, since 2020. What’s the government’s response to the hurt Australians are feeling trying to get into a house? Labor will keep letting foreigners buy residential real estate. 

While the Liberals signal they might do something about it, their proposal doesn’t go far enough. Peter Dutton doesn’t want to stop foreign ownership of real estate. He wants foreigners to be back here buying up the farm in two years. The Liberals’ temporary pause is not good enough. Australia needs a complete ban on foreigners owning houses in this country. The Liberals won’t do anything about the houses that are foreign owned right now—they can keep them. In 2017, ANZ estimated that foreigners owned up to 400,000 Australian homes. That’s enough for a million Australians to live in, and that number of homes can only have increased since then. 

One Nation would implement a true ban on foreign ownership. Under our plan, anyone that owns residential property yet isn’t an Australian citizen or permanent resident will be given two years to sell their property back to an Australian. The two-year grace period will ensure there isn’t a flood of properties onto the housing market. Let’s get Australians into affordable houses while keeping the market sound. When the Liberals would be opening back up purchases for foreigners, One Nation would be completing the greatest transfer of houses out of foreign hands and into Australian hands in history. In this debate, we will hear Labor senators get up and claim that foreign ownership is less than one per cent. We’ll hear them claim it’s foreign investment. That’s a lie. It’s ownership. And their numbers aren’t true. 

In that 2017 report I mentioned, ANZ said, based on Foreign Investment Review Board data, foreigners had purchased an estimated 25 to 35 per cent of new Queensland homes. Later in 2017, the government introduced a new annual vacancy fee for foreign owners of residential properties. You won’t believe this next coincidence. After the government started charging a fee on foreign owners, the number of foreign owners declaring themselves to the government dropped from between 25 and 35 per cent to one per cent. It was just like magic! When NAB asked real estate agents directly how many foreigners they were selling to, the percentages were in the double digits. That’s more than 10 per cent. We know that. It’s a fact. The New South Wales government has even recorded foreign purchases at more than double what the federal Labor government claims they are. It doesn’t matter what the real number is anyway. One foreign purchase is one too many while Australian families are sleeping on the street. 

Foreign ownership is one part of the housing puzzle. One Nation has comprehensive solutions to all of the levers we need to pull to get Australians into affordable houses. These including pausing immigration to reduce demand, abolishing GST on building materials, establishing five per cent fixed rate mortgages, enabling HECS debtors to get a loan and deporting 75,000 illegal residents now. 

On foreign purchases and ownership, we are clear. Only One Nation will implement a real, permanent ban on foreign purchases. Only One Nation will force foreign owners to sell their houses to Australians. Only One Nation will extend the ban on foreign ownership to our valuable farmland, to protect our ability to feed Australians first. Only One Nation can be trusted to truly put Australians first.

/5 Comments/by

Podcast with Dr David Martin and Dr Phillip Altman

, ,

Ever wonder how we ended up where we are today, both as a nation and in the West? Curious about what the future holds?

In today’s show, we’re diving deep into the last 60 years to make sense of the present and uncover what’s ahead.

We all have stories about the contradictions, the government lies, and the misinformation surrounding COVID—from exaggerated fears to the low severity of the virus, all amplified by propaganda.

To help us navigate this, we’ve got an expert who can explain it all: Dr. David Martin.

With unmatched experience in medicine, healthcare, national governance, finance, research, and industry, Dr. Martin is one of the most qualified voices to shed light on the truth. He’ll be sharing his knowledge and offering a platform for facts over ideologies.

A data-driven expert, David has been uncovering the truth since the anthrax scare. He’s not interested in opinions, just the facts.

Joining me in this discussion is Dr. Philip Altman, an Australian pharmacologist with a deep knowledge of Big Pharma. With 40 years of experience, Dr. Altman has seen it all.

Tune in for a powerful conversation.

/6 Comments/by