Free speech, open debate and the restoration of Australia
The political landscape in Australia is changing. There is no question about that. Some call it the rise of ‘Populism’. Others prefer to frame it as a return to common sense.
Public sentiment is changing because Australians are fed up with years of lies and bad governance.
They are demanding that government do a better job and stop wasting money.
Specific demands to restore Australia – taxes, migration, regulation – have been laid out in the public forum. Public demand is not a mystery to solve. It’s a list titled, ‘Fix these things!’ handed to politicians.
The Labor-Liberal uniparty are simply not listening.
Or if they are listening, they are choosing to ignore the public.
This is why Australians are joining One Nation.
Our growing support has nothing to do with ‘evil social media’, online ‘misinformation’, the ‘spread of hate’, or ‘grievance politics’. No. Our popularity is the Australian public expressing their survival instinct against an increasingly expensive, unreasonable, and incompetent government.
Voters know that One Nation DOES listen.
We do care. We want a better Australia – for everyone.
Unlike the uniparty, which seems happy to govern over the ashes of Australia, we want rich pastures and pristine landscapes – metaphoric and literal.
One Nation are the last true conservatives, the last environmentalists, and the last party the serves both small business and workers.
We do not see Australia as landscape of race, class, and religious conflict. We believe it’s a hub for healthy financial and ideological competition with free speech as the pinnacle of innovation. After all, if we are not able to speak our minds, how could we possibly debate the best possible future?
And yet, instead of conceding that decades of failure can be fixed with a return to basics, the uniparty has locked arms to counteract ‘evil Populism’ which they see as the greatest threat … to themselves. At no point have Labor and the Coalition combined to talk about the restoration of Australia. It took a uniparty popularity crisis for them to act. This, if nothing else, shows you where their priorities sit – with themselves.
One Nation is facing this increasingly intolerant and jealous political force. A uniparty movement whose followers are leaning on sometimes violent speech and disturbing demands.
It’s our view that the Left has become dangerous.
One Nation have always – and will always – defend free speech and open debate.
These are the foundations of our democracy and the wider civilisational idea of the Enlightenment.
However, we are also aware of the legacy of violence and political persecution perpetrated by left-wing regimes throughout history.
Mao’s Great Leap.
Stalin’s Cannibal Island.
The Killing Fields of the Khmer Rouge.
On and on it goes. An endless list of murder, slavery, and horror perpetrated in the name of collective power.
It always starts the same – with the radicalisation of young people.
What begins as a few chants about murdering a political leader or imprisoning their followers – shouted from the mouths of people too young to understand what they’re saying – ends in a disaster for every citizen.
Extreme politics does not end with the political figures it targets. It ends with the collapse of democracy, the erasure of history, and the refashioning of objective truth into propaganda.
One Nation believes there’s a clear line between debate and language that normalises hostility or encourages others to treat political opponents as legitimate targets of violence.
It’s my view that Jim Chalmers, Anthony Albanese, and now Michelle Rowland are in danger of encouraging or, at the very least, remaining idle while those who align with their political movement cross that line.
Listen to this speech from the Prime Minister following One Nation’s spectacular victory in Secret Harbour:
Following One Nation raising a complaint, the Attorney-General appeared to victim-blame Pauline Hanson and One Nation, suggesting that Ms Hanson should, quote: ‘reflect on her own behaviour and her party’s ideology’.
In recent weeks we’ve seen children call for violence against Pauline. Threats of violence graffitied on public places. Threats of violence left on our social media accounts. Around the world, conservative figures have been murdered or almost killed at the hands of left-wing radicals. When these uncivilised tragedies occur, educators, commentators, and left-wing political figures have either openly cheered or called for more violence. This is shocking.
When the Prime Minister takes the stage and uses misinformation and disinformation to falsely paint a grassroots political opposition as ‘a threat to democracy’ – he shames himself and his office. He is partaking in the normalisation of extremism on the Left.
Young people on the left take their lead from the Prime Minister.
As Senator Hanson said, quote:
‘What he’s doing is putting me in a position of threats against me now that I have to have federal police protection whenever I’m out here, meeting people. It’s a shame. He’s caused this. I don’t want it. I want to feel safe in my own country.’
So, what’s the truth?
The truth is the Albanese government has abused the trust of Australians. Their tax hikes have made people poorer. Their policies have oppressed and marginalised honest, hard-working people. And businesses are collapsing. Voters want hope. They want change. They want peace.
And again, I say – shame on Albanese for trying to paint his political opposition as a threat to Australia simply because he’s too weak and incompetent to save his government.
One Nation is polling as high as 30%. Millions of Australians support One Nation. These are ordinary citizens who want change. Our supporters are not extremists. Can Labor and the Greens say the same?
Ministers should not use language that encourages the public to treat them as something to fear.
The Attorney-General should never imply that threats against Australians are somehow understandable because of how they vote.
Instead of asking why Australians are walking away from them, Labor is choosing to vilify those Australians and heighten the risk to them from other members of the public. The Coalition aren’t much better. Certainly, they are more jaded.
It’s also worth noting the staggering discrepancy between ‘outrage’ for the safety of high-profile women.
When a campaign against Jacinta Allan used the phrase, ‘ditch the witch’ – Labor ministers and media erupted in outrage. The Prime Minister declared it ‘totally unacceptable’. It became a national lecture on sexism.
What about kids marching in the street, shouting for Pauline Hanson to be killed and her face drawn onto images of a pig?
Not so much as a comment.
This isn’t speculative. A few weeks ago, at the height of this rhetoric, a One nation staffer, a grandmother, was assaulted and hospitalised while wearing a One Nation shirt.
We are constantly told by government officials that more must be done to prevent violence against women. Which is absolutely correct. So why is violent, misogynistic rhetoric excused when it supports the Labor cause?
Why is one woman’s safety treated as less important than another woman’s?
It’s a dangerous moment when Australia’s first legal officer refuses to condemn threats against a fellow female politician and instead blames her for them.
When the Prime Minister was evacuated from his home in February due to security threats, Pauline responded by saying, ‘Violence is not the answer – we have to have free speech, free debate and make our choice felt at the ballot box.’
That is the standard every elected leader should uphold.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TakeCountryBack.jpg?fit=900%2C523&ssl=1523900Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-16 14:59:062026-09-16 14:59:13Millions Support One Nation
One Nation is proud of its comprehensive, detailed seven-page immigration policy, designed to fix the daily challenges facing everyday Australians.
While critics, particularly from the Uniparty, dismiss our policy, we recognise that their opposition is either politically motivated or stems from an ignorance of the facts.
And let’s be clear, backpacker, PALM and tourism numbers will remain unchanged under our policy.
Backed by Treasury’s FIONA model, it shows that while prime working age migrants (aged 25 to 35) yield a positive lifetime contribution of $198,000 per person, family reunions, older migrants and non-working arrivals create a net financial COST of $126,000 per person to taxpayers. Our policy seeks to increase young, skilled workers in critical areas like construction, nursing and aged care, while screening out non-producers to maximise overall economic value.
Our policy almost mirrors Canada’s successful approach, where recent immigration slowdowns have already eased rental pressures and supported workers. Australia currently has 690,000 unemployed and 1 million underemployed citizens who deserve to be prioritised and trained first.
One Nation will always put Australians first!
Transcript
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.
The Prime Minister and Attorney-General have called on One Nation to disavow the Nazi party, and media outlets like the Sydney Morning Herald unfairly claimed that One Nation refused to denounce Nazis despite quoting speeches where we explicitly did so.
One Nation completely disavows neo-Nazis and ethno-nationalists who distort nationalism to promote supremacy.
Transcript
Recently, the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General called on One Nation to disavow the Nazi party. Last Friday, Paul Sakkal, the Sydney Morning Herald chief political correspondent, tried to smear One Nation on this. Yet, a week earlier, I had published my Spectator Australia article denouncing the Nazi party. Last Wednesday, in my senator’s statement, I doubled down on my denouncement. In the Spectator and in my senator’s statement, I asked why the Labor Party and the political left did not stand against violence in word and deed from all sides of politics, left and right—as One Nation does. The Sydney Morning Herald used that comment yet not the next sentence, which I’ll quote:
Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, nationalists and ethno-nationalists exist in this country. We disavow them completely. They stand in opposition to everything One Nation believes.
The Sydney Morning Herald ran its story as One Nation refusing to denounce Nazis, when we had denounced them in a speech the article quoted.
Since then, I’ve been asked why I included nationalists in the list of those I denounced. I’ll clarify. The Nazi party in Australia no longer uses that name nor the name National Socialist. The new name for the same tiny group is nationalists. The dictionary defines nationalism as a political ideology and sentiment that promotes the interests, cultural identity and political independence of a particular nation above all others, yet Australian Nazis are distorting this to redefine nationalism as an ideology pushing a nation’s cultural or political superiority and dominance over others. That’s why I prefer the term ‘patriotism’: a love of one’s country and its shared civic values.
Everything I and One Nation do is to benefit Australians. We denounce vested interests and globalist agendas clearly. The Nazis are trying to corrupt the meaning of the word ‘nationalist’. I’m pleased to celebrate being a patriot. Be careful: language is powerful.
During this session, I raised critical questions with the National Heavy Vehicle Regulator regarding the life-and-death matter of rising heavy vehicle road fatalities, noting recent increases in New South Wales and Queensland.
I questioned Ms Rosie about anecdotal insights regarding the source of these high-risk drivers.
Speaking objectively as a migrant myself, I passed on widespread reports I’ve received from Western Australian and Queensland truckies suggesting a high number of Indian immigrants are obtaining licenses too easily or operating without them.
While Ms Rosie maintained that their compliance and reporting systems are strictly risk-based and agnostic to ethnicity, I wanted these serious, on-the-ground concerns from our truck drivers formally put on the record.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing, Ms Rosie. This is a life-and-death matter. It’s killing people. Which are the states where there has been an increase in heavy vehicle road fatalities?
Ms Rosie: New South Wales has had a slight increase, and so has Queensland.
Senator ROBERTS: What about Western Australia?
Ms Rosie: WA I can’t give you because we don’t regulate WA. At a high level, I understand WA is pretty flat.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ve heard a few stories, and that’s all they are; you’ve got the official figures. Anecdotally, are you hearing anything from drivers with experience on the road as to what sort of groups are the source of the new unlicensed drivers, new untrained drivers or inadequately trained drivers?
Ms Rosie: We’re always hearing insights. We’ve got a line that people can call if they want to give us information on illegal or other dangerous activity within the trucking sector. We do get insights on sham contracting and arrangements that are deemed to be illegal or unsafe, and we do track that. One of the things that we’re doing—I would say to the committee this is one of the things that we’re very keen on—is getting the industry to call that line and to give us as much information as possible if they are worried about those concerns. If your constituents are worried about those concerns, please call in. We are using that data very actively to track risk profile of operators and drivers. We have a risk profile of every operator and every driver, and if there are increased calls about particular operators or particular drivers, we will be regulating them more strongly.
Senator ROBERTS: Are there any groups that appear more often anecdotally or in the data—nationalities, ethnicities?
Ms Rosie: By operator? We know the operators who are appearing more in the data, and I wouldn’t say that there was any particular profile other than the way they operate.
Senator ROBERTS: What I’ve heard—I was born in India. I’m a migrant. I look at data objectively. That’s why I’m asking. I’ve heard so many stories from WA truckies and Queensland truckies that a lot of Indians are getting licences very easily—or not getting licences. I don’t know if anyone else has heard that. The chair has.
CHAIR: All of us in the industry know it.
Senator ROBERTS: You all know. I’m not accusing you of anything, by the way.
Ms Rosie: I know. All I can say to you is we take a risk based approach. Irrespective of ethnicity, we will be looking at all operators and all drivers and we will be taking a consistent approach across all of those drivers. If there are groups that are higher risk, you can be assured we will be acting on those groups. We’re doing it right now; we’re acting on a number of groups that we consider high risk and we will take action. Whether that’s stopping accreditation, whether that’s prohibiting their vehicles or whether that’s removing them from the system, we will be doing that. We are agnostic about that. Irrespective of their ethnicity or their backgrounds, we will be taking action against all operators who are operating outside or are high risk.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay. I’m just passing on anecdotal information from WA truckies and Queensland truckies, and the chair has verified it.
Ms Rosie: Understood.
CHAIR: I’m just wondering when we let the rabbit-proof fence down and let you into WA, Malcolm. When did that happen? You snuck in!
One Nation strongly opposed the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 and its draconian amendments – which passed the Senate today.
The social media minimum age framework has fundamentally failed because a nanny state cannot outsmart tech-savvy children using VPNs and other “workarounds”. Instead of protecting kids, it isolates them and pushes them into less supervised spaces like game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor.
This Bill increases penalties to nearly $100 million and grants the eSafety Commissioner terrifying, unchecked powers over Australians, including the power to compel people to travel (at their own expense and under threat of prison) to answer questions before her.
Which platform do you think she will demand appears first?
And more importantly, the dangerous abolition of the right against self-incrimination without proper age protections or mandatory legal representation.
The eSafety Commissioner’s office has become a heavily politicised weapon rather than a protector of children. When in government, One Nation will abolish this position, moving staff back into the department of media communications so they can focus on their actual, vital work of removing abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes.
The legislation relies on vague definitions of “reasonable steps” completely dictated by the commissioner. The government is simply doubling down with massive fines because their initial unworkable ban is failing in the courts.
How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
Transcript
Officially, the Online Safety Management (Strengthening Enforcement for the Social Media Minimum Age) Bill 2026 amends the Online Safety Act 2021 to strengthen the operation of the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA. The bill expands the eSafety commissar’s information-gathering powers and increases civil penalties for noncompliance to around $100 million—$100 million—depending upon state. In reality, the social media minimum age framework legislation has failed, and now the government is doubling down.
One Nation does not support the social media minimum age ban, for two reasons. Firstly, what children do online is the responsibility of parents, not the nanny state. Secondly, the technology will never be smarter than a resourceful and tech-savvy child.
In November 2024, I moved an urgency motion arguing that a blanket ban expropriates parental power. Parents in the home can supervise a child’s device better than a tech company or a Canberra bureaucrat. No country has made age limits work, and the ban would make parents who let children watch educational YouTube content law-breakers. I call for better parental locks from platforms and device makers instead of a nanny state rule. Parental locks from platforms and device makers have been proven to work.
I quoted the Australian Human Rights Commission warning that a ban would isolate young people. I predicted that the ban would fail because of VPNs, impersonation and other tricks while pushing children onto less supervised spaces, such as game chat rooms, peer-to-peer apps and Tor. This is exactly what’s happened. The ban has failed, and the answer from the eSafety commissar is bigger fines, more power over you and more removal of human rights. A government amendment circulated overnight is draconian and terrifying. The amendment will provide powers for the eSafety commissar to demand that a person travel at the person’s cost to appear before her in person and includes penalties of up to a year in prison for refusing to do so. Which platform do you think will be the first that the eSafety commissar demands to appear? No doubt X, to continue her obsession with Elon Musk. If the commissar thinks she will be demanding that witnesses appear from overseas, I would point out that Julie Inman Grant, the commissar, refused to appear before a US congressional inquiry into her actions last year. One can’t demand a higher degree of accountability than the commissioner was prepared to demonstrate herself.
The amendment abolishes a basic human right against self-incrimination. While it does say the evidence can’t be used in a court of law against a person, there is a known backdoor entry to this. The amendment does not protect young people, which is ironic, given it sits in a bill supposedly designed to protect young people. The subject of an examination order can be a person of any age. There is no age restriction on that power. There are no protections requiring a minor to be legally represented or have a parent present—none. There is a right to have a lawyer and not the requirement for one. We know how that works in practice. In short, turn up and get done over or go to jail. That’s life in the ‘Soviet Republic of Australia’ under this Albanese Labor government.
One Nation will oppose the amendment. We will oppose the bill and, when in government, we will abolish the position of the eSafety Commissioner. The role was intended all along to be a political appointment, and the incumbent is proving the truth in that statement. One Nation will not, though, throw the baby out with the bathwater. We will maintain the functions of the office of eSafety and move the staff back into the department of media and communications. The staff are doing very good work taking down abuse material, revenge porn and deepfakes and must be allowed to continue that work.
Other provisions of the bill include a doubling of fines on social media companies for failure to demonstrate reasonable steps to comply with the ban. The problem with the legislation is and continues to be the definition of ‘reasonable steps’, which is—hang on, there is no definition. The commissar sets the rules in a legislative instrument titled ‘Social media minimum age: regulatory guidance’. Then the commissar enforces them as the commissar sees fit. Reasonable steps is anything the commissar decides it should be. Defy the commissar, and you will cop a fine that’s been increased from $48 million to almost $100 million in this bill. What next? How about $200 million fines? No, $500 million fines. Do I hear a billion? That’s not how legislation is supposed to be drafted, and this is not how government power is supposed to be used. This is power over the people. They should be serving the people.
The real problem around compliance from social media companies, though, is the inconvenient truth that the eSafety commissar has lost all except one court case her office has started. Perhaps strengthening the legal basis for these fines in the first place would have been more important than simply allowing the commissar to threaten a larger fine. I say ‘threatened’ because no social media company has been fined under legislation relating to age verification—not one. So why increase the fines—the ones that haven’t been used yet? The government continues to pursue a strategy it can never win. Harsher penalties are a typical bureaucratic response to being defied when in fact the defiance is because the ban is not technically feasible.
Moving on, the bill enables the commissar to compel the production of information or documents from any person. All that’s needed is for the commissar—or the commissioner—to believe on reasonable grounds that the person has information or documents relevant to compliance from a provider of an electronic service that is or may be—notice the opening of the envelope!—an age restricted social media platform. If this looks like unchecked power, it is—unchecked power over not just children and social media platforms but over every Australian, adults included. For example, information from third parties, such as age assurance providers or app store operators, may assist in validating or testing claims platforms made about their compliance with the minimum age obligation. Once again, these powers are not limited by age. An individual who discovers a workaround may be compelled to provide information around how they did that, no matter the age. The committee report recommended the bill pass as written. There were concerns from submitters whether the measures imposed, increased discovery and higher penalties, were necessary and proportionate to enforce the social media minimum age framework, the SMMA ban. the office of the information commissar made a great point that the information-gathering powers in the bill should be extended to their office. This would allow them to determine if the information that age-verification companies are collecting was being dealt with according to Australian privacy legislation.
The Law Council of Australia criticised the new information-gathering powers under section 63G as being too powerful for the stated outcome, as did Free Speech Union, and X sounded like they were lining up to challenge them in court. Multiple submitters complained about the very high fines, up to slightly over $100 million, depending upon the state. The Australian Human Rights Commission recommended a review after 12 months into the effect of the social media minimum age framework, SMMA ban on children, which is faster than the statutory two-year review. I would recommend that submission to the government. How much government is too much government? This is too much government and too much control over the people.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/bgRC0t8robs/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-09-10 14:59:202026-09-10 14:59:24The Terrifying Scope of the eSafety’s Power
Some have claimed that no One Nation Senators showed up to the Senate hearings into the Illicit Tobacco industry.
I sat through it myself, questioning publicans, tobacconists and small business owners about what this trade is doing to their towns.
What they told me was blunt. Smoking rates rising, legal tax revenue in freefall, and organised crime filling the gap — firebombings, shootings, communities losing businesses that will never reopen.
That’s exactly why One Nation will cut tobacco excise by 75 per cent – to take the market back off the criminals who are getting rich off this Government’s failed policy.
I did the work. I heard the evidence. And it backs our plan.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing today and for the effort you’ve gone to. I’d like to go to each one in turn. Mr Allen, you’re a publican. You used to make some money out of cigarette sales?
Mr Allen: I did.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’re not a smoker?
Mr Allen: No.
Senator ROBERTS: But you have come up with a comprehensive integrated solution in your submission. It’s multifaceted and it includes a component to decrease smoking rates. So you’re not against cutting smoking, but you just want it to be done fairly, sensibly, honestly and legally.
Mr Allen: Correct. If you look at the trends in Australia at the moment, smoking rates have—for a threedecade period, they were on their way down, until now. I’d argue that when this household survey comes out towards the end of this year, not only will they have flatlined; they’ve gone up. That’s based on the Roy Morgan research report and the wastewater report. That wastewater report, you’ve got to remember, says between 2024 and 2025. We’ve still got this year to go, so we could go up even further. I’ve lost my train of thought.
Senator ROBERTS: This is defeating the actual purpose of the—
Mr Allen: Sorry, yes. Smoking rates are coming down, alcohol consumption is coming down naturally, sugar consumption is coming down. If you look at soft drink consumption in Australia—it’s all naturally coming down. We don’t have a sugar tax in Australia. People are making better choices about their lives. It’s as simple as that. My kids don’t smoke, they don’t drink a lot. Some of them don’t drink at all. And that’s the choice they’re making. We don’t need big government telling us what to do, putting in these punitive taxes on things to try to stop us having choices in life. People are making their own choice to live a healthier life and that’s why we’re seeing tobacco, we’re seeing alcohol and we’re seeing sugar consumption come down. But unfortunately, because of what government has done with tobacco, we’re starting to see that plateau and then potentially even spike.
Senator ROBERTS: I’ll come back to that in a minute. You said margins are so big that an illicit tobacco store gets shut down and they lose $200,000 of stock confiscated and it means nothing.
Mr Allen: It’s a cost of doing business; that’s all it is. When you’ve got a $10 billion—the illegal illicit tobacco market in Australia is as big as the footwear industry. It’s huge. That’s how big it is. We’re taking a knife to a gunfight at the moment with the states trying to control this. It’s just not working.
Senator ROBERTS: You’ve spoken up and spoken out in Bega. You’re speaking out very plainly and clearly here. Is there any fear behind that?
Mr Allen: No. As I said, I’m not renewing my licence in three months. I can see no future in selling tobacco in my bottle shop, and that’s my position. I’m here to tell people how it is. I’m not here to hide behind things or try to fiddle at the margins. I’m trying to tell people what is happening in Australia and what it’s doing on a fiscal level, on a health level and on a crime level. And, as I think my evidence has shown, it’s a disaster.
Senator ROBERTS: But there have been threats against people. There have been murders.
Mr Allen: Absolutely. There was one in Melbourne: the young lady who was in the wrong house at the wrong time. The wrong house was firebombed. She was killed along with the dog. It’s terrible. And there have been people just killed. There’s the lady who was making kebabs in Auburn last year and just going about her business and they’ve come in and shot her and she’ll never be the same again. There was an armed robbery in Narooma a few months ago where that the poor guy behind the bar was hit in the side with a shotgun—in Narooma. He’ll never be the same again. It’s all to do with this criminality that’s coming into our regions because of illicit tobacco.
Senator ROBERTS: So we either comply with the law or we let the unlawful—
Mr Allen: The underworld will take it over, I’ve got no doubt. I went to the state inquiry last year and all the senators, whether they were Labor, Liberal, Green, National—like Cate Faehrmann, the Green, Stephen Lawrence from Labor—grilled Amber Shuhyta, the ITEC Commissioner, fairly hard. They were interested in what excise levels are doing. This inquiry is very politicised. The Greens and the Labor senators seem to be interested in anything else but excise. And if we don’t focus on excise, nothing is going to be solved here. I can guarantee that.
Senator ROBERTS: Speaking of excise, I’ll just divert slightly. One Nation policy is to cut excise on alcohol—on beer and spirits served in hospitality venues. And the reason for that is that the excise is so damn high and alcohol prices are so high that they have binge drinking and what they now call preloading, tanking up before you go out, so the hospitality venues get bugger-all revenue.
Mr Allen: I absolutely agree, Senator.
Senator ROBERTS: It is causing a decrease in service from where they have responsible serving of alcohol to now binge drinking.
Mr Allen: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: So that’s damaging.
Mr Allen: It was very similar when the alcopops tax came in, if you can remember, back in, I think, 2008. Kevin Rudd said, ‘We’ve got a binge drinking problem in Australia, so we’ll bring in the alcopops tax. We’ll tax premixed or RTD drinks at the same level as spirits, at 66 per cent.’ So what happened? Everyone went out and bought spirits. The kids went to the parties; they took their bottle of spirit and their bottle of Coke and just mixed it up. And often it was a much higher concentration than the four per cent premixed RTD in the can. God knows what percentage it was. But that’s the problem when you try to solve things with taxation and excise. It’s just madness.
Senator ROBERTS: What you’re all arguing for is getting back to the core issue, the core problem, the driver of this problem, and that is excessive excise tax.
Mr Allen: The sweet spot was 2020. We collected $16.3 billion in tax, and that adjusted is $20 billion in today’s money. In 2020 we collected $20 billion. In 2030 we’re going to collect $2 billion. And I doubt that’ll be right. That’s a 90 per cent drop in 10 years. Now, if that is successful policy, I’m not here. I don’t know what is.
Senator ROBERTS: And smoking rates are going up.
Mr Allen: And smoking rates are going up. It’s just absolute madness.
Senator ROBERTS: All of you have given very direct answers, so I’ll move on to Ms Wishart. You’re a legal family-owned tobacconist. In a small town in regional New South Wales, Junee. You say that the illegal tobacco industry has devastated your small business, with income down by 80 per cent. So you’re down to 20 per cent of what you had. In your submission you’ve called for the excise to be rolled back because of the huge social aspects for the community and society in general. Is that correct?
Mrs Wishart: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you want to expand on that?
Mrs Wishart: Particularly in regional centres, if a business closes down, another one may never open.
Senator ROBERTS: You lose that knowledge of the community.
Mrs Wishart: Yes. And banks don’t like small business. You’ve got to fight to open one, let alone to survive in one. And small towns are communities. That word just isn’t a catchphrase. We are communities. So when the four local schools, when Can Assist, when the swimming club, the football club and the soccer club all come in for donations, they’re guaranteed it, or they were. I haven’t been able to donate for two years, which is horrible as a member of the community. They know not to even ask now because they know the position that I’m in.
Senator ROBERTS: And the criminal pushing illicit tobacco doesn’t donate.
Mrs Wishart: He’s not supporting anyone but himself. Nothing’s getting put back.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. Mr Rodie, you’re a tobacconist at Margate?
Mr Rodie: I’m a tobacconist at Deception Bay.
Senator ROBERTS: Sorry, you said that. That was my mistake. You’ve come up in your submission with a list of 10 recommendations that show the comprehensiveness of the solution. You’re not opposed to cutting smoking; you just want to go about it fairly so that everyone benefits—correct?
Mr Rodie: Yes, that’s right. I’d like a level playing field. At the moment there’s no level playing field at all.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Mr Alexiou, you’re from Devonport, Tassie?
Mr Alexiou: Yes, Senator Roberts, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: And you’ve got a Foodworks, so you’re a supermarket?
Mr Alexiou: Yes. We’ve been in our business for 40 years.
Senator ROBERTS: You’re asking the Senate to recognise that illicit tobacco is not a victimless issue. It’s hurting real businesses, real workers and real communities in Tasmania—correct?
Mr Alexiou: Correct.
Senator ROBERTS: And the social knock-on effect is important to the whole community. You’ve also said that the long-term viability of neighbourhood retail in Tasmania is at risk.
Mr Alexiou: Of course. Have you heard the previous speakers? I concur with those comments.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair, and thank you all because your evidence has been succinct and direct. I appreciate that.
The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 gives the ACCC and the minister wide ranging power to exempt large corporations from anticompetitive and fair trading laws during crises like the Iranian oil shock.
It lets the government “tear up the rulebook” by rubberstamping illegal anticompetitive behaviour through a Ministerial instrument.
Using the Iranian fuel crisis as an example, major fuel importers deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market to inflate prices, hurting independent regional stations and everyday consumers while securing windfall profits.
The Labor government is backdating the bill to retroactively cover up corporate profiteering, which is being done to push high fuel prices and artificially boost lagging electric vehicle (EV) sales to advance its Net Zero agenda.
The Albanese Government is turning out to be the most totalitarian government in Australian history.
Transcript
This is not a matter of urgency; to the contrary, it’s a matter for considered scrutiny. Let me explain. The Competition and Consumer Amendment (Responding to Exceptional Circumstances) Bill 2026 provides the ACCC with significant new powers. These powers create a new framework for actions that can be taken in exceptional circumstances such as the Iranian oil shock. These powers allow the ACCC to exempt big business from normal fair trading and anticompetitive laws—exempt. This allows big business, once an exceptional circumstance has been declared, to do whatever they like. The framework is wider than fuel; it can be used for anything the minister decides to use it for. This otherwise illegal behaviour will then be simply rubberstamped in the minister’s office using a legislative instrument that cannot be disallowed. It won’t even come before parliament. The ACCC already has the power to allow uncompetitive behaviour in the national interest—it already has the power, in the national interest. This legislation clarifies those rules but little more. I note the proposed amendment from the crossbench which changes that provision to make these legislative instruments disallowable in the parliament. One Nation will be supporting that amendment, as the government should.
This bill is, in effect, the government granting itself the power to tear up the rulebook to allow large corporations to use their market power to screw the competition, expand their market share and leverage that market share to make more profit at the consumers’ expense. There is a real example of this occurring. In the early days of the Iranian fuel disruption, Australia’s fuel importers—major importers of fuel—despite having full storage tanks, withheld from the spot market. The major importers of fuel deliberately withheld fuel from the spot market, despite having full storage tanks. This is the market into which fuel importers and refiners supply their fuel once their own supply contracts have been met. This is where the smaller independent petrol stations, especially in rural and regional Australia, get their fuel. In the first weeks of the Iranian oil crisis, petrol went above $2.50 a litre—we all remember that—and diesel went over $3 a litre. The increase in the oil price did not justify those retail prices, which were high because of price gouging and manipulation. We know what these large multinational companies did. They held their supply back from the spot market to inflate the retail price, even for fuel which was already in the supply system at the old price. This delivered windfall profits to multinational oil companies—for doing nothing except colluding.
Labor is now advancing this bill with a clause backdating the bill to the start of the crisis to cover up this profiteering. Labor is covering up this profiteering. Why would the Albanese Labor government excuse foreign multinational fuel companies for profiting at the expense of everyday Australians? The answer is simple: to sell electric vehicles, whose sales had been languishing. Remember all those stories about people rushing out to buy EVs because petrol was so dear? How evil is that? With all the financial hardship in the bush and the regions and the suburbs which resulted from big oil profiteering, the government is using this bill to cover it up to advance its net zero agenda—yet another hidden cost of the net zero agenda. This Labor Party does not give a damn about everyday Australians; it does not care at all. And now they’re helping companies cover it up. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians. I’ll say that again to the Greens. If the Greens support this bill, they will be supporting foreign multinational corporations price gouging everyday Australians.
I note the amendment from the Nationals to remove the retrospective nature of the cover-up in this bill. One Nation will support that amendment.
Competition law exists for a reason. It protects consumers and small business. It stops large players from coordinating in ways that damage competition. Any exemption from competition law needs to be treated very seriously, because it’s the people who pay. We can’t normalise anticompetitive conduct. It will lead to more and more exceptions, less and less consumer protection, higher and higher prices, and weaker and weaker service. Clearly, when Labor talks about consumer protections, they don’t really mean it. I’m just checking; this is still a Labor government, isn’t it? Is that right?
One Nation is the party of everyday Australians now. One Nation wants this bill to go to a committee inquiry so everyone can have their say, and, from that, a fairer bill will have emerged. We want the public to have their input, yet here we are. Once again this Labor government is talking about ramming through without proper debate, without transparency, legislation which contains significant provisions.
In 2019 the then opposition leader, Anthony Albanese, frequently criticised the coalition for lacking transparency in key legislation and vowed Labor would operate differently, including better parliamentary scrutiny. This bill is not getting committee scrutiny. We want better parliamentary scrutiny, as Anthony Albanese sought back in 2019. In his victory speech in 2022, Prime Minister Albanese promised to end secrecy, to lead with integrity and to treat the public with respect, framing his win as voters choosing accountable government versus the previous cult of secrecy. He repeatedly claims a mandate with just 34 per cent of the vote—one-third of the vote. That’s why he’s got no accountability now. Where is that accountability? Where is the transparency now? Where is the parliamentary scrutiny now? Unless all the substantive amendments presented to the Senate are passed, One Nation will oppose this legislation.
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the culmination of two years of consultation aimed at fixing a long-standing issue with orphan works, expanding online education exemptions, and making minor technical updates.
Division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 limits remedies against those using copyrighted works when the owner can’t be found after a “reasonably diligent” search. While we still need clearer industry guidance on what qualifies as “reasonably diligent,” modern tools like TinEye, web searches, and AI make checking copyright straightforward.
This bill introduces requirements for copyright owners to issue a takedown notice before seeking a charge. Crucially, any claim must now be reasonable. I’ve seen copyright trolls demand over $1,000 for minor, low-traffic uses of dormant works. This new requirement gives small businesses leverage to negotiate and provides courts with clear guidance to lower litigation costs.
This is a major win for our galleries, libraries, museums, and educational institutions. With up to 70% of some collections categorised as orphaned, this bill grants them the freedom to finally share these works.
However, this bill completely misses the elephant in the room: AI training and data scraping.
Under current law, using copyrighted material to train AI generally requires a license, and reproducing substantial parts of works in AI outputs is an infringement. The real danger is how search engines and AI platforms (ChatGPT being a primary offender) scrape copyrighted websites to generate direct answers. By doing so, they eliminate the need for users to visit the original creator’s site, effectively appropriating their work. This critical issue must be addressed in the very near future.
Although One Nation supported this bill, we will be watching closely to see how it performs in practice. If small businesses acting in good faith aren’t adequately protected from predatory claims, we will push for further measures.
Transcript
The Copyright Amendment Bill 2025 is the result of consultation over two years to solve a problem that’s existed around orphan works. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a statutory framework that enables lawful use of orphan works when the copyright owner cannot be identified or located despite a reasonably diligent approach. Schedule 2 makes clear that copyright exemptions for learning institutions teaching in person extend to lessons taught online. Schedule 3 makes minor technical changes and updates.
The orphan works scheme creates division 2AAA in the Copyright Act 1968 to limit remedies for copyright infringement where the owner cannot be found despite a reasonably diligent approach. It would be good to have that further guidance on what ‘reasonably diligent’ means. I do expect there will be guidance from industry and media around that definition when the bill commences. Using internet search and websites like TinEye or asking AI if something is copyrighted is not hard to do; it’s quite easy. The act already limits backdated claims to six years; where the use predates that, only the last six years can be claimed as copyright infringement.
The bill requires a copyright owner who has detected use of their material to give the offending use a notice to take down the material. If they do, a charge does not result. It’s the copyright owner’s discretion. Any charge they do claim must be reasonable—there’s that word again. There’s a real issue with copyright trolls, who buy up dormant copyrights, look to see who has used that writing, photo or art then send a copyright claim. I’ve seen many examples of copyright trolls making claims above $1,000 for insignificant use such as a photo on a website that attracts little to no traffic. This legislation does introduce words like ‘reasonable’ to describe the charge. That is new, and it should help in these cases, because it gives a small business a chance to negotiate the charge. It may stop claims being made for minor use when no quantifiable benefit has resulted. The legislation provides the courts with clear rules and guidance that will reduce the cost of litigation for both parties.
One Nation will watch how this legislation works in practice. If small businesses are not being properly protected for in-good-faith breaches, further measures may be necessary. The good news is that this bill will allow galleries, libraries, museums and education institutions greater freedom to use works they have on hand. With an estimated 70 per cent of some collections being orphaned, this is a significant step forward.
The bill does not address the major concern about copyright law, which is using copyright material to train AI. Under the Copyright Act 1968, teaching and AI on copyrighted works generally requires permission or a licence from the copyright owner. Reproducing producing substantial parts of copyrighted works in an AI’s output, such as quoting long excerpts or reproducing poems or images is usually an infringement. The exception is a narrow fair-use exception for academic and news purposes. Where this becomes a problem is in areas of search where the old ten blue links in Google’s page of search results have been replaced with an AI answer, which uses information from a copyrighted website, generally removing the need to visit the site. Many artificial intelligence sites—ChatGPT being a major offender—will use data from a copyrighted site to answer a user question and even make recommendations for which website to use based on the data from a different site. The issue of AI appropriating copyrighted works or copyrighted webpages is an issue that will need to be addressed in the near future. One Nation will support this bill.
This is my interaction with federal agencies at the Illicit Tobacco hearing in Canberra on 18 May 2026.
Tobacco excise tax losses range from $7.7 billion to $11.8 billion annually (ITEC report).
The agencies confirmed that illicit tobacco is a massive, highly sophisticated, and growing threat tied directly to organised crime.
The Australian Federal Police (AFP) stated that intergang violence, property destruction and loss of lives can be directly linked to this illegal black-market trade.
I pointed out that the real safety issue facing everyday Australians involves fire bombings, gang violence, and murder on our streets, not just general health advice.
The agencies pointed to successful operations, such as the AFP citing specific busts netting millions of illegal cigarettes and $93 million in evaded excise. However, when I pressed them on concrete metrics to show whether they are actually making a dent in the trade or if these seizures are just a “drop in the ocean,” they struggled to give a clear percentage or ratio against the total market.
Success isn’t just about slowing down market growth or rattling off isolated seizure statistics. The Australian public deserves to know the exact scale of the impact being made.
We shouldn’t be merely managing or stopping this illegal trade from “growing,” we should be eliminating it entirely.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you all for appearing. Let’s explore your understanding. I’m going to give you free rein to show the people of Australia and the parliament of Australia what you know and are doing. Perhaps you could answer these questions in turn, please, starting on the left. Do you accept that there is a significant problem with illicit tobacco? If so, why? If not, why not? How do these problems manifest? Could you be specific about the impacts on human life and also the dollar cost.
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, I’m not sure whether we’re best qualified to provide an answer. We’re prosecuting offences, but we’re certainly very much engaged in relation to prosecutions arising from the illicit tobacco trade.
Ms Sirec: As we said in our submission, any criminality is a concern for the Australian Federal Police. Illicit tobacco is an illicit commodity and we will target that. We do know that it’s having an impact. As we’ve heard from our ACIC colleagues, it’s impacting our communities, it’s impacting health and it’s obviously causing some violence and harm in the community. So, certainly, we work very strongly with our partners on being able to impact and disrupt the criminal environment in connection with illicit tobacco. I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Senator ROBERTS: How do these problems manifest—if you could be specific—in terms of the cost to human life and the dollar cost?
Ms Sirec: As for how it manifests, we know that competition is happening across organised crime gangs, so we see intergang violence. We see property destruction occurring in our jurisdictions, which our state and territory partners also have to target. We’ve heard from the ACIC regarding the loss of three lives, and I think the ACIC are on the record already about the dollar value of illicit tobacco being in the billions, in terms of impacting community.
Mr Meyer: Building on what has been said already, I think the other element, from our perspective, is the recycling of the profits that are made through illicit tobacco into a range of other organised crime activity, as I mentioned, whether it be drugs or a range of other activities which flow on to a range of harms within the community. Just in terms of metrics and numbers, I know that the Illicit Tobacco and E-cigarette Commissioner’s report estimates the total amount of excise evaded in 2024-25 to be between $7.7 billion and $11.8 billion. The Australian Institute of Criminology estimated that the total economic and social cost of illicit tobacco in 2023-24 was approximately $4 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: The other group, AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: In response to your first question, in 2024 AUSTRAC developed the national risk assessment on money laundering. At the time, it assessed the illicit tobacco market as posing a medium and increasing threat of money laundering. That same product forecast that, over the next three years, the illicit tobacco threat was likely to increase. We have recently published an update to that national risk assessment which shows that illicit tobacco has increased in volume and we’re seeing that criminal groups are becoming more sophisticated and diverse in the ways in which they’re laundering that money. That’s really driven by high market demand and profitability. I think, to your second question, just referencing the ITEC annual report 2024-25, ITEC estimated that in 2024-25 the illicit tobacco market was worth up to $6.9 billion.
Senator ROBERTS: Again, each in turn, what are the three most important points that you would like to make to this committee?
Mr de Crespigny: From the CDPP’s point of view, there are two things that we are seeing about the place. Firstly, of the prosecutions that we’re doing, more of them involve multiple defendants, indicating large, organised crime groups. The other thing that we’ve seen about the place is a rise in state prosecutions, so the states are very much taking it on. In both New South Wales and Victoria, they’ve increased the penalties for relevant offences, such as the sale of illicit tobacco. It’s not something which is just being done by the Commonwealth; it’s also being done by the state authorities.
Senator ROBERTS: Do you have a third point?
Mr de Crespigny: I do think that there’s possibly a need to understand its impact upon the community, both in loss of revenue and in the health impact that it has. That’s something that we try to get across in our sentencing matters, because part of the point of the exercise is to, in actual fact, lower Australia’s smoking rates.
Senator ROBERTS: What about the safety of people?
Mr de Crespigny: People are safer if they don’t smoke.
Senator ROBERTS: I meant in terms of firebombings and murders.
Mr de Crespigny: That’s something that, certainly, I observe because I have heard it at the committee and read it in the newspapers, but it’s not something which falls within the CDPP’s speciality.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. AFP?
Ms Sirec: The AFP knows that the threat is dynamic, interconnected, tech enabled and resilient. There are three points that I would like you to take away. Firstly, our approach, with our partners, is that we target supply chains, enablers and trusted insiders. Secondly, we exploit and dismantle criminal communication systems. Thirdly, we identify, restrain and seize criminal assets and financial facilitators to take the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you be more specific, please. How do you do these things? What do you need? What actions do you actually take?
Ms Sirec: As for actions, we target the supply chains. For instance, in New South Wales, we partner with New South Wales police and the Crime Commission to target trusted insiders—that is, those individuals who allow the illicit flow of tobacco to come through the borders. We exploit and dismantle the criminal comms systems, through understanding our capabilities around encrypted communications, and being able to infiltrate and use our powers to be able to identify organised crime. Through the additional funding that the government has provided regarding our Criminal Assets Confiscation Taskforce, we can identify, restrain and seize the criminal assets, and we’ve done that successfully. We’ve seized directly over $39 million worth of property since 26 June 2025.
Mr Meyer: As I mentioned in one of my previous responses, serious and organised crime see there being lower barriers to entry and lower penalties associated with illicit tobacco and the market. A bill is going through parliament at the moment, and I know that, across our state and territory counterparts, they’re also looking to have greater consistency, in terms of their own regulatory and legislative approach. Firstly, being able to level out and make it harder for serious and organised crime to operate, and increase the penalties, obviously will help to deter some of those actors. Secondly, targeting the efforts the whole way through the supply chain, as Deputy Commissioner Seric said, not just here in Australia but at the border and internationally with our partners, will be incredibly important, and we continue to do that. Thirdly, in addition to the commodity itself, it’s being able to dismantle the actual groups behind it. Those groups are involved in a range of other illicit activity as well. By effectively deterring and dismantling those groups, we’re actually going to have a significant effect across a range of threat types.
Senator ROBERTS: AUSTRAC?
Mr Helmond: Coming to this from the perspective of an intelligence agency, the first point that I’d make is about partnering with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies that we work with. AUSTRAC is a member of the Illicit Tobacco Taskforce, we support the national disruption group and we work with the ITEC. It’s really through those partnerships, and their ability to leverage our data, that ensures there is financial intelligence that gives a good picture of the activities there—the supply chains, and how profits are generated and moved. It gives those investigative agencies greater insights, in order to target these groups. The second point I’d make is that it’s essential for AUSTRAC, as both an intelligence agency and the financial regulator, to work very closely with our industry partners—the banking sector, the remittance sector and the digital payments sector—so that we can not only continue to get those insights from them but also work with them on increasing their risk controls, their transaction monitoring and their understanding of the nature of the threat and the way it’s evolving, in order to help them detect that activity. The third point that I’d make goes to a real investment in our crypto-tracing capability. With the impact that government is having, we’re starting to see that increase in online sales and more movement of these proceeds through digital currencies. It’s important for us to keep up with that and continue to be able to have the tools and the capability to follow those fund flows through those digital transactions that are made as well.
Senator ROBERTS: How do each of you measure your effectiveness? Is the taxpayer getting value? And, if so, how do we know? We’ve pretty much all agreed that this problem is worth billions of dollars, it is costing lives and it has health impacts. What are you doing to reassure the taxpayer?
Mr de Crespigny: From CDPP’s point of view, our effectiveness is measured by the prosecutions that we undertake; we think we’re undertaking those effectively and we’re getting quite reasonable results. The offence provisions are quite complex. These offence provisions—say, the Customs Act provisions—aren’t just focused on the actual importation of the tobacco; it’s a requirement that the person also had an intention or was reckless in defrauding the revenue. They’re not the most straightforward offence provisions. Our effectiveness is in working with our referring agencies and pursuing prosecutions.
Ms Sirec: From the AFP’s perspective, we would measure our effectiveness by our ability to partner, disrupt and dismantle organised criminal groups. Only months ago, Commissioner Barrett identified her No. 1 target, who was involved not only in a myriad of other crimes but also in illicit tobacco. Through our partnerships with our offshore law enforcement agencies, we’ve been able to disrupt his ability, to directly impact. There’s a success measure there. Of course, the number of prosecutions and seizures of illicit tobacco and our ability to understand the criminal networks are another measure of success. Finally, as I said before, with the investment that the government has made in terms of our asset restraint, we’ve been able to restrain more than $39 million since June 2025 and taken the profit out of this crime.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you give me some quantified specific effect that you’re having with each of those measures? What indicates success, and what indicates how far we have yet to go?
Ms Sirec: Sure. I can give you a couple of case studies. As per our submission, for instance, with Operation Collinsville, late last year, with the Australian Border Force and Victoria Police, we arrested six senior syndicate members and charged them with various charges. There were 14 search warrants across various factories and premises. We seized over 24 million cigarettes, six million kilos worth of looseleaf tobacco and 51,000 vapes, while also being able to seize various other items and instruments of the commission of the crime—mobile phones, cash machines et cetera. That’s just one investigation. In another investigation, in 2024, Operation Centinel-South-Tyres, over 10 million cigarettes were seized and a number of the syndicate members were arrested. This syndicate was responsible for the importation of more than 77 million cigarettes, so we disrupted that syndicate, which equated to $93 million in excise tax. In 2025, we also successfully obtained restraining orders for over $800,000 in property.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s a big problem. How big is it? Is this a drop in the ocean, or has this had a significant impact on their illegal business?
Ms Sirec: Every criminal group that we can disrupt creates an impact.
Senator ROBERTS: In your answer, you’re not giving me anything specific, in terms of indicating your understanding of how big the problem is financially.
Ms Sirec: We’ve heard already from our colleagues here about the dollar value, in terms of the cost of this criminality, and also—
Senator ROBERTS: With due respect, I want to know what your understanding of it is.
Ms Sirec: As we’ve heard, it’s a $7 billion harm to the community.
Senator ROBERTS: Is what you’ve done, in the cases that you’ve just rattled off, five per cent or 50 per cent of the trade?
Ms Sirec: I can’t give you a quantum of the percentage of the trade, but they are only two examples—they’re in our submission—of multiple examples that I could provide of the impact that we’re having.
Senator ROBERTS: It’s good to see that success, but is that five per cent, 50 per cent or 90 per cent? How much further do we have to go?
Ms Sirec: I won’t speculate on the percentage; I believe that sits there. Certainly, the fact that we are sitting here today means that we’ve obviously got more to go. But we have the right capabilities and the right people involved in this to do everything that we can to disrupt this.
Senator ROBERTS: How do the people and the parliament know from your answers—you’re not being very specific—in terms of the overall figure? Are you making a dent in it; again, is it five per cent?
Senator COLBECK: It’s $93 million worth of excise seizure versus a $12 billion loss in excise; it’s a drop in the ocean.
CHAIR: Perhaps I can assist, Senator Roberts. We’re all here to try to stop this market growing, and it’s great to have numbers of cigarettes, like 10 million, being confiscated at the border and so forth. But it would be really helpful if you could provide to the committee, on notice, in percentage terms, the amount of disruption that you are making with what is being confiscated versus the size of the illicit market. I can appreciate that you may not have that in front of you, and this is not to take away from any of the great work that you are doing, but I think it is an important piece of evidence for the committee, so that we are able to look at just the pure scale of what is coming into the country.
Ms Sirec: I’ll have to take that on notice.
CHAIR: Thank you; that would be very helpful.
Senator ROBERTS: I want to make the point that we’re not just interested in stopping the business growing; we’re interested in stopping the business altogether.
When harvest fuel bills double and take weeks to recoup from supermarkets, family farms simply can’t finance the food on our tables.
If Canberra keeps treating our fuel sovereignty like someone else’s problem, store shelves will empty fast.
Our food producers are already feeling the heat.
Government needs to step up and start looking after Australia.
Transcript
Yesterday, I met with Johanna Brighenti from NSW Farmers and member organisations across horticultural and meat industries. They raised issues caused by the Albanese government’s fuel crisis that are terrifying. The cost to get produce to market is going up by between 25 per cent and 75 per cent because of increased fuel costs.
Farmers and truckers using diesel are only getting 30 per cent of their fuel order. This is making Australian produce unaffordable. After the drought years, family farmers have nothing left to get through this.
It’s even worse for farmers in the middle of a harvest. One farmer saw their harvest fuel costs double, from $15,000 to $30,000 a week. Fuel bills have to be settled in 14 days. Supermarkets pay two months. Farmers can no longer afford to finance their harvest, and food will not get to supermarkets.
If the Canberra bubble think that this is someone else’s problem and that they need do nothing about it, I can assure you it’s going to get very real very quickly. For food producers it is already real.
