A question I asked Minister Don Farrell back in March.
From the start, One Nation opposed the UN’s net zero policies and will continue to oppose.
Will the Uniparty fully embrace coal, oil, and gas as being essential for modern civilisation and commit to true national self-sufficiency across our entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling to the petrol pump?
I doubt it!
— March | Senate Debate
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, from the start, One Nation has completely opposed the United Nations net zero scam. Only One Nation has said from the start and continues to say, ‘Scrap United Nations’s net zero.’ The Nationals say, ‘Scrap net zero by 2050.’ They support the net zero concept but want to delay implementation. The Liberals say the same. They still support UN’s net zero; they just want to drop net zero by 2050. The Liberals started net zero under Prime Minister Morrison after he’d promised at the election just 18 months earlier not to adopt it. The Nationals went along with it blindly. The Labor Party has adopted One Nation suggestions—
Senator Canavan: Barnaby did!
Senator ROBERTS: He now realises he was wrong, and he’s probably said so, to his credit. That shows his integrity and courage. Labor has adopted One Nation’s suggestions. We were the first to raise the looming fuel crisis back on Monday 2 March, three days after the Israelis attacked Iran. We were ridiculed for that—called far-right-wing extremists, I think—by the Labor Party. I can distinctly visualise Senator Tim Ayres over there saying that as he pointed towards me. It doesn’t bother us, because we know that he was desperate. But we thank you for adopting so many of our policies over that last four weeks, and you’re still adopting them. Thank you. Will you adopt our advice to scrap UN net zero? Will you at least acknowledge that the hydrocarbon fuels coal, oil and natural gas are essential for modern civilisation—in particular, oil for transport? Will you acknowledge that we need to be self-sufficient in the entire hydrocarbon supply chain, from drilling rig through to petrol pump?
Senator Farrell: I thank Senator Roberts for his question. I should congratulate you on your result in the South Australian elections, Senator Roberts. I know you came down and campaigned, certainly in the seat of Colton. I saw you down there with your candidate.
I have an apology to make to Senator Canavan. When I was answering one of his questions last week, I referred to the fact that, in his first outing as leader of the National Party, where he was going to take on One Nation, your candidates got 22 per cent of the vote, and I said in the Senate that the Nationals had got one per cent. I have to apologise to Senator Canavan; that was not correct. It was 0.7 of one per cent, not one per cent. So, in his first outing as leader, espousing all of the policy positions he’s just explained to this Senate, that was the result.
We do produce gas in this country, Senator Roberts, and we’ve produced it under this government. I’ve referred, in an earlier answer to Senator Canavan, to some of the places where we’re doing it. We’re doing it in the Barossa. We’re doing it in the Beetaloo. One day we might do it in Narrabri. We’re certainly increasing production in the Cooper Basin in South Australia. But we do have a commitment to net zero. That is, as you say, a commitment that both the Nationals and the coalition, at certain periods of time, have been committed to. Gas, in particular, is a transition fuel, Senator Roberts. It’s the way in which you get to net zero.
But right now we have an emergency. We need to ensure that our stocks of petrol, diesel and airline fuel continue to be available to businesses and consumers in this country. There is an emergency about dealing with this. What happens on the sea is that there are ships containing oil, petrol and airline fuel. They become available for purchase, and sometimes you’re only given 24 or 48 hours to make that purchase. The reason we have decided to use the facility of Export Finance Australia to bid for these products is that they’re a very nimble organisation, they’re very experienced in this space, they are run really well by a fellow called John Hopkins, they regularly report to me, and we see them as the best organisation to ensure that we act quickly on this.
Minister Bowen has ensured that, in combination with me and Minister King, we have taken all of the steps that we need to take to ensure that Australians continue to have access to all of those fuels that I just mentioned. But there is an urgency about this legislation. Despite everything Senator Canavan said, I’m not sure that he appreciates that urgency. We do need to get on with this, and the quicker we pass this legislation, the quicker we can get some certainty to businesses and consumers about the reliable supply of those fuels.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): Senator Roberts, there’s only seventeen seconds left for the debate, but you have the call.
Senator ROBERTS: Minister, will you support One Nation’s initiative in recommending the conversion of gas to liquid fuels? You mentioned gas.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Scarr): I’m sorry, Minister, but, pursuant to the order agreed to yesterday, the time allotted on this bill has expired.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/ts1L1S6u8DA/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 15:45:282026-08-05 15:45:31Rejecting the UN Scam
I questioned the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) on why taxpayers are funding a new $5 million vaccine-adjuvant research centre when Australians still haven’t been given clear answers about the safety of existing adjuvants.
Their written response to my questions confirmed the project was funded simply because peer reviewers ranked it highly, saying that “there are only seven adjuvants used in license vaccines which limits the choice” and the NHMRC’s Centres of Research Excellence aims to “discover novel adjuvants to improve vaccine development.”
That’s not oversight – that’s the NHMRC waving through millions without addressing the real issues.
I asked directly whether concerns about aluminum-based adjuvants or neurological conditions played any role and they couldn’t give me an answer.
I also confirmed that any new vaccine technology developed with Australian taxpayer money WILL NOT be owned by Australians.
This is simply not good enough.
Taxpayers should not be funding research that lines the pockets of big pharmaceutical companies. Any intellectual property generated through these grants must belong to the taxpayers. Handing over valuable IP to entities to monetise at our expense provides zero return to the taxpayers.
This has to stop!
For a billion-dollar grant body, Australians deserve better than vague justifications and no clear outcomes.
Australians deserve accountability that matches the scale of the spending.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Could I turn to the National Health and Medical Research Council, please. In 2025, the National Health and Medical Research Council funded the Vaccine Adjuvant Discovery and Development Centre of Research Excellence—CRE—led by Professor Katherine Andrews at Griffith University, with $5 million as part of a $72 million CRE package. This grant focuses on discovering new adjuvants to enhance vaccine efficacy, safety and related purposes. First question: Why do we need new adjuvants? What’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?
Prof. Wesselingh: We assess grants through a peer review process. Through that process, we utilise experts from around Australia to assess all of the grants that come to us—whether it’s for a centre of research excellence, an investigator grant or an ideas grant. The way that CRE would’ve been assessed would’ve been through that peer review process. Through that peer review process, they would’ve been elevated to the top of that scheme and would’ve been funded on the basis of their peers indicating that this was high-quality research that was likely to have a significant impact on health in Australia. We would take that on board; therefore, if they were ranked accordingly, we would fund them.
Senator ROBERTS: So you don’t know the reasons why their peers elevated it to No. 1?
Prof. Wesselingh: I would have to go back and look at all of the assessments by those peers. Obviously, I don’t have that directly in front of me at the moment.
Senator ROBERTS: Could you do that on notice, please? We’d like to know why that research was approved, why we need new adjuvants, and what’s wrong with the existing adjuvants?
Prof. Wesselingh: I’m very happy to look back at the peer review. But what I can guarantee you is that they would have been regarded as excellent research likely to produce significant impact.
Senator ROBERTS: I’d like to know what they are.
Prof. Wesselingh: Sure.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Adjuvants and vaccines are there to enhance the body’s immune response to the antigen. Common adjuvants include aluminium hydroxide, aluminium phosphate, amorphous aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate and potassium aluminium sulphate. These have been widely linked to neurological conditions spontaneously occurring after vaccination. Is this program an admission that there might be a level of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism? I guess you wouldn’t know, because you don’t know the—
Prof. Wesselingh: So you’re asking us if the fact that we funded the CRE is an admission? We, again, funded the CRE on the basis of the scores that the CRE obtained. Those scores would indicate the quality of the science and the likelihood of obtaining high-quality evidence to improve the health of Australians.
Senator ROBERTS: Right, and you’re going to find the reason anyway, so perhaps you could check if there is any aspect of truth to the link between aluminium in vaccines and autism as part of the reasons for developing a new adjuvant?
Prof. Wesselingh: We can certainly look at the arguments that the CRE made and the peer review of that CRE.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. If research is successful and you find an effective adjuvant that is not neurotoxic, who will own the intellectual property the taxpayers just funded?
Prof. Wesselingh: The way our granting system works is that the intellectual property developed by—the people who get the grants from us, which are normally medical research institutes or universities or members of those organisations, own the intellectual property. So the intellectual property would be assigned according to a university’s intellectual property rules or a medical research institute’s rules. I’m not sure, with that CRE, where they were.
Senator ROBERTS: A $5 million synergy grant was awarded in 2024 to a multi-institutional team, including Monash University, to optimise vaccines for respiratory viruses, like influenza and RSV. This includes evaluating safety profiles to improve protection while minimising risks. If that develops new technology which achieves that objective, who will own that IP?
Prof. Wesselingh: Again, the IP would be organised according to the rules developed by the organisations as part of that synergy grant. Synergy grants tend to have a number of organisations from around Australia, so I imagine there are multiple universities and MRIs involved in that synergy grant, and they will have developed an IP policy and the IP will be owned according to that policy.
Senator ROBERTS: But not by the Australian government?
Prof. Wesselingh: Not by NHMRC or by the government.
Senator ROBERTS: We’re very concerned about the level of spending in this government. Professor Bette Liu from the National Centre for Immunisation Research and Surveillance received a $2.79 million investigator grant in 2024 to study adult vaccination programs. This explicitly includes assessing vaccine safety, identifying risks in high-risk groups and informing safer program designs. What was the outcome of that grant?
Prof. Wesselingh: Again, if I knew the outcomes of all of the grants that I fund—we fund a billion dollars worth of grants every year—I think I’d be pretty good. I can’t tell you the outcome of that grant, but we can take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: But you still think you’re pretty good?
Prof. Wesselingh: Do I think I’m personally pretty good or the NHMRC is very good?
https://img.youtube.com/vi/nPv1QYWglmw/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 14:02:432026-08-05 14:59:34The $5M Vaccine Grant With Zero Accountability
I welcomed the ACCC’s decision to oppose the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group – and pushed hard on a bigger issue: the revolving door between regulators and major law firms.
I raised recent examples of senior ACCC figures moving straight into firms with competition clients, stressing that, even with separation deeds, the perception and potential for insider advantage remain.
Australians deserve a regulator beyond reproach, and senior officials shouldn’t be able to jump straight into the industries they once oversaw.
It’s time to restore integrity and end the cosy pipeline.
— February | Senate Estimates
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for appearing again.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a pleasure.
Senator ROBERTS: It was intriguing hearing some of your comments in answer to Senator Sharma—taking on Apple and mentioning Apple Pay and some of your other comments. I just use cash, because governments have been trying to get rid of cash, so we have to protect it. Anyway, it was very brave, so thank you for your refreshing comments. I’m going to start with a compliment, actually. In October, we discussed the growing concentration in the ownership of insurance companies. You mentioned you were reviewing the takeover of the insurance arm of the Royal Automobile Club of Western Australia by the IAG Group. I note that, on 11 December, the ACCC announced the takeover had been opposed on the basis of a reduction in competition. Thank you. That’s all I wanted to say on that. I hope this is the start of the end of market concentration in insurance.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It was based upon a careful analysis of the market conditions in Western Australia. It is possible that transaction will be brought back to us under the mandatory merger notification regime. The parties did foreshadow that when we announced the opposition under the informal regime. So it may be reassessed.
Senator ROBERTS: Tonight’s line of questioning is about a potential revolving door of staff between the ACCC and private legal firms. Are there restrictions on someone who is on the ACCC payroll, especially the executive, leaving and immediately taking a position in the business they may have just been regulating at ACCC.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We require the entry into a separation deed that—
Senator ROBERTS: What does that mean?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: They enter into an agreement with the ACCC, which is a binding, enforceable agreement, to firstly preserve the confidentiality of the information that has been received and also to continue to observe obligations that applied under the employment in relation to conflict of interest. We did, in one case, specify a period of required leave before employment could be taken up in a private law firm, but we look at that question—beyond the general obligations in relation to conflict of interest and preservation of confidential information—on a case-by-case basis.
Senator ROBERTS: Is signing that deed a requirement that the prospective employee must agree to before signing up?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes. Employees are obliged to do so, and commissioners enter into a code which, during the term, obliges us to comply with all statutory obligations and legal obligations and also to enter into that separation agreement upon leaving.
Senator ROBERTS: That relies on trust. It would be very difficult to enforce it, because you don’t know what’s happening in the new employer’s offices.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have some observation because we see who comes before us. But, yes, we do not know what is being said.
Senator ROBERTS: The Australian Financial Review has reported on this topic, and I’m considering legislation to stop politicians and senior bureaucrats leaving and going to work for a company they were just regulating. This practice is too commonplace. ACCC Commissioner Liza Carver—is that how you pronounce her name?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Yes.
Senator ROBERTS: She left in May 2025, halfway through her term, and went to work for Herbert Smith Freehills. Is that correct?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It is correct.
Senator ROBERTS: Did you address this move at the time, in respect of the perception—and I’m sure this was a false perception—that HSF bought off an effective commissioner with a large job offer?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: I think that is an incorrect perception, and Ms Carver did sign a separation agreement.
Senator ROBERTS: Commissioner Carver was the enforcement committee chair for the 2023-24 ACCC prosecution of BINGO bins. BINGO bins were represented by Herbert Smith Freehills. Bingo lost and were fined $30 million. In the Sigma Healthcare and Chemist Warehouse merger—
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Sorry; just one moment. I should note that, to my knowledge, though it was resolved before I became chair, Ms McDonald would know Miss Carver was conflicted and did not participate in the consideration of BINGO matters when she came to the ACCC.
Senator ROBERTS: Okay, thank you. In the Sigma Healthcare—Chemist Warehouse merger, Carver as deputy chair of the Mergers Review Committee participated in merger assessments in that period. The merger was approved in November 2024. Herbert Smith Freehills advised Chemist Warehouse—I’m not suggesting misconduct in any way by any party, but I am saying the capacity for corruption exists in these arrangements. I think you’re acknowledging that.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: We have a very clear and very strict conflict policy. Commissioners are required to disclose conflicts of all work that has been done, if they have been in private practice when they join the ACCC, that results, depending upon the extent of the seniority. If it’s a one-off transaction, it’s at one end of the spectrum; if it’s continued advising, it’s at another. If at the continued-advising level, that person will be conflicted and not have involvement in matters for that company for a number of years while at the ACCC. But, if a clear disclosure is given, the chair receives advice on it from our general counsel and our CEO, and I then take a recommendation to the commission, and we decide and record in a register the treatment of that conflict. So we take that very seriously. Frequently, for the initial period, when commissioners join, if they have been in private practice, they will be absented from a number of matters. They leave meetings, they don’t participate at all in the deliberations, they don’t receive papers, and they do not then participate in decision-making.
Senator ROBERTS: Of course, I didn’t think of that, but there are potential conflicts entering ACCC as well as departing from ACCC.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: There are. There is an objective to bring in highly skilled and experienced people. We have many highly skilled and experienced people who have worked in the public service throughout their career, and they are significant—they are the majority of contributors in the ACCC, there is no doubt—but we also bring in and are keen to attract appropriate people with skill levels, and that requires careful management.
Senator ROBERTS: I suppose it’s small, but there may be some people who want to get into ACCC so they can get out again later and use their contacts. It’s always a possibility.
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: It’s a possibility. We do seek through our legal arrangements in the separation deed to manage this, but it’s a possibility.
Senator ROBERTS: Jennifer Barron was promoted to general counsel for merger reform in early 2025—this is my last question—with a major task on the books: preparation for merger law changes. In late April 2025, King & Wood Mallesons announced her appointment as a partner in their national competition team in Sydney, a team which does merger cases. The law says this person can’t use direct knowledge of an upcoming event at the new company, but they can use any other insider information to make themselves a valuable new employee. Is there anything being done about that?
Ms Cass-Gottlieb: Ms Barron also entered into an agreement undertaking ongoing obligations to preserve confidential information.
We know that no new laws would’ve stopped the Bondi atrocity. The real issue is why ASIO, the AFP and NSW Police didn’t act on the warnings they already had.
I asked the Official Secretary, Ms Anne Sheehan, of the Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion how a terrorist on an ASIO watchlist was still able to get a firearms licence, what surveillance was actually happening, and why critical intelligence wasn’t shared.
The commission confirmed these failures will be scrutinized – including whether agencies simply didn’t do their job.
Australians deserve a Royal Commission that delivers real answers and a safer future for everyone.
Transcript
CHAIR: Senator Roberts?
Senator ROBERTS: The commission found that no further legislative measures would have prevented the Bondi atrocity, but what could have been done by either ASIO, AFP or New South Wales police that could have prevented this atrocity?
Ms Sheehan: In relation to the interim report, I’d note that we commenced our second hearing block today, which is expected to run for up to three weeks. The interim report identified that there are a number of issues that needed to be further examined during this next hearing block, and that’s what we’re doing at the moment. Other than what recommendations that the commission has made that are in the interim report itself, we need to wait and see what comes out of this hearing block.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand that. When will we find out? Is it in the next interim report?
Ms Sheehan: If the commissioner determines that another report is required before the final report—there’s a final report that’s due by 14 December—it’s open to the commissioner to issue other recommendations or another report along the way if she considers it appropriate to do so. It’s too early to say whether it would be needed to do that, but it’s something that can be done.
Senator ROBERTS: I can understand your sensitivity about this, and I can understand that a lot of people will be anxious to find out why ASIO, the AFP and the New South Wales police didn’t take action. Will the commission consider how one of the terrorists got a clearance to purchase a firearm when the person had been on a watchlist with ASIO?
Ms Sheehan: In this hearing block, the commission is considering term of reference C, which goes to the circumstances in the lead-up to the Bondi attack. There will be a range of issues considered in that hearing block, some of which will be in public, and some will have to be held in closed session, either to avoid prejudicing the criminal trial or because it’s dealing with classified information.
Senator ROBERTS: This may be another sensitive question. Were ASIO or the AFP aware that a firearms licence had been issued to one of the terrorists by the New South Wales weapons licensing branch?
Ms Sheehan: That really goes to the substance of matters that the commission might be looking at. I couldn’t answer that.
Senator ROBERTS: Will the commission consider what level of surveillance was directed to the murdering terrorists when they were already on ASIO’s radar?
Ms Sheehan: Broadly, the factors that the commission is considering during this hearing block go to the terrorism threat level, the security environment in the lead-up to the attack, and the conduct of security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies relevant to the attack. I think that goes to the issue that you’ve just raised. It will also look at the security arrangements for the Chanukah by the Sea event, and how intelligence about individuals known to authorities is utilised and shared between agencies to then inform decisions made by security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies, including, for example, how individuals are monitored and how decisions in respect of firearms licence applications are made. Yes, those things will be looked at.
Senator ROBERTS: The commission will consider if any agency did not perform their duties to protect Australians. That’s clear.
Ms Sheehan: The commission will be looking at the conduct of intelligence and law enforcement agencies in relation to those issues I’ve outlined.
Senator ROBERTS: Are you familiar with the letter from the royal commission to Gab, in the United States?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t think so, no.
Senator ROBERTS: The commission sent the social media company Gab, in the United States, a letter. From what the owner of Gab posted on social media, it’s not possible to get a clear idea of what your intent was. Can you please explain what that letter was all about? Do you want me to read the letter?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that letter, so I think I would have to take it on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. Your letter included a statement that failure to comply with the notice carried a criminal penalty of 12 months in prison. Is it accurate to threaten a US citizen in the United States with a criminal prosecution under Australian law?
Ms Sheehan: I don’t have that correspondence. I think it’s best if I take that on notice.
Senator ROBERTS: Gab have used the United States first amendment as a defence to such actions in the past, including from our eSafety Commissioner. Could you tell me, on notice, why you’d take the action when you know the US constitution precludes you from taking that action.
Ms Sheehan: I’ll take that on notice as well—once I’ve seen the correspondence.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you.
CHAIR: Thank you, Senator Roberts, for your efficiency in asking those questions.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/0UJM673RgMQ/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 11:34:362026-08-05 11:34:41Did Agencies Fail to Do Their Job?
At the February Senate Estimates, I raised concerns that the Australian Flag was absent from The Australia Day Council’s website.
I am pleased to see that it has now been restored.
Our flag is a symbol of our shared values, our democracy and our monocultural society.
Displaying it proudly reminds us of all that we can be united under one flag.
Transcript
CHAIR: We will head straight to questions.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you for being here tonight. Senator Ayres, you had better be ready for a long session.
Senator Ayres: I’m all ears.
Senator ROBERTS: At the last estimates, I asked you why the Australia Day Council did not have an Australian flag on their website. I’m pleased to see that you now have an Australian flag. Thank you. Well done. It’s good to see.
Mr Ashurst: I would like to say thank you, Senator. As the interim CEO, once that was brought to my attention, as a former soldier myself, I found that was very important to rectify.
Senator ROBERTS: That is gratifying to hear. Thank you. I note that you have removed the flash screen acknowledgement of country and instead displayed the Aboriginal flag in your header, which is a fair compromise that I hope leads to further engagement with Australia Day by the Aboriginal community.
Mr Ashurst: Yes, Senator. It was a deliberate choice in accordance with normal government convention to display not only the Australian national flag but also the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander flag. We obviously are aiming for Australia Day and the Australian of the Year awards to be inclusive as much as possible and be representative of our entire nation and the make-up of our entire nation.
https://img.youtube.com/vi/Ft2X7eB4-90/maxresdefault.jpg7201280Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-08-05 11:09:292026-08-05 11:09:34Australia Day Council Restores Flag
According to some MSM journalists with a handful of viewers, ‘no one knows who I am’.
After a week of targeted headlines, erroneous and malicious they may be, at least I have brand recognition…
For years, media have ignored my work as a Senator because it was inconvenient to the lock-step government of Labor and Liberal.
Their destructive policies were left unquestioned by the same mastheads that have repeated, without the faintest interest in fact-checking, false and misleading statements about my beliefs.
These accusations have been patched together from interviews published on both mine (and other) social media accounts. Far from ‘uncovering’ anything – as some chose to claim to make the story sound more cloak-and-dagger than it actually was – these journalists merely opened Google.
One Nation voters are used to this sort of treatment from the press.
Most have personal experience, having been called ‘cookers’, ‘racists’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘domestic terrorists’, ‘far-right’, and everything up to ‘literally Hitler’.
If you have concerns about machete wars at the local shopping centre, well, you must be trying to resurrect Labor’s White Australia Policy.
If you think biology is settled on the gender front – you’re probably committing a hate crime.
It’s a level of un-reality that turns podcast chats into click-bait. I really do pity the journalists that wasted their time on the hit job. They shamed themselves with such poor quality and dishonest work.
On that note, MSM has entered the ‘crying wolf’ phase where very few Australians believe what they print, with most having abandoned the legacy press long ago.
Do I subscribe to the chemtrail conspiracy? No. That claim is false. My office decided to answer community concerns with a podcast to explain the difference between contrails, geo-engineering, and cloud seeding. My mistake was expecting the media to have more than a five-second attention span.
Do I subscribe to 9-11 conspiracy theories and school shootings? Of course not. I’m appalled editors let that carefully constructed insinuation go to print.
Shame on them.
Being a guest on someone’s podcast does not imply ‘guilt by association’, unless Coalition MPs want to start being held accountable for the views of ABC activists.
I wager they don’t.
And, since when is ‘globalism’ considered a Jewish banker conspiracy theory?
Do I think the December 2025 Bondi massacre was a ‘false flag’?
Of course not.
It’s all a load of nonsense designed to paint the subsequent discussions listed below as ‘crazy’ when actually, these are the inconvenient truths the media don’t want to discuss.
Was the origin of Covid originally covered up? Yes.
For years, the same media organisations who called me a ‘cooker’ labelled anyone who mentioned the Wuhan lab leak a ‘far-right racist conspiracy theorist’. I’m yet to see an apology grace their columns.
Is One Nation a threat to Labor? You bet.
Is One Nation polling higher than the Liberals and Nationals combined? You bet we are.
If One Nation are the ‘Populists’ – does that make the other parties … unpopular? I’ll let you answer that one.
One Nation has spent years listening to Australians to find out exactly where our economy has broken – and created ways to fix it. These solutions benefit Australians, not large corporations, unions, or foreign billionaires. As these solutions gain mainstream public support, we’ve seen attacks against One Nation, and myself, intensify.
The most obvious of these is my work dismantling the Climate Change conspiracy and Net Zero con that has ripped hundreds of billions out of this nation, causing untold amounts of damage that our children’s children will be paying off.
It’s no surprise that both sides of politics have fought bitterly to keep Net Zero in place, even if One Nation has successfully shamed them into dropping specific dates for achieving the official Net Zero targets that they quietly retain.
Why won’t the Coalition shred the Paris Agreement?
Because it’s the ‘piece of paper’ that keeps the endless climate wealth flowing out of the Treasury.
When we say ‘get rid of the Department of Climate Change’ and all its ‘subsidiaries’ – we know that with the money saved, there’s more than enough to rebuild our grid with reliable baseload power, guarantee pensions for our elderly and veterans, and cut taxes that are sucking the life out of businesses who provide critical employment to Australians.
To prove my point about the obscene waste of this unnecessary department, I draw your attention to recent headlines regarding its Minister, Chris Bowen.
The decision to earmark $4.2 million of your money to treat his department and foreign bureaucrats to luxury accommodation in Fiji, is nothing short of insulting.
And fraudulent.
Bookings apparently cover the Sheraton Fiji Golf and Beach Resort, Sofitel Fiji Resort and Spa, and the Radisson Blu Resort Fiji on Denarau Island. Fair-minded Australians would think the same journalists who published hit pieces on Pauline Hanson’s trip to Europe (which did not cost the taxpayer) will be doubly scornful of this taxpayer tropical getaway.
In an honest version of politics, Mr Bowen would have been told to resign. Immediately.
This expense has been ‘justified’ for a pre-COP31 meeting to be held between October 5-8 where, in his moonlight job as co-president, he will oversee the conference. Why COP31 has anything to do with Australian taxpayers remains a mystery.
Australian businesses are closing. Families are sleeping in tents. Pensioners are freezing, unable to afford their power bills (which Labor promised at the last election would drop). And young workers cannot afford rent.
Yet somehow the Minister thinks it’s appropriate to splash out money hosting staffers, bureaucrats, and himself at a beach-front resort. We’re not even going to talk about the ‘carbon cost’ of flying everyone to Fiji for a meeting that could have been done via Zoom.
It’s as if the head of the Climate Change Department doesn’t really buy into the imminent threat that underpins his role in government.
When pressed, a spokesperson from Mr Bowen’s department said, ‘The venues are the only suitable locations capable of accommodating an event of this scale with the required accommodation capacity.’
It sounds like they’re having their arm twisted for some sort of hardship rather than hosting an entirely voluntary beachside champagne conference.
What, exactly, does the average Australian gain from having their government burley the water of Climate Change hysteria? When has this conversation ever benefited taxpayers?
It was only a few months ago that a decision from the International Court of Justice, recklessly backed by Australia, left us open to potentially trillions in climate reparations. Even the UK sat up and realised that might have been a mistake and yet barely a word has been said about it.
The $4 million plus bill isn’t the end of it.
The Albanese Labor government has been offering $20,000 taxpayer-funded grants for activists to attend the COP31 conference.
The total cost of this grant program is something in the realm of $650,000, deepening our almost trillion dollars of national debt.
Remember, you’re not allowed to have tax cuts because it might threaten ‘roads, hospitals, and schools’.
Yet the truth is, there is plenty of money for those things. Tax cuts would mean this sort of climate-grifting would dry up and Labor’s activist electoral padding would get ‘quite upset’ and threaten to walk off to the Greens.
And who is going on this vacation?
‘Diverse and underrepresented groups, primarily First Nations Australians and youth.’
The purpose?
‘Promote voices and perspectives of First Nations’ and ‘enhance inclusion and diversity’.
And what are you doing? Working long, thankless hours to pay for their privilege. Skipping meals to cover the rent. Giving almost half of what you earn to this heartless machine of state-approved grievance.
Why is One Nation rising in the polls?
No idea. Must be some sort of social media algorithm sorcery. A mythical bot army fresh from the Odyssey.
Australia wasn’t asked to incur these expenses. The Minister went out of his way to co-chair COP31 with his ‘title’ of co-president bestowed on him as if it were a participation award to stop a child bursting into tears.
The government insists the ‘final cost’ will be ‘lower’ than what they’ve reserved – the point they miss is that there shouldn’t be any cost at all.
https://i0.wp.com/www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Image.jpg?fit=730%2C486&ssl=1486730Senator Malcolm Robertshttps://www.malcolmrobertsqld.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/One-Nation-Logo1-300x150.pngSenator Malcolm Roberts2026-07-30 16:39:092026-07-30 16:39:19Malcolm Roberts Sets Record Straight on Media Conspiracy Meltdown
One Nation opposed granting Deductible Gift Recipient (DGR) tax status to Equality Australia.
The Labor government is ignoring rulings from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court that found Equality Australia ineligible for DGR status.
Equality Australia is a political lobby group rather than a benevolent charity, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights and gender-affirming care.
Typical of this Labor government, Senator Chisholm dismissed our concerns as political motivations.
There’s nothing political about protecting our children from harmful, irreversible treatments.
It’s about doing what’s right for our youth.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: I have some questions, as I implied before. We’re generally supportive, One Nation, of these superannuation modifications, except for what we see as dishonest provisions. In February’s Senate estimates hearings I asked the office of the Governor-General about Equality Australia, because Australia’s Governor-General is supposed to be neutral—to not take political positions. This leads to many questions of the government. Firstly, Minister, how is it that the Governor-General can be a patron of a political activist group, Equality Australia, that actively supports irreversible gender treatments for children—mutilation of children?
This is not about people’s support for Equality Australia, because that’s what is essentially happening by giving it DGR—deductible gift recipient—status. This is about the law and Equality Australia’s DGR status. My questions include: Why did assistant charities minister Mr Andrew Leigh intervene to give Equality Australia charity status when on three occasions the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings had held that Equality. Australia was not established for a benevolent purpose and should not be entitled to deductible gift recipient status?
Deductible gift recipient status allows donors to claim tax deductions for donations. Why did the Labor government give Equality Australia a massive favour against the findings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Federal Court’s full bench, on two occasions? Was it because the Governor-General is a patron of the activist group Equality Australia? Isn’t this a clear conflict of interest and a breach of the requirements of neutrality by the Governor-General?
The TEMPORARY CHAIR (Senator Kovacic): Senator Ghosh.
Senator Ghosh: I hesitate to interrupt my colleague, but I think it’s a contravention of the standing orders to cast aspersions on the motives of, or reflect disrespectfully on, the Governor-General of Australia.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Noted, thank you. Please withdraw, Senator Roberts, and refrain moving forward.
Senator ROBERTS: I withdraw.
The TEMPORARY CHAIR: Thank you.
Senator ROBERTS: Observing the government’s blatant contradiction of the law in giving DGR status — deductible gift recipient status—to Equality Australia in defiance of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and two Federal Court hearings, I ask: Does the law mean nothing to this government? Is the lobby group Equality Australia, when it attacks Christian schools, acting in any way on behalf of the government? Is the lobby group acting on behalf of the government in any way when it supports children’s futile attempts to change sex? Essentially, what you’re doing, Minister, by giving Equality Australia deductible gift recipient status is asking taxpayers to subsidise the mutilation of children. Why are you going against the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Federal Court rulings? We want to protect superannuants—adults—but not at the sacrifice of children.
Senator CHISHOLM: Thanks, Senator Roberts. My understanding, having just taken over this bill this morning, is that Senator Gallagher responded to similar statements that were put by Senator Whitten when this was last in committee stage. The government rejects the claims of Senator Roberts. All of the entities that are being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. This prior ineligibility is the precondition for a government to consider applications for a specific listing. Let me be clear: all the entities that are being provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR categories. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it has happened routinely since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides. That’s what is part of this bill . There are other organisations that are recipients. It says a lot about One Nation that they are just singling out this group in particular for their political motivations.
Senator ROBERTS: I understand your response, Minister, but can you explain why the government is supporting a group that is a lobby group, an activist group, not a charity, as the Full Bench of the Federal Court ruled twice and as the Administrative Tribunal also ruled? Why are you supporting a lobby group, an activist group, that’s harming children and is not recognised as a charity?
Senator CHISHOLM: I disagree with Senator Roberts there. Contrary to false media reporting, Equality Australia is indeed a registered charity. Equality Australia has been registered as a charity under the ACNC Act since 4 January 2016. Specifically, Equality Australia has been registered as a charity with the subtype ‘advancing public debate’. Advancing public debate and engaging in public advocacy is a valid charitable purpose. Equality Australia is a registered and compliant organisation, meeting the required governance standards and making a significant contribution to Australian communities.
Senator ROBERTS: With respect, Minister, you didn’t answer my question. Why are you going against a Federal Court ruling on two occasions and an Administrative Appeals Tribunal ruling?
Senator CHISHOLM: I already answered that in the previous answer. The entities being provided with DGR status in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Supporting Choice in Superannuation and Other Measures) Bill 2025 were found to be legally ineligible for DGR status through routine channels. As I said before—let me be clear—all the entities that are provided with DGR status through this bill have been supported in this way because, in spite of the benefits they bring to communities, they did not fit into the defined DGR status. Our tax system is set up so that when this happens—and it does happen regularly and has occurred since 1948—a government can decide that a charity, in spite of not fitting a specific DGR category, nevertheless warrants the support that DGR status provides
Labor’s record spending and trillion-dollar debt are smashing living standards — driving inflation, hiking interest rates and leaving Australians worse off.
Families are going backwards while Labor taxes harder and spends faster.
One Nation will shrink government, drive down inflation and put more money back in Aussie pockets.
Transcript
Today, Treasurer Chalmers has taken to social media to claim credit for the 2.6 per cent increase in annual GDP, calling the rise the strongest growth in the Australian economy for three years. Has the Treasurer forgotten he’s been in office for almost four years—meaning the Treasurer took over the economy and made it worse!
Putting that aside, how did the Treasurer create this increase? To haul GDP out of negative territory, the Treasurer has spent like a drunken sailor. Almost all of the increase in employment and economic activity in the last year has come from increased government spending, which has to be paid for with? Higher taxes. In effect, the Treasurer has taxed everyday Australians more, and then spent their money faster than the taxpayers would have. As a result, the money supply has expanded 11 per cent in the last year, and our national debt has now passed $1 trillion.
A funny thing about spending other people’s money: it eventually runs out. Already, the government is looking for ways to raise taxes. Capital gains tax increases and increased taxes on superannuation are on the agenda. Even worse, the government is selling off the silverware. The sale of Defence Force property has already been announced—$3.5 billion in extra cash. What was once a strategic asset, which didn’t add to the money supply, will be cash in the bank for the Treasurer to spend—more solar and wind subsidies; more money to the Taliban. Already this government has given the Taliban $320 million.
Selling off the silverware to keep the GDP out of recession leads straight to even higher inflation than we have now. To counter this inflation, already the Reserve Bank has been forced to increase interest rates. The result will be a loss of spending power for everyday Australians, who will have to spend more of their income on their mortgage or rent. Government spending is approaching 28 per cent of our GDP and is heading to over 30 per cent, which offsets the reductions in private sector spending that have resulted from overregulation and a lack of confidence in this Labor government. In the short term, this approach makes the data look better. In the medium term, inflation spikes, and wage growth goes negative, as it has been for much of the Treasurer’s term. If everyday Australians feel like they’re going backwards and working harder, it’s because they are going backwards—especially if they’re paying off a home or renting. One Nation will solve this vicious cycle of economic decline with our policy to shrink the government to fit the Constitution and to fit our means. One Nation took a policy to the last election to reduce the size of government by $90 billion in our first term. That number, from what we can see from Labor, is now looking much, much bigger than we can save. Our policy will reverse Labor’s deficits, stop Labor’s inflation, cancel Labor’s interest rate rises and leave more money in the pockets of everyday Australians.
Months ago, we saw a pivotal moment in the Senate.
It showed exactly what the 2028 election will centre on for One Nation: protecting Australians, strengthening families, keeping education affordable and defending the values that make this country work.
I made it clear that One Nation stands for facts over fashionable politics and for confronting violent extremism wherever it appears.
When Senator Hanson was attacked for raising concerns about radicalisation, I reminded the chamber that her comments were about extremists, not ordinary people of faith. I also warned that shutting down honest debate only leaves Australians exposed.
As we head toward 2028, my message remains the same. One Nation will defend Australia’s values, culture and security – and we won’t be intimidated out of telling the truth.
Transcript
Yesterday, the 2028 federal election battlelines were drawn. The first and foremost job of government is to protect its citizens, to allow them to lead their lives with a minimum of government interference and to provide the infrastructure to grow our productive capacity and create breadwinner jobs for all who are here. Government must educate our children without imposing a lifetime of debt. We must guarantee that someone who takes their place in society and the workforce can afford their own home and start a family. These are the things to which One Nation is dedicated.
Australia can return to being the best country in the world. We can provide wealth and abundance for all. We’ll cast off the oppression of identity politics and implement government policy based on facts, not feelings or fashion. One Nation has always defended and will always defend the safety of everyday Australians against radicals committing violence, whether that’s radical Islam, antifa, ‘trantifa’ or any other group.
Yesterday, our leader, Senator Pauline Hanson, was attacked here with a ferocity I’ve not seen in three terms in the Senate—for the crime of speaking the truth. Senator Hanson called out radical Islam as incompatible with Australian values and Australian security. Then it was on for one and all.
As commentator Andrew Bolt said last week, the assertion that Senator Hanson said, ‘There are no good Muslims,’ is a lie. Her exact words were as follows:
I’ve got no time for the radical Islam. Their religion concerns me because what it says in the Koran—they hate Westerners, and that’s what it’s all about. You know, you say, ‘Oh, well, there’s good Muslims out there.’ Well, I’m sorry—how can you, you know, tell me there are good Muslims?
The context was clear. It was about radical Islam—not all Muslims. In her interview later with Sharri Markson, Senator Hanson confirmed she agrees there are good Muslims. Of course there are.
Yesterday, in the Senate, I read a letter from Persian refugee Janet Shay. It explains the difference between ‘good Muslim’ and radical Islam perfectly clearly. I’ll repeat Janet’s words:
There are two types of Muslims: a Good Muslim a True Muslim. I know Good Muslims. They are kind, generous and they want exactly what the rest of us want:
safety, family, a future, a decent life. But they are good Muslims because they do not follow all that Islam actually instructs them to do. That is why they are good Muslims.
The Islamic government of Iran, the IRGC—
the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—
Hamas, al-Qaeda, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Houthis: these are not people who went rogue away from their faith.
These people read their Quran and said: we will do exactly as our holy leader instructs. By their own scripture’s measure, they are the True Muslims.
The good Muslim and the true Muslim are two different people.
Yesterday, when I read Janet’s comments, the Greens objected to Janet’s differentiation between good Muslims and true Muslims. My message to the Greens is simple: get used to it. To tar all Muslims with the crimes of the few is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of good and decent people who’ve assimilated into Australia and who maintain their religion in no different a manner than that of any other religions, including the orthodox religions, Taoism and Judaism.
The political left’s refusal to differentiate good from true is deliberate. It provides protection to true Islamists, allowing them to hide behind the innocent. This is, of course, an action which will lead Australia to ruin—as it is in the United Kingdom and as it did in Iran, which fell to the ayatollahs after the Left formed a suicide pact with radical Islam to overthrow the shah. They expected a socialist paradise; instead, they got a short flight off a tall building. Thirty thousand leftists died in the first few months of the Iranian Islamic regime. That’s fact; that’s history. As much as the Greens and the Labor Party wish they could rewrite history, they cannot. Iran was a warning. If true Muslims can subvert a Western culture like Iran, true Muslims can subvert any nation.
In the last few weeks, I’ve spoken with many Australians from Persia, Lebanon, the Middle East and, today, Armenia who warn of the dangers of true Islam. I’ll be clear: the Bible contains some objectionable verses. Christianity, though, had a reformation 500 years ago, which saw those verses excluded from worship. Islam has not had a reformation, and true Islam celebrates the penalties prescribed in the original works. The word Islamophobia is used in Australia to shut down the freedom to have crucial conversations about the religion—the ideology—of Islam. A phobia is an irrational fear. Reading the Koran and asking whether its teachings align with Australian values is not irrational.
Christianity is openly mocked in Australia without legal protection from criticism, nor should there be such protection. In a free society, any belief system can be questioned. Except, when Islam is questioned, the conversation is shut down and the person asking the question is labelled the problem. The question about Islam never gets answered. In the words of Senator Hanson:
If there is a person out there who is a Muslim and does not support sharia law, female circumcision, child marriages, who (does) support our culture our way of life and our laws, then I apologise to you – if my comment has offended you …
I repeat the apology, and I am concerned about where this persecution of truthful senators will end.
The recently passed hate crimes bill contains provisions which may be used against One Nation, and it seems to me that the disproportionate response from the Senate’s ruling cabal is designed to warm Australia up to doing exactly that. The hate crimes provisions added to the Commonwealth Crimes Act back in 2010—and twice since strengthened—have never been used. The only prosecutions for hate crimes have been under state legislation. This shows the federal legislation is not needed. The states already have hate speech covered. As I said during the bill debate:
For many years, the left-wing commentariat, politicians and media accused those who sought to raise the alarms around rising antisemitism and Christianophobia with the crime of ‘threatening social harmony’. The very elastic crime of racism has now been extended to describe as racist anyone who defends Australia and our way of life. Many Australians have been guilty of shooting the messenger—
Behaviour we saw again yesterday in this chamber—
while the message itself—the hatred and radicalisation—went unchallenged.
And it remains unchallenged. The hate crimes bill was sold to the Australian public as the only way the Islamic terrorist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir could be banned. Well, it’s been more than three months, and that organisation has not been banned. For the third time, parliament has passed hate speech laws that have not been used because Islam was never the target. In the latest polling, One Nation is four points behind the government, and the panic—the political revenge—is starting.
The left is using the same playbook, as did Germany, recently, where the ruling coalition just tried to ban Germany’s version of One Nation, Alternative fur Deutschland, AfD. Fortunately, the appeals court blocked the move, for now—the point being, they tried. The Left hate contesting ideas in the court of public opinion and prefer to use thuggery, tyranny, censorship and control. One Nation will repeal the hate crimes legislation and leave the matter to the states.
Meanwhile, true Islam in Australia continues to flout our laws, our culture and our language. In this Senate, yesterday, Senator Faruqi spoke in Arabic, which I would have thought breached the standing orders—though apparently not. It does, however, assist communication between the senator and her electorate, the same electorate which, as we speak, is holding tearful vigils for the deceased Iranian dictator and terrorist, Khamenei, at their largest mosques here in Australia—the same Khamenei whose photos Hamas supporters recently carried above Senator Faruqi’s head as they marched together across the Sydney Harbour Bridge. What more of a demonstration of the allegiance of true Islam in this country can there be than carrying the photo of a terrorist leader proudly over the harbour bridge? Protestors included the Bondi murderer Naveed Akram. The Greens are the party of the Islamic Australian caliphate.
Without the Islamic vote, this Labor government is unlikely to be re-elected. Apparently, no betrayal of everyday Australians is beyond their chase for votes and power. Our refugee program is being used to import 25,000 true Islamists a year from countries who’ve already destroyed their own Western culture and are coming for ours. For clarity, One Nation will oppose any religion, any ethnicity and any social movement that is an affront to Western civilisation. My motion next week relating to childhood gender mutilation is an example of just that. To defend Australian culture, language and heritage is not racism, xenophobia nor whatever label the Left chooses to attach. It’s common sense. It’s designed to protect everyday Australians from the hatred and violence of radical activists and terrorists. True Islam is one element of that, but it’s not the whole problem.
I’m a migrant who values the country to which my father brought my family in 1962, and so do the many migrants who have joined One Nation to protect our Western culture, social harmony, coherence, safety and security. One Nation will join with those who were here first and who have come since to accompany us all in our beautiful country. In fact, we represent you. Why the rest of the Senate does not will be the question to be settled in 2028.
This time it is for the blatant contradiction between their own statements and the Ombudsman’s findings.
I pushed Mr Furlong to reaffirm that enterprise agreements cannot legally undercut award entitlements — then confronted him with written evidence from the Ombudsman claiming the exact opposite, that an enterprise agreement “overrides” the Black Coal Award.
I pressed further, pointing to the Penny Vickers case to show this pattern isn’t new. Unions and big businesses have used enterprise agreements to “legalise” underpayment before, and only whistleblowers exposed it.
Despite every attempt to deflect, the failure is undeniable. The Fair Work system has allowed wage theft before, it’s allowing it again, and regulators refuse to confront it.
I won’t let them hide behind the process.
Transcript
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr Furlong, and your colleagues for being here and minister.
Senator Watt: It’s great to see you again, Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Same here, Minister Watt.
Senator Watt: We spent a lot of time together last week.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, on 9 November 2022, I asked you a question in Senate estimates, specifically:
Can an enterprise agreement remove the entitlements that the Fair Work Act and the National Employment Standards provide employees?
You replied simply, ‘No.’ Clear. So you recall this? Now you are aware, I believe, that the Fair Work Ombudsman has been investigating allegations of the underpayment of coal workers where the enterprise agreements have underpaid in comparison to the black coal industry award. Are you aware of that?
Mr Furlong: I am broadly aware that they were conducting an operation in relation to that, yes.
Senator ROBERTS: I’m not asking to put you on the spot for the verdict.
Mr Furlong: Very broadly, I understand it.
Senator ROBERTS:You are aware. You answered. The ombudsman has recently completed a number of investigations. I will quote from one of those investigations where the ombudsman has stated in writing to the coal worker who lodged the complaint: ‘As the Fair Work Ombudsman has determined that’—the named person’s—’terms and conditions are governed by the’—named labour hire enterprise agreement—’we do not consider that the Black Coal Mining Industry Award 2010 applied’—to the named person’s employment. ‘Consequently’—the named person’s—’wages and entitlements during the relevant period should not be derived from the award but from’—the named labour hire enterprise agreement. Would you agree that on the surface and to an everyday person the Fair Work Ombudsman’s statement that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the fair work requirements—in this case, the award—override the EA?
Mr Furlong: I think that they’re actually perfectly consistent. An award will persist unless there is an enterprise agreement that is in place for a workplace. But an enterprise agreement, in terms of the minimum hourly rate of pay, can’t be less than what is stipulated in the underpinning modern award.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you. That’s what I was looking for. Are you aware of the SDA case involving Penny Vickers?
Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that case.
Senator ROBERTS:Let me refresh your memory. In 2016, Penny Vickers, a shelf-filler at the giant supermarket chain Coles, exposed huge underpayments of Coles workers. The underpayments occurred because the union, the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, had signed an enterprise bargaining agreement with Coles that ‘legalised’ the underpayment. The independent umpire, the Fair Work Commission, had authorised the agreement which gave it legal cover. Are you aware of that?
Mr Furlong: Yes, I’m aware of the circumstances broadly.
Senator ROBERTS: The union and big business did a deal. The deal enabled Coles to pay workers less than they should have been paid when they worked on weekends. Penny Vickers took on the union and big business giants and successfully had the underpayment deal overturned in the Fair Work Commission. Are you aware of that?
Mr Furlong: Yes, I am.
Senator ROBERTS: And it was not just Coles. I initially thought it had been just Coles. It was not just Coles that had been in on the union deal. Other huge retailers were also in on the deal, including Woolworths, Bunnings, Target, Kmart, Big W and others. Are you aware of that?
Mr Furlong: No. I’m interested to know—and Mr Corcoran might be able to assist you with this—if the application that was brought to the commission was post the nominal expiry date. Mr Corcoran, can you remember the circumstances of the case?
Mr Corcoran: Not completely, but I think it might have been within the nominal expiry date of the agreement.
Senator ROBERTS:Media reports suggest that, by themselves, just three of these big businesses were underpaying workers by around $150 million a year back in 2016. Are you aware this is extreme wage theft well beyond payroll errors?
Mr Furlong: It’s been such a long time since I’ve looked at that or reviewed that decision. I don’t feel like I can reasonably respond to these questions without going back and reading the decision closely.
Senator ROBERTS: This was, of course, a huge scandal that sent shock waves through the retail sector in particular—I can remember it was in the papers once it got exposed—and forced the rewriting of retail enterprise agreements almost across the board. Yet, if it hadn’t been for the tenacity and persistence of one person, Penny Vickers, and of the media, including, I believe, Judith Sloan and Rob Gottliebsen, the underpayments would never have been exposed. Mr Furlong, I put it to you that the Fair Work Act has failed. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-
employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and the cost and harm of small businesses?
Mr Furlong: As you’re aware, Senator, my role doesn’t extend to matters of policy. Those questions should be addressed to the department in the normal course of things.
Senator Watt: Senator Roberts, I caught the tail end of your question. I’m happy to have a go at answering it if you’d like to put it to me again.
Senator ROBERTS:The Fair Work Act has failed. It’s been needlessly complex over many, many years. It’s not understood by workers. It’s not understood by small business. It’s not understood by many employers without a lawyer. Doesn’t it need to be replaced with a system that protects workers, protects small businesses and protects the primacy of the employer-employee relationship instead of protecting the IR club at the cost and harm of workers and of small businesses?
Senator Watt: I, of course, have a different view about the Fair Work Act, especially after the reforms that our government has undertaken. It’s very clear that, due to the reforms our government has put in place to the Fair Work Act, wages are rising, more agreements are being reached between workers and their employers and industrial action is lower than it was under the coalition. So, in a range of ways, I think that the Fair Work Act has been very successful for Australian workplaces. I know you and your colleagues from One Nation voted against those reforms. I did note, Senator Roberts, on the weekend, the interview with Senator Hanson, where she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage. Is that a general One Nation position?
Senator ROBERTS:Workers are going backwards. The cost of living is rising faster than wages. Workers are going backwards under your government.
Senator Watt: Actually, I don’t know if you saw this, Senator Roberts, but just today the Fair Work Commission handed down its decision in the annual wage case, which granted a pay rise for the lowest paid workers in the community of 4.75 per cent, which is ahead of inflation. Senator Hanson on the weekend said that she didn’t support an increase to the minimum wage, so I presume that means One Nation doesn’t support that pay rise.
Senator ROBERTS: The Fair Work Commission has made its decision.
Senator Watt: But it sounds like your party didn’t support that.
Senator ROBERTS:Let’s move back to Mr Furlong. I’ve asked this question once. Having listened to me talk about Penny Vickers and the illegal enterprise agreement that was reversed, would you agree that, on the surface and to an everyday person, the Fair Work Ombudsman statement that I talked about, with the black coal mining industry award, that an enterprise agreement overrides the award seems to be in contradiction to your statement that the Fair Work requires, in this case, that the award override the enterprise agreement?
Mr Furlong: I haven’t seen the Fair Work Ombudsman correspondence that you’re referring to.
Senator ROBERTS:I read you quotes.
Mr Furlong: But I haven’t seen it. I haven’t had the chance to review it.
Senator ROBERTS:Would you undertake then, Mr Furlong, to make inquiries of the Fair Work Ombudsman as to why they have taken that view and whether the view is right or wrong and report back to me on this question on notice?
Mr Furlong: I’ll certainly take up the opportunity to read the correspondence, but, in terms of my role at the commission, I’m required to support the president in the efficient operation of the tribunal. I have two statutory roles. I can certainly look at it and read it, but I’m not too sure what statutory power I could rely on to actually make any sort of commentary around whether or not the provisions of the act have been complied with in these circumstances.
Senator ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr Furlong.
CHAIR: Are you ready for me to rotate?
Senator ROBERTS: Yes.
————————————————————————————————————————————
CHAIR: I’m going to go to Senator Roberts—to give you a moment to see if that’s possible. I’ll come back to you after that. Senator Roberts.
Senator ROBERTS: Mr Furlong, I’ve got a constituent who wants to ask you a question, so I’m going to ask it for them. You’ll probably have to take it on notice, because I don’t think you’ll know the answer off the top of your head, based on what you said earlier. Section 134(1) of the Fair Work Act provides:
FWA must ensure that modern awards, together with the National Employment Standards, provide a fair and relevant minimum safety net of terms and conditions …
The use of the term ‘must’ imposes a mandatory legal obligation on the commission. My question is: does the commission have the liberty to bypass, dilute or ignore this statutory duty?
Mr Furlong: I’m happy to provide a detailed response on notice. We—
